Download PDF
pferde spiegel 2024; 27(02): 57-63
DOI: 10.1055/a-2170-5259
Fachspiegel

„Bitte erklären Sie mir das noch genauer!“ – das Kognitionsbedürfnis von Pferdehaltern in der Tierarzt-Kunden-Beziehung

Sarah Pimpertz
,
Kathrin Schütz
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Die Beziehung zwischen Tierarzt und Tierbesitzer kann den Behandlungserfolg stark beeinflussen. Doch welcher Zusammenhang besteht zwischen der Qualität der Tierarzt-Kunden-Beziehung und dem Kognitionsbedürfnis von Pferdehaltern? Und welche weiteren Faktoren können diese Beziehung verbessern? Um diese und weitere Fragen beantworten zu können, wurden in einer Studie 302 Reiter befragt.



Publication History

Article published online:
24 June 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Bard AM, Main DCJ, Haase AM. et al. The future of veterinary communication: Partnership or persuasion? A qualitative investigation of veterinary communication in the pursuit of client behaviour change. PLOS ONE 2017; 12: e0171380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Böcken J, Braun B, Meierjürgen R. et al. Gesundheitsmonitor 2016: Bürgerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2016
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Küper AM, Merle R. Partners in Sickness and in Health? Relationship-Centered Veterinary Care and Self-Educated Pet Owners in Germany: A Structural Equation Model. Front Vet Sci 2021; 7: 605631
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Küper AM, Merle R. Being Nice Is Not Enough – Exploring Relationship-Centered Veterinary Care With Structural Equation Modeling. A Quantitative Study on German Pet Ownersʼ Perception. Front Vet Sci 2019; 6: 56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Pereira MM, Artemiou E, De Pedro P. et al. The use of the roter interaction analysis system in assessing veterinary student clinical communication skills during equine wellness examinations in rural Kentucky, USA: A pilot study. Vet Rec Open 2021; 8: e23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Heath TJ. Longitudinal study of veterinary students and veterinarians: effects of growing up on a farm with animals. Aust Vet J 2007; 85: 296-299
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 681-692
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. JAMA 1992; 267: 2221-2226
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Enlund KB, Jennolf E, Pettersson A. Small Animal Veterinariansʼ Communication With Dog Owners From a Motivational Interviewing Perspective. Front Vet Sci 2021; 8: 772589
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Committee of Quality and Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2001
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician–patient encoun-ter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 651-661
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Merle R, Küper AM. Desire for information and alternative therapies of pet owners is associated with empathy and partnership‐building of veterinarians. J Small Anim Pract 2021; 62: 775-787
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Scheibler F, Freise D, Pfaff H. Die Einbeziehung von Patienten in die Behandlung: Validierung der deutschen PICS-Skalen. J Public Health 2004; 12: 199-209
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Shaw JR, Bonnett BN, Adams CL. et al. Veterinarian-client-patient communication patterns used during clinical appointments in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 228: 714-721
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Christiansen SB, Kristensen AT, Lassen J. et al. Veterinariansʼ role in clientsʼ decision-making regarding seriously ill companion animal patients. Acta Vet Scand 2016; 58: 30
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Stoewen DL, Coe JB, MacMartin C. et al. Qualitative study of the communication expectations of clients accessing oncology care at a tertiary referral center for dogs with life-limiting cancer. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2014; 245: 785-795
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Merle R, Küper AM. Attitude of Veterinarians Toward Self-Informed Animal Owners Affects Shared Decision Making. Front Vet Sci 2021; 8: 692452
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Cohen AR, Stotland E, Wolfe DM. An experimental investigation of need for cognition. J Abnorm Psychol 1955; 51: 291-294
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feinstein JA. et al. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychol Bull 1996; 119: 197-253
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Berzonsky MD, Sullivan C. Social-Cognitive Aspects of Identity Style: Need for Cognition, Experiential Openness, and Introspection. J Adolesc Res 1992; 7: 140-155
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 1982; 42: 116-131
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Morris KJ. Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 1983; 45: 805-818
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Furnham A, Thorne JD. Need for Cognition. J Individ Differ 2013; 34: 230-240
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Petty RE, Brinol P, Loersch C. et al. Need for Cognition. In: Leary MR, Hoyle R. Hrsg. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. New York City (NY): Guilford Publications; 2009: 318-329
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Nair KU, Ramnarayan S. Individual Differences in Need for Cognition and Complex Problem Solving. J Res Pers 2000; 34: 305-328
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Janke N, Coe JB, Bernardo TM. et al. Pet ownersʼ and veterinariansʼ perceptions of information exchange and clinical decision-making in companion animal practice. PLOS ONE 2021; 16: e0245632
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Manyweathers J, Taylor M, Longnecker N. Expertise and communicating about infectious disease: a case study of uncertainty and rejection of local knowledge in discourse of experts and decision makers. J Sci Commun 2020; 19: A01
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Ding D, Chen Y, Lai J. et al. Belief Bias Effect in Older Adults: Roles of Working Memory and Need for Cognition. Front Psychol 2020; 10: 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 IPSOS. Faszination Zukunft. Neue Perspektiven im Pferdesport. Die FN Marktanalyse kompakt und kommentiert. Warendorf: FN Verlag; 2003
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Bogner K, Landrock U. Antworttendenzen in standardisierten Umfragen. Mannheim: GESIS Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften (GESIS Survey Guidelines); 2015
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Campbell MLH. The role of veterinarians in equestrian sport: A comparative review of ethical issues surrounding human and equine sports medicine. Vet J 2013; 197: 535-540
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar