Abstract
Background
Several studies have documented veterinarians’ use of pet‐directed speech (PDS). The aims of this study were to assess the use of PDS during clinic visits and the impact of PDS on pet owners’ opinions about their veterinarians.
Methods
An online survey of pet owners’ experience with, and attitudes to, PDS was conducted using snowball sampling. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on quantitative data, and a thematic analysis was performed on free‐text responses.
Results
Of the 400 respondents, almost 80% reported veterinarians using PDS. Most characterised the use of PDS as very or extremely important, and nearly 90% would more likely choose to see again a veterinarian who employed PDS. Four themes were identified from the free‐text analysis: ‘pet at the centre’, ‘not just words’, ‘include the owner’ and ‘impressions of the veterinarian’.
Limitations
The limitations of the study include the potential for bias and lack of randomisation with snowball sampling, and the relatively small study sample.
Conclusion
PDS is widely employed by veterinarians during veterinary consultations and is valued by pet owners. Further research could help confirm the impact of PDS on the veterinarian‒client‒patient relationship and its potential for integration in veterinary communication training.
INTRODUCTION
Pet‐directed speech (PDS) (also referred to as companion animal‐directed speech)—defined as a person speaking directly to an animal—is a topic of interest in animal health and behaviour. 1 , 2 Research has demonstrated that pet owners and veterinarians commonly use this form of speech with their pets, 1 , 2 distinguished from adult‐directed speech by a higher pitch and increased pitch variation.
PDS has been discussed in a small number of studies. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 In one study examining communication between veterinarians, clients and pets during clinic visits, it was reported that 8% of veterinarians’ interactions during a consultation were directly with the pet. 3 The study also reported that many of the statements made by veterinarians to pets were complimentary, explanatory or empathic in nature. Other pet‐directed statements they identified were rhetorical questions or commands, expressions of reassurance or information communication. The authors suggested that instances of PDS could function as a method of indirect communication to the pet owner, sometimes being used to mitigate difficult discussions with an owner, for example, when the veterinarian believes that the animal has not received appropriate care.
Another study 2 analysed instances of veterinarians responding to animals’ vocal expressions of distress during veterinary appointments with the words ‘I know’. Many instances of these expressions were related to medical tasks being performed during the consultation. The authors proposed that ‘I know’ expressions served two functions: (a) relating prior knowledge of the animal's experience(s), and (b) addressing client anxiety arising from a conflict between the animal's experience and the goals of the appointment.
Finally, in a study of 55 routine companion animal consultations performed in the United States and UK, 4 all consultations were found to have included PDS. The authors of that study also identified 12 unique types of PDS, with the three most frequently occurring being ‘praise’, ‘greetings/small talk’ and ‘explanation of something the veterinarian is doing or about to do’. 4
However, research into PDS is limited, and to the authors’ knowledge, there have been no studies investigating pet owners’ experience with, and attitudes towards, PDS used by veterinarians during consultations. The aims of this study were therefore to assess the extent to which pet owners recall PDS being used by veterinarians during clinic visits, whether pet owners view PDS positively, negatively or neutrally, and to what degree PDS affects pet owner opinions about their veterinarians.
METHODS
This was a cross‐sectional mixed‐methods study using an anonymous online survey distributed to pet owners via JISC online surveys, accessed via a public URL. Ethical approval was obtained from the Committee for Animal Research and Ethics at the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham (approval number 4105 240404) prior to commencement of the research. The survey was evaluated and pre‐tested by four members of the Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine at the University of Nottingham School of Veterinary Medicine and Science prior to distribution.
Participation in the survey was open to any pet owner over the age of 18 years from any geographical location. Participation was voluntary and responses were anonymous. Details on the purpose of the research, how the data would be stored and how the results would be used were provided, and explicit consent was gained from all participants prior to survey completion via a mandatory question that screened out any participant who did not consent. No prizes or monetary incentives were offered but participants were given the opportunity to opt in to receive a copy of the results.
The survey comprised 20 questions distributed over six pages and gathered information such as country of residence, age, gender, pet ownership, information about incidence and types of PDS noticed during the respondents’ last visit to a veterinary clinic, the relative importance to the owner of PDS, and the impact of PDS on pet owner willingness to see a veterinarian again. Survey responses were not alternated or randomised and all respondents were shown all questions. The question ‘Are you a pet owner?’ was mandatory and those who did not answer affirmatively were screened out to a thank you page. A full list of questions can be found in the Supporting Information.
Recruitment was via snowball sampling, a method in which a group of people in the target population are contacted and asked to participate in the study, then to share the invitation with other members of the target population. The survey was distributed in a number of ways: (1) contacting personal and professional acquaintances of the authors, including veterinary practice owners, via email, chat groups and text messages, (2) posts in veterinary professional and pet owner social media groups on Facebook, (3) posts on LinkedIn and X (formerly known as Twitter) and (4) an announcement in an animal health industry newsletter (The Fountain Report; https://antelligence.com/the‐fountain‐report/).
Social media groups associated with pet ownership were identified with searches using keywords ‘pet owners’, ‘pet lovers’, ‘dogs’, ‘cats’ and ‘pets’. Groups that prohibited external posts or whose engagement guidelines prohibited posts or links were avoided. For public groups, an invitation with a link to the survey was posted. The survey was advertised in 12 groups (eight Facebook groups, two LinkedIn groups and two groups on X). For private groups, the group administrator was sent a message asking for permission to post the invitation. Invitations were also posted on the researchers’ personal social media pages on Facebook, LinkedIn and X. Posts were repeated at 2‐ to 3‐week intervals through the duration of the data collection period, which ran for 9 weeks from 1 August to 30 September 2024.
Responses were retained if at least one survey item was completed. Item‑level non‑response was handled by reporting the number of respondents per question; no imputation was undertaken. Response data were imported as a .csv file into jamovi (version 2.3), an open‐source statistical software. The ‘ignore_missing = 1’ filter was applied, which allowed item‑level data to be analysed even when some responses were missing. Denominators are reported for each item. The data were cleaned (e.g., responses to the question of place of residence that were given as Scotland, Wales, England, United Kingdom or UK were all classified as ‘UK’). Descriptive statistics were calculated for continuous data (e.g., age and number of pets owned). All the statistical analyses were performed using jamovi.
To assess patterns within qualitative responses to free‐text questions about the relative importance of PDS and any additional comments respondents had about the topic, thematic analysis was conducted according to the methodology described by Braun and Clark. 6 Fee‐text question responses were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, reviewed by both authors and keywords were identified in each of the statements. Using inductive analysis (a method in which specific observations or instances are noted and then grouped into more general classifications), 7 codes were developed for sets of related keywords and then gathered into potential themes. Within each theme, the respondents’ quotes were compared to ensure that they consistently reflected a coherent pattern. The themes were further refined by one author (L.C.) by comparing the aspects of the data that led to their grouping within each theme, and each theme was given a name. The last step involved integrating the descriptive and qualitative data to validate the findings and elicit a comprehensive understanding of the insights and patterns suggested by the survey data and their relationship with the research aims.
RESULTS
All 400 individuals who entered the survey provided at least partial responses and were included in the analysis. All respondents answered most survey items; however, some items had smaller denominators due to item‑level non‑response. These denominators are reported alongside percentages. Most participants (370/400, 93%) answered an open‐ended question about the importance of veterinarians using PDS, while about one‐third (145/400, 36%) responded to an open‐ended question about the effect of PDS on their willingness to see a veterinarian again; these answers were thematically analysed.
Most respondents were non‐veterinary professionals (348/400, 87%) and resided in either the UK (226/387, 58%) or the United States (141/387, 36%). The majority were female (327/400, 82%), with ages ranging from 18 to 83 years. Seventy‐six percent (301/398) of respondents reported owning at least one dog, while 42% (164/395) of respondents reported owning at least one cat. Most participants (220/400, 55%) had visited a veterinarian within the past 2 months. Of those visits, almost half were for wellness (191/400, 48%) and nearly half were for problem‐related issues (187/400, 47%). Dogs were the most frequent species taken to the veterinarian (282/400, 71%). Detailed participant and visit characteristics are provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
Demographic and visit characteristics of survey respondents.
| Variable | Category | n (%) | Median (range) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Veterinary professional | Yes | 52/400 (13.0) | – |
| No | 348/400 (87.0) | – | |
| Country of residence | UK | 226/387 (58.4) | – |
| USA | 141/387 (36.4) | – | |
| Other | 20/387 (5.2) | – | |
| Gender | Female | 327/400 (81.8) | – |
| Male | 67/400 (16.8) | – | |
| Identify another way | 2/400 (0.5) | – | |
| Prefer not to say | 4/400 (1.0) | – | |
| Age (years) | – | – | 45 (18–83) |
| Number of dogs owned | – | – | 1 (0–5) |
| Number of cats owned | – | – | 0 (0–8) |
| Species taken to veterinarian | Dog | 282/400 (70.5) | – |
| Cat | 101/400 (25.3) | – | |
| Other | 17/400 (4.3) | – | |
| Time since last visit | <1 month | 125/400 (31.3) | – |
| 1–2 months | 95/400 (23.8) | – | |
| 3–6 months | 117/400 (29.3) | – | |
| 7–12 months | 41/400 (10.3) | – | |
| >12 months | 22/400 (5.5) | – | |
| Reason for last visit | Wellness | 191/400 (47.8) | – |
| Problem | 187/400 (46.8) | – | |
| Other | 22/400 (5.5) | – |
Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents to each item. Denominators vary due to item‐level non‐response; raw counts (n) are shown.
Owner recall of PDS being used during the visit
More than three‐quarters of the respondents recalled the veterinarian using PDS during their most recent visit. In most visits, pet owners recalled the veterinarian using PDS between two and five times (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Owner‑reported recall of pet‑directed speech (PDS) during veterinary consultations.
| Variable | Category | n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinarian used PDS | Yes | 309/400 (77.3) |
| No | 74/400 (18.5) | |
| Cannot remember | 17/400 (4.3) | |
| Number of PDS instances recalled | 1 | 8/309 (2.6) |
| 2–5 | 188/309 (60.8) | |
| 6–10 | 66/309 (21.4) | |
| >10 | 28/309 (9.1) | |
| Cannot remember | 19/309 (6.1) |
Note: Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents to each item. Denominators vary due to item‐level non‐response; raw counts (n) are shown.
Thirteen types of PDS were acknowledged, with ‘greetings and small talk’ (280, 70%), ‘praising the pet’ (224, 56%), ‘using calming language’ (195, 49%) and ‘expressing empathy or concern’ (166, 42%) being the most common types (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1.
Types of pet‐directed speech used by veterinarians during consultations: owner‐reported frequencies.
Impressions of pet owners regarding PDS
In response to the question ‘How important is it that your veterinarian speaks directly to your pet?’, most respondents (258/400, 64.5%) answered that it was very or extremely important (Figure 2). Eighty‐six percent (343/398) of the respondents also indicated that they would be more likely to see a veterinarian again who spoke directly to their pet, with more than half responding that they would definitely choose to see a veterinarian again who used PDS (Figure 3).
FIGURE 2.
Pet owners’ perceived importance of pet‐directed speech in veterinary consultations.
FIGURE 3.
Influence of pet‐directed speech on pet owners' willingness to revisit the same veterinarian.
Thematic analysis
Free‑text responses were analysed thematically, yielding four overarching themes (pet at the centre, not just words, include the owner, and impressions of the veterinarian) with related subthemes. These are discussed below and summarised in Figure 4, which presents a concept map of owner perspectives on PDS. The map illustrates how PDS was viewed as central to the consultation, involving both the animal and the owner, extending beyond words to tone and non‑verbal communication, and shaping impressions of the veterinarian. Together, these themes highlight the multifaceted role of PDS in the veterinarian–client–patient relationship.
-
Pet at the centre
Many pet owners viewed their pets as extensions of themselves and believed they should be treated as such. They appreciated feeling that their veterinarian saw the pet as an individual rather than a number or a name associated with an appointment.It shows me that the vet is interested in my pet as an individual. That he or she is not just looking at a job or a health problem to solve.(Respondent 17, male, USA, non‐veterinary professional)[PDS] demonstrates concern for the pet and connection to animals. My pet is an extension of me.(Respondent 380, female, USA, veterinary professional)They also believed that PDS was an indicator of the veterinarian caring for the animal and desiring to make a connection.It validates a part of me that feels my pet is so special and loved when I can see it reflected in someone else.(Respondent 261, male, USA, non‐veterinary professional)When the veterinarian spoke to the pet, some respondents remarked that the pet responded positively, or that the pet understood what was being said to them on some level.My pet responds positively to the vet speaking to her, it makes it feel more personal.(Respondent 20, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional) -
Not just words
Comments informing this theme centred around the importance of tone and volume of speech, actions and body language. Some respondents felt that it was the non‐verbal communication and the behaviour of the veterinarian to which their pets responded most.Doesn't seem to change things for me. I think that pets likely respond more to non‐verbal behaviour.(Respondent 237, male, USA, non‐veterinary professional)Many also identified that the tone and volume of the veterinarian's speech were important in helping the animal to feel at ease during the consultation and demonstrated the veterinarian's empathy and compassion.[Dog's name] is a very nervous, reactive dog. The tone and volume used in the practice can make a difference to her.(Respondent 42, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional)Tone of voice is important—a calm, reassuring tone reinforces the sense of compassion.(Respondent 389, male, UK, veterinary professional)Other respondents noted their disdain for ‘baby talk’, indicating that they would prefer veterinarians to speak more like adults to their pets.No baby talk. Talk to them as you would a peer.(Respondent 103, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional) -
Include the owner
Some pet owners believed that while veterinarians addressing their pets directly was important, it should not be done at the expense of client communication, particularly regarding clinical information.[PDS] is very important, but it is also important they speak to me.(Respondent 328, female, Chile, veterinary professional)I expect any clinical information to be directed towards me, and I would find it very weird if they were talking to the animal about clinical information.(Respondent 59, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional)Some owners stated that they preferred the veterinarian to concentrate on speaking solely to them, while others viewed PDS as indirect communication to the owner or a way to demonstrate to the owner the veterinarian's understanding of their pet's situation.… it's an indirect way of letting me know the vet is thinking expertly.(Respondent 86, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional)Still others commented that even when the primary reason was communicating with the owner, it was important that the veterinarian also addressed the pet, as the pet still benefited from it.Even if the conversation is directed at the owner, it might be reassuring for the pet to hear the voice of the person examining him/her.(Respondent 170, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional) -
Impressions of the veterinarian
Most owners believed that PDS had a direct impact on their impressions of the veterinarian's competence, empathy, and even attitude towards their chosen profession.When a vet does that, to me it confirms they enjoy their job.(Respondent 290, female, USA, non‐veterinary professional)It makes me more trusting of the professional.(Respondent 80, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional)It gives me confidence that the vet has my pet's best interests in mind.(Respondent 53, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional)A veterinarian speaking to a pet was viewed as an indicator of the level of investment they had in the pet, as well as their ability to understand animal behaviour and the stressful environment the clinic creates for pets.[It gives me] confidence in [the vet's] ability to recognise that going to the vets can be distressing for pets.(Respondent 35, female, UK, non‐veterinary professional)Finally, some owners said they would choose not to see a veterinarian again who did not speak to their pet.I have left previous vet practices for lacking this kind of interaction.(Respondent 177, male, UK, non‐veterinary professional)
FIGURE 4.
Concept map of themes and subthemes related to pet‐directed speech in veterinary consultations.
DISCUSSION
The present study was not intended to be a definitive assessment of the nature, role or importance of PDS in veterinary practice. It was, however, a preliminary exploration of pet owner attitudes about PDS, providing another piece to the ‘PDS puzzle’. The study found that pet owners encountered various types of PDS during clinic visits, aligning with previous research on veterinary consultations. The significance of PDS to pet owners and its impact on their willingness to return indicate that PDS may enhance the veterinarian‒client‒patient relationship. The thematic analysis identified ways in which PDS may influence the pet owner's impressions of the veterinarian's knowledge, understanding of animal behaviour, empathy and caring, recognition of pet as individual, and satisfaction with their job—factors which can positively influence a pet owner's desire to see a veterinarian again. However, it is important to note that not all respondents had an equal appreciation of PDS. Some respondents noted that communication with the owner was more important to them than communication with the pet; however, this does not diminish the value of PDS; it merely supports the importance of optimal client communication.
Involving the animal is recommended as part of the Guide to the Veterinary Consultation, based on the Calgary‒Cambridge Model, 8 taught widely at UK veterinary schools. 9 The Guide emphasises the importance of recognising the animal as an active participant in the consultation. This includes greeting and signalling one's presence to the animal, being mindful of the bond between client and pet, and approaching or handling the animal in a considerate and empathetic manner. 8 However, the emphasis placed on this part of the interaction during communication skills teaching is unknown and may be variable. Further research could help determine the extent to which PDS could play a role in this, as well as if and how instructions around PDS should be included in veterinary communication curricula.
Numerous pet owners reported that their pets responded positively to PDS or even ‘understood’ speech directed to them in some way. Studies on animal cognition of human speech have been performed using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in Hungary 5 , 10 and Austria, 11 , 12 among other locations. Among the findings were that dogs process human speech in the right brain hemisphere, as do people, and they do so independently of tone. 5 Dogs were also found to use some of the same acoustic parameters as people to identify a speaker's voice. 10 Further research using similar fMRI analysis could help in understanding the processing of PDS by, and impact on, dogs during veterinary consultations.
Question 16 of the survey, which inquired about the types of PDS a pet owner observed during their last visit to the veterinary clinic, provided 12 choices based on types of PDS speech documented in a previous study, 4 plus an open text box in which to list other types of PDS. Question 18 was designed to elicit a free‑text answer but included illustrative examples of the reasons it might be important (or not) to the owner that a veterinarian speaks to their pet. In both cases, these PDS options and illustrative examples may have inadvertently influenced how participants framed their responses, introducing a potential bias in the qualitative data. Last, interpretation of the findings should consider that participants’ recollections of specific communication during veterinary visits may be inconsistent, and that prior studies have shown overall satisfaction ratings with veterinarians to be strongly skewed towards the positive, 13 , 14 factors that could have influenced the results observed in this study.
Limitations
This study used snowball sampling, which has several documented limitations, including community bias of participants, selectivity and diversity limitations due to lack of randomness, and limited accuracy in applying results to the total population. 15 , 16 However, in recruitment for qualitative research, snowball sampling can offer an efficient and cost‐effective way to recruit research participants and identify potential topics for further study. In addition, the sample size of this study was small, with 400 participants.
The sample included a small proportion of pet owners who identified themselves as veterinary professionals (13%). Although follow‑up analyses indicated no statistically significant differences between veterinary and non‑veterinary respondents on key outcome items, this dual identity may have influenced their experience and expectations surrounding PDS in veterinary consultations. Research with a larger sample of veterinary professionals and pet owners may help to better explore the similarities and any differences in each group's attitudes towards PDS.
CONCLUSIONS
This preliminary study demonstrates the importance of PDS to the veterinarian‒client‒patient relationship. However, future research with a larger sample size is warranted to explore both pet owner and veterinarian attitudes to, and experiences of, PDS and identify similarities and differences between the assumed role and importance of PDS in each group. In addition, research on veterinary clinic productivity, client satisfaction, staff satisfaction and clinic revenue in clinics where PDS is routinely used and where it is not could help quantify the relative value of PDS to a veterinary practice.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Michael P. McDermott and Louise Corah jointly conducted the literature review, designed the study and managed participant recruitment. Louise Corah administered the study and collected the data. Michael P. McDermott performed the descriptive statistical analysis. Michael P. McDermott and Louise Corah collaboratively undertook the initial thematic analysis, and Louise Corah finalised the thematic framework. Michael P. McDermott drafted the initial manuscript, and both authors contributed to subsequent revisions and approved the final version.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
FUNDING INFORMATION
There was no external funding for this study.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Ethical approval was obtained from the Committee for Animal Research and Ethics at the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham (approval number 4105 240404) prior to commencement of the research.
Supporting information
Supporting Information: Survey questions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Marnie Brennan and her team at the Centre for Evidence‐Based Veterinary Medicine at the University of Nottingham School of Veterinary Medicine and Science for their help in refining the survey design and questions. We would also like to thank Jane Shaw and Jason Coe for sharing their previous experiences in studying PDS and encouraging us to pursue this study.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are anonymised to protect participant confidentiality and are not publicly available due to privacy considerations.
REFERENCES
- 1. Ben‐Aderet T, Gallego‐Abenza M, Reby D, Mathevon N. Dog‐directed speech: why do we use it and do dogs pay attention to it? Proc R Soc Biol. 2017;284(1846):20162429. 10.1098/rspb.2016.2429 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Macmartin C, Coe JB, Adams CL. Treating distressed animals as participants: I know responses in veterinarians’ pet‐directed talk. Res Lang Soc Interact. 2014;47:151‒174. [Google Scholar]
- 3. Shaw J, Adams C, Bonnett B, Larson S, Roter D. Use of the Roter interaction analysis system to analyze veterinarian‒client‒patient communication in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2004;225:222‒229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. McDermott MP, Cobb MA, Robbé IJ, Dean RS. The Dolittle factor: ‘talking to the animals’ during veterinary consultations. Vet Rec. 2022;190:e1380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Gábor A, Gácsi M, Szabó D, Miklósi A, Kubinyi E, Andics A. Multilevel fMRI adaptation for spoken word processing in the awake dog brain. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):11968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE Publications; 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27:237‒246. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Radford A, Stockley P, Silverman J, Taylor I, Turner R, Gray C, et al. Development, teaching, and evaluation of a consultation structure model for use in veterinary education. J Vet Med Educ. 2006;33(1):38‒44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Mossop L, Gray C, Blaxter A, Gardiner A, MacEachern K, Watson O, et al. Communication skills training: what the vet schools are doing. Vet Rec. 2015;176:114‒117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Gábor A, Kaszás N, Faragó T, Fraga P, Lovas M, Andics A. The acoustic bases of human voice identity processing in dogs. Anim Cognit. 2022;25:905‒915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Huber L, Lamm C. Understanding dog cognition by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Learn Behav. 2017;45:101‒102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Boch M, Wagner I, Karl S, Huber L, Lamm C. Functionally analogous body‐ and animacy responsive areas are present in the dog (Canis familiaris) and human occipito‐temporal lobe. Commun Biol. 2023;6(1):645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. American Veterinary Medical Association . AVMA pet ownership and demographics sourcebook. 2022.
- 14. Janke N, Shaw JR, Coe JB. On‐site communication skills education increases appointment‐specific client satisfaction in four companion animal practices in Texas. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2022;260:1711‒1720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kircherr J, Charles K. Enhancing the sample diversity of snowball samples: recommendations from a research project on anti‐dam movements in southeast Asia. PLoS One. 2017;13:e0201710. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Naderifar M, Goli H, Ghaljaie F. Snowball sampling: a purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2017;14(3):e67670. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supporting Information: Survey questions.
Data Availability Statement
Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are anonymised to protect participant confidentiality and are not publicly available due to privacy considerations.