Vétoquinol has released the results of a survey of 1000 dog owners, which looked into their attitudes towards long-term medication for their pet1.
Owners were asked to rate how important various factors were to them when it came to giving medicine long term to their dog. They were also asked to consider what they felt was most important to their vet when it came to choosing a medicine.
Vétoquinol says the fact that dog owners rate the effectiveness of a medication much more highly than the cost means there is very little reason to compromise on treatment based on a presumption of what clients will want to pay. These findings are also largely very positive in that they suggest that dog owners believe that in many areas vets are making decisions based on criteria that are important to owners. The area where there is the greatest mismatch is over the risk of side effects of medication.
Pet owners think that vets may take the risk of side effects from long-term medications less seriously than the owners themselves might prefer. It suggests that the risk of potential harm, no matter how small the risk of actual harm is, may be more unacceptable to the dog owner than vets and nurses might otherwise presume. When prescribing long-term medication there is a need to talk about the risks associated with medication more openly and to take the client's attitudes to risk into consideration.
1. A survey of 1048 dog owners, carried out by petbuzz, on behalf of Vétoquinol, March 2011
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Nicki - Sorry to hear your story, and I certainly agree that vets should lay all the options out for you, and guide you to the best possible care; but we also need to do so without making those who can't afford the best care feel guilty - it's a tricky balance, but yes, the vet should give you all the options and help YOU to decide which works for you and YOUR family member.
Re: the study, I agree that sample size helps; but survey design is also important to its impact. For example, the question of cost could be phrased in several different ways:
1) "Is cost of a medication more important than whether it works?"
2) "Your dog needs medications for the rest of his life. Medication A has a 75% chance of curing your dog and costs £30/month. Medication B has a 95% chance of curing your dog but costs £300/month. Which would you choose?"
I'm giving an extreme example, but there are a lot of intermediates in there which will influence how people answer. And certainly, I've shown this to a number of vets and nurses now - no-one's seen this finding as accurate based on how their clientele act, which raises suspicions.
I want to see how the study was designed, but there are a lot of potential pitfalls to this sort of research so the detailed method and study design need to be read alongside the results.