Understanding barriers to veterinary involvement in dairy calf health management.

IF 2.9 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES Frontiers in Veterinary Science Pub Date : 2025-02-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fvets.2025.1503915
Kristen Y Edwards, Angel Abuelo, Stephen J LeBlanc, Trevor J DeVries, Michael A Steele, Joao H C Costa, David L Renaud
{"title":"Understanding barriers to veterinary involvement in dairy calf health management.","authors":"Kristen Y Edwards, Angel Abuelo, Stephen J LeBlanc, Trevor J DeVries, Michael A Steele, Joao H C Costa, David L Renaud","doi":"10.3389/fvets.2025.1503915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to identify barriers to veterinary involvement in calf health and assess knowledge gaps in calf care among American and Canadian bovine veterinarians. A questionnaire was administered to veterinarians, collecting data on demographics, satisfaction with calf health management knowledge, involvement in decision-making, satisfaction with calf health involvement, frequency of calf health record analysis and feedback, topics of interest for further learning, and preferred learning formats. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between variables and outcomes. Only 28% of veterinarians frequently reviewed calf health records, and 44% made actionable recommendations after reviewing them. Female veterinarians were more likely than male veterinarians to frequently review calf health records (Odds ratio - OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-7.3). Additionally, the odds of frequently reviewing records increased with the amount of time spent working with calves (OR: 10.2 per 10% increment, 95% CI: 10.0-10.5). Veterinarians highly satisfied with their knowledge of neonatal calf diarrhea (NCD) prevention were more likely to make recommendations based on records (OR: 11.6, 95% CI: 1.9-72.4). Additionally, those frequently reviewing records were more likely to provide feedback (OR: 15.5, 95% CI: 4.0-60.3). Incomplete records was the most common reason for not reviewing records (60% of respondents) and why actionable recommendations were made less frequently than \"most of the time\" (67% of respondents). Veterinarians were least confident in their knowledge regarding milk feeding and weaning recommendations but they were interested in learning more about post-weaning nutrition and automated calf feeders. Further, they preferred conference presentations for continuing education. These findings suggest that veterinary involvement in calf health could be improved by facilitating better data capture and enhancing veterinarian knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":12772,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Veterinary Science","volume":"12 ","pages":"1503915"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11861529/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Veterinary Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1503915","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to identify barriers to veterinary involvement in calf health and assess knowledge gaps in calf care among American and Canadian bovine veterinarians. A questionnaire was administered to veterinarians, collecting data on demographics, satisfaction with calf health management knowledge, involvement in decision-making, satisfaction with calf health involvement, frequency of calf health record analysis and feedback, topics of interest for further learning, and preferred learning formats. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between variables and outcomes. Only 28% of veterinarians frequently reviewed calf health records, and 44% made actionable recommendations after reviewing them. Female veterinarians were more likely than male veterinarians to frequently review calf health records (Odds ratio - OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-7.3). Additionally, the odds of frequently reviewing records increased with the amount of time spent working with calves (OR: 10.2 per 10% increment, 95% CI: 10.0-10.5). Veterinarians highly satisfied with their knowledge of neonatal calf diarrhea (NCD) prevention were more likely to make recommendations based on records (OR: 11.6, 95% CI: 1.9-72.4). Additionally, those frequently reviewing records were more likely to provide feedback (OR: 15.5, 95% CI: 4.0-60.3). Incomplete records was the most common reason for not reviewing records (60% of respondents) and why actionable recommendations were made less frequently than "most of the time" (67% of respondents). Veterinarians were least confident in their knowledge regarding milk feeding and weaning recommendations but they were interested in learning more about post-weaning nutrition and automated calf feeders. Further, they preferred conference presentations for continuing education. These findings suggest that veterinary involvement in calf health could be improved by facilitating better data capture and enhancing veterinarian knowledge.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
了解兽医参与奶牛健康管理的障碍。
本横断面研究的目的是确定兽医参与小牛健康的障碍,并评估美国和加拿大牛兽医在小牛护理方面的知识差距。对兽医进行问卷调查,收集人口统计数据、对小牛健康管理知识的满意度、参与决策、对小牛健康参与的满意度、小牛健康记录分析和反馈的频率、进一步学习的兴趣主题和首选学习格式。多变量逻辑回归模型用于评估变量与结果之间的关联。只有28%的兽医经常检查小牛的健康记录,44%的兽医在检查后提出可行的建议。女兽医比男兽医更有可能经常检查小牛的健康记录(优势比- OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-7.3)。此外,经常检查记录的几率随着犊牛工作时间的增加而增加(OR: 10.2% / 10%, 95% CI: 10.0-10.5)。兽医对新生儿小牛腹泻(NCD)预防知识非常满意,更有可能根据记录提出建议(OR: 11.6, 95% CI: 1.9-72.4)。此外,那些经常回顾记录的人更有可能提供反馈(OR: 15.5, 95% CI: 4.0-60.3)。不完整的记录是不审查记录的最常见原因(60%的受访者),也是为什么可操作的建议比“大多数时候”提出的频率要低(67%的受访者)。兽医对他们关于母乳喂养和断奶建议的知识最不自信,但他们有兴趣了解更多关于断奶后营养和自动犊牛喂食器的知识。此外,他们更喜欢继续教育的会议演讲。这些发现表明,可以通过促进更好的数据采集和提高兽医知识来改善兽医对小牛健康的参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Frontiers in Veterinary Science Veterinary-General Veterinary
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.40%
发文量
1870
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Veterinary Science is a global, peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that bridges animal and human health, brings a comparative approach to medical and surgical challenges, and advances innovative biotechnology and therapy. Veterinary research today is interdisciplinary, collaborative, and socially relevant, transforming how we understand and investigate animal health and disease. Fundamental research in emerging infectious diseases, predictive genomics, stem cell therapy, and translational modelling is grounded within the integrative social context of public and environmental health, wildlife conservation, novel biomarkers, societal well-being, and cutting-edge clinical practice and specialization. Frontiers in Veterinary Science brings a 21st-century approach—networked, collaborative, and Open Access—to communicate this progress and innovation to both the specialist and to the wider audience of readers in the field. Frontiers in Veterinary Science publishes articles on outstanding discoveries across a wide spectrum of translational, foundational, and clinical research. The journal''s mission is to bring all relevant veterinary sciences together on a single platform with the goal of improving animal and human health.
期刊最新文献
Case Report: Pansteatitis with sterile nodular panniculitis (SNP) in a dog. Clinical utility of point-of-care lactate measurement for assessing management status and prognosis in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease. Prevalence and whole genome sequencing analysis of Salmonella isolated from a homebred chicken farm in Jiangsu province. Chemical characterization of Nurexan: composition of a multicomponent natural veterinary medicinal product. Pharmacokinetics and preliminary data on safety of meloxicam subcutaneous extended-release formulation in Sprague-Dawley rats.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1