Abstract
Preventive care is the cornerstone of health. However, veterinary staff to client (pet owner) communication of disease prevention may be limited resulting in increased pet risk. Our objectives were to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and practices of clients regarding vaccination and parasite control and describe information sources influencing client preventive care. Over a 6-week period, clients visiting a veterinary teaching hospital in Prince Edward Island, Canada, were invited to complete a written questionnaire. Of those invited, 81% (105/129) completed the questionnaire. Respondents reported low (19 to 33%) to moderate (66 to 79%) coverage for canine “lifestyle” and core vaccines, respectively. Half of the participants reported that they had concern for their pet’s health from endo/ectoparasites compared to concern for their/household member’s health (27%), despite 45% reporting a person at increased zoonotic risk in their household. Veterinarians (89 to 92%) and online information (39 to 51%) were the highest client-reported resources for vaccine and parasite education. Our work provides a baseline for preventive care practices and highlights a need for improvement.
Résumé
Soins préventifs des animaux de compagnie dans un hôpital d’enseignement vétérinaire – Connaissances, attitudes et pratiques des clients. Les soins préventifs sont la pierre angulaire de la santé. Cependant, la communication entre le personnel vétérinaire et le client (propriétaire de l’animal) concernant la prévention des maladies peut être limitée, ce qui augmente le risque pour les animaux de compagnie. Les objectifs de l’étude étaient d’évaluer les connaissances, les attitudes et les pratiques des clients en matière de vaccination et de lutte antiparasitaire et de décrire les sources d’information influençant les soins préventifs prodigués par les clients. Sur une période de 6 semaines, les clients visitant un hôpital d’enseignement vétérinaire de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, au Canada, ont été invités à remplir un questionnaire écrit. Parmi les invités, 81 % (105/129) ont rempli le questionnaire. Les répondants ont rapporté une couverture faible (19 à 33 %) à modérée (66 à 79 %) pour les vaccins « style de vie » canin et de base, respectivement. La moitié des participants ont déclaré s’inquiéter pour la santé de leur animal de compagnie relativement aux endo/ectoparasites comparativement à des inquiétudes pour leur santé ou celle des membres de leur famille (27 %), bien que 45 % aient déclaré qu’une personne présentait un risque zoonotique accru dans leur ménage. Les vétérinaires (89 à 92 %) et les renseignements en ligne (39 à 51 %) étaient les ressources les plus importantes déclarées par les clients pour l’éducation sur les vaccins et les parasites. Notre travail fournit une base pour les pratiques de soins préventifs et met en évidence un besoin d’amélioration.
(Traduit par Dr Serge Messier)
Introduction
Preventive care is generally considered the foundation of animal health and protection from disease (1,2). In the United Kingdom (UK), it is estimated that 1/3 of all dog and cat veterinary appointments focus on preventive care (3). However, despite the frequency and importance of preventive veterinary care consultations, owner education on preventive care topics and infectious disease risks may be limited, misunderstood, or perceived by veterinary care teams as less-valued by clients (1,3–10). Research regarding the quality and quantity of preventive care discussions occurring between veterinary staff and their clientele in veterinary clinics is sparse (3–10). One study reported that educational discussion on preventive care formed a minor component of wellness visits in Canada (10) and another study noted variation in the content of preventive care discussion, dependent on whether the pet was an adult or juvenile, with greater emphasis on preventive care occurring during primary vaccination appointments (6). Furthermore, there may be a disconnect between what veterinary teams perceive as valued by clients with respect to preventive care compared to what clients truly regard as important or essential (1,4–7). As such, research investigating pet owner knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) related to preventive care is indicated to identify education gaps and target areas for improved preventive care communication, thereby impacting owner practices and ultimately reducing infectious disease risks and improving companion animal health.
The American Animal Health Association (AAHA), American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and other stakeholders established the Partnership for Healthy Pets (PHP) in 2011, with the goal of providing veterinary teams resources for communicating the importance of preventive care to pet owners (11). This initiative evolved, in part, due to veterinary and stakeholder concerns related to pet owner attitudes about preventive care becoming less favorable and an observed decrease in preventive care veterinary visits in the USA (1,12,13). A contributing factor to these changes was thought to be increasing pet owner reliance on non-veterinarian-approved internet-based information sources instead of directly from veterinary teams (1,12,13). Pet owner information sources may vary regionally, nationally, or globally, and data on Canadian pet owner information sources are currently lacking.
In many regions of Canada, pet infectious disease exposure and risk related to pathogens, namely tick-borne and Leptospira spp., have changed dramatically in recent years, particularly in regions of the Maritimes and Eastern Canada (14–19). Other companion animal infectious disease risks, such as those related to endoparasites (i.e., roundworms, Giardia lamblia) have largely remained unchanged or vary by region (20). In addition, individual pet-specific risks, such as animal travel or involvement in group animal settings (e.g., dog daycare, boarding, dog shows) may increase a pet’s infectious disease risks further through exposure to regional pathogens during travel, or to an increased number of other, potentially infectious animals and contaminated fomites in a group setting (21). Individual pet, travel, and regional risk factors for infectious disease exposure all impact and necessitate adjustments to the unique pet’s preventive care plan (22).
As many pathogens affecting companion animals are zoonotic, with pets directly infecting (or facilitating movement of tick/flea vectors) human household members, lapses in canine and feline preventive care have direct public health impacts (e.g., toxocariasis, borreliosis) (23). Such pet-associated public health risks are greatest for household members who are at risk because of age, pregnancy, or immunocompromisation (e.g., cancer or associated therapy), whereby zoonotic infections are generally more common and severe than in other individuals (24). As such, the veterinary team serves a central role in influencing KAPs of pet owners with likely direct impacts on pet and owner health.
Due to these various concerns, there is a critical need to determine clients’ preventive care practices and, if suboptimal, investigate possible modifiable factors influencing uptake of veterinary recommendations. By assessing client knowledge of preventable infectious diseases and preventive care options, as well as their attitudes regarding these, veterinary health professionals can target knowledge gaps or correct misinformation by providing clients with credible sources of information regarding preventive care for their pets. The objectives of this study were to: i) evaluate companion animal clients’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding pet preventive care at a veterinary teaching hospital in Atlantic Canada; and ii) describe client information sources influencing preventive care.
Materials and methods
This was an observational cross-sectional study. Clients of the Atlantic Veterinary College (AVC), University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI), Small Animal Veterinary Teaching Hospital (VTH) were invited over a 6-week period (June to July 2019) to complete a 7-minute written questionnaire.
Clients waiting in the reception area of the VTH for companion animal general practice or referral appointments (e.g., surgery, cardiology, internal medicine, dermatology), were individually approached by a co-author (MM) and invited to complete the questionnaire. Any clients appearing visibly distressed, regardless of their appointment type, were not approached. Combinations of open- (e.g., short answer) and closed-ended (e.g., modified 5-point Likert-type) questions were used to collect information on: i) clients’ KAPs surrounding canine/feline preventive care; and ii) client information sources influencing pet preventive care decisions. All responses were anonymous and confidential and were only accessible by members of the research team. Clients were asked to provide answers based on the pet(s) that they had with them at the VTH at the time of questionnaire distribution. The survey was in English, reviewed and deemed a program evaluation by the University of Prince Edward Island’s Research Ethics department, and exempt from further review. A copy of the questionnaire is available from the author (ME) upon request. An a priori sample size calculation suggested a minimum of 96 respondents were needed for the study (assuming a conservative estimate of providing for a given question a 95% CI for an estimated proportion of 50%, with a total CI width of 20% and an alpha of 0.05).
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and reported as counts or percentages with corresponding 95% CIs. Commercial statistical software (Stata version 14; StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA) was used for analyses.
Results
A total of 129 clients were invited to participate, with most (90%, 116/129) consenting to do so. Questionnaires were fully completed by the majority of those invited (91% completion, 105/116), providing data on 105 pets; 96 dogs and 9 cats. Most (93%) of the pets were adults (at least 1 y old) and had been examined by a veterinarian in the past 12 mo (93%; Table 1). Dogs (n = 94) ranged in age from 2 mo to 16 y [mean 7.6 y; standard deviation (SD): 4.2 y], whereas cats (n = 9) ranged in age from 11 mo to 7 y (median: 2.0 y). Over half of the participants (55%), responded that their pet had a currently diagnosed health condition including, orthopedic (19%), internal medicine (18%), cardiac (17%), neurologic (16%), cancer (10%), dermatologic (7%), dental disease (3%), or the participant responded that they were unsure (10%).
Table 1.
Reported pet and owner demographics for canine and feline preventive care at a veterinary teaching hospital (N = 105).
| Question | Frequency | Percentage (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Pet’s age (n = 103) | ||
| Juvenile (< 1 y old) | 7 | 6.8 (2.8, 13.5) |
| Adult (≥ 1 y old) | 96 | 93.2 (86.5, 97.2) |
| Has your pet been seen by a veterinarian in the last 12 months? (n = 103) | ||
| Yes | 96 | 93.2 (86.5, 97.2) |
| No | 7 | 6.8 (2.8, 13.5) |
| Including yourself, which of the following individuals currently live with you and your pet(s)a (n = 96) | ||
| Individuals > 65 y of age | 24 | 25.0 (16.7, 34.9) |
| Children < 5 y of age | 8 | 8.3 (3.7, 15.8) |
| Individuals who are immunosuppressed | 4 | 4.2 (1.1, 10.3) |
| Pregnant women | 1 | 1.0 (0.03, 5.7) |
| One or more of the above high-risk groups | 43 | 44.8 (34.6, 55.3) |
| Individuals 5 to 65 y of age | 75 | 78.1 (68.5, 85.9) |
Respondents were able to report multiple responses; as such, the sum is greater than 100%.
Italics used to denote exact phrasing of survey questions.
CI — Confidence interval.
Home provinces of clients and their pets (i.e., where the pet spent much of its time) were reported by the majority of respondents (80%, 84/105). Home provinces included Prince Edward Island (PE) (n = 49), Nova Scotia (NS) (n = 21), New Brunswick (NB) (n = 9), Ontario (ON) (n = 8), and British Columbia (BC) (n = 2); multiple provinces were provided by respondents if their time was spent equally in more than 1 province throughout the year.
Respondents frequently reported that pets had spent time outside of their home environment, including local and interprovincial travel, during the preceding 12 mo. Participants (n = 103) reported that their pet routinely spent time outside their home (dogs 94/94; cats 6/9), and that most of these events for dogs (84%) consisted of neighborhood walks (55%), visiting a dog park (8%) or being on dog-friendly beaches (23%; Table 2). Travel outside of PE, but within Canada, with their pet in the past 12 mo, was reported by 60% (63/105) of respondents. Inter-provincial travel within Atlantic Canada (excluding PE) accounted for 40% of responses and included travel to NS (n = 23), NB (n = 17), and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL; n = 2). Travel to other Canadian provinces accounted for the remaining 20% of responses and included travel to ON, Quebec (QC), Manitoba (MB), Saskatchewan (SK), Alberta (AB), and BC. Participants also reported international travel with their pet, with 5% of pet owners reporting travel to the United States (n = 4) and the Bahamas (n = 1).
Table 2.
Pet owner reported preventive care practices and perceived education needs at a small animal teaching hospital (N = 105).
| Question | Frequency | Percentage (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Has your dog(s) been vaccinated against or had titers run (DAPP) for the following in the past 3 years? (n = 96) | ||
| Rabies | 76 | 79.1 (69.7, 86.8) |
| Combo (DAPP) | 63 | 65.6 (55.2, 75.0) |
| Has your dog(s) been vaccinated against the following infectious diseases in the past 12 months? (n = 96) | ||
| Canine influenza | 21 | 21.9 (14.1, 31.5) |
| Bordetella (kennel cough) | 32 | 33.3 (24.0, 43.7) |
| Leptospirosis | 29 | 30.2 (21.3, 40.4) |
| Lyme disease | 18 | 18.8 (11.5, 28.0) |
| In a typical month, where does your dog spend time while outside of the house? a (n = 96) | ||
| Dog parks | 8 | 8.3 (3.7, 15.8) |
| Neighborhood walks | 57 | 59.4 (48.9, 69.3) |
| Dog-friendly beaches | 24 | 25.0 (16.7, 34.9) |
| Do you use home remedies/holistic/natural flea/tick/worm prevention methods? (n = 100) | ||
| Yesb | 8 | 8.0 (3.5, 15.2) |
| No | 92 | 92.0 (84.8, 96.5) |
| Are you interested in learning more from your veterinarian about the types of parasites and/or infectious diseases your pet can contract and how/where they may get them? (n = 104) | ||
| Yes | 48 | 46.2 (36.3, 56.2) |
| No | 34 | 32.7 (23.8, 42.6) |
| Unsure | 22 | 21.2 (13.8, 30.3) |
| Do you receive reminders from your veterinary clinic about keeping your pet’s vaccines/boosters or preventative medication up to date? (n = 102) | ||
| Yes | 68 | 66.7 (56.6, 75.7) |
| Sometimes | 11 | 10.8 (5.5, 18.5) |
| No | 16 | 15.7 (9.2, 24.2) |
| Unsure | 7 | 6.8 (2.8, 13.6) |
Respondents were able to report multiple responses; as such, the sum is greater than 100%.
Examples provided included amber necklace, diatomaceous earth, brewer’s yeast, essential oils, witch hazel.
Italics used to denote exact phrasing of survey questions.
Knowledge of infectious disease
Most participants (89% of 103) reported they felt knowledgeable regarding practices, vaccines, and medications used to prevent infections in their pets; 39% reported they were very knowledgeable, and 50% stated they were somewhat knowledgeable (Table 3). The majority of respondents (87/100) were able to correctly select Lyme disease as the only disease/pathogen transmitted by a tick when provided a list of regionally important pet infectious diseases/pathogens [list included: leptospirosis, Lyme disease, rabies, Dipylidium caninum (tapeworm), canine influenza, heartworm, lungworm, none of the above]. Few participants (15%; 11/72), given the same list, identified Dipylidium caninum (tapeworm) as the only disease/pathogen transmitted by fleas.
Table 3.
Pet owner reported knowledge and attitudes on canine and feline infectious disease and related prevention at a small animal teaching hospital (N = 105).
| Question | Frequency | Percentage (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| How concerned are you about the health of yourself and those who live with you with regards to transmission of fleas/ticks/ worms and their potentially associated diseases from pets? (n = 105) | ||
| Very concerned | 14 | 13.3 (7.5, 21.4) |
| Concerned | 16 | 15.2 (9.0, 23.6) |
| Somewhat concerned | 19 | 18.1 (11.3, 26.8) |
| Minimal concerns | 26 | 24.8 (16.9, 34.1) |
| Not at all concerned | 30 | 28.6 (20.2, 38.2) |
| How knowledgeable do you feel you are regarding practices, vaccines, and medications used to prevent infections in your pet(s) (n = 103) | ||
| Very knowledgeable | 40 | 38.8 (29.4, 48.9) |
| Somewhat | 51 | 49.5 (39.5, 59.5) |
| Neutral | 10 | 9.7 (4.8, 17.1) |
| Not very | 2 | 1.9 (0.2, 6.8) |
| Not knowledgeable | 0 | 0 (0, 3.5)a |
| Based on information received from your veterinarian, I believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the health risks that may occur to my pet(s) (n = 104) | ||
| Strongly agree | 73 | 70.2 (60.4, 78.8) |
| Somewhat agree | 19 | 18.3 (11.4, 27.1) |
| Neutral | 6 | 5.8 (2.1, 12.1) |
| Somewhat disagree | 3 | 2.9 (0.6, 8.2) |
| Strongly disagree | 3 | 2.9 (0.6, 8.2) |
| This has never occurred | 0 | 0 (0, 3.5)a |
| I trust my veterinarian’s recommendations regarding tick/flea/worm preventative measures for my pet(s) (n = 100) | ||
| Strongly agree | 84 | 84.0 (75.3, 90.6) |
| Somewhat agree | 11 | 11.0 (5.6, 18.8) |
| Neutral | 2 | 2.0 (0.2, 7.0) |
| Somewhat disagree | 0 | 0 (0, 3.6)a |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 1.0 (0.3, 5.4) |
| This has never occurred | 2 | 2.0 (0.2, 7.0) |
| How concerned are you about your pet’s health with regard to transmission of fleas/ticks/worms and their potentially associated diseases (n = 103) | ||
| Very concerned | 25 | 24.3 (16.4, 33.7) |
| Concerned | 27 | 26.2 (18.0, 35.8) |
| Somewhat concerned | 21 | 20.4 (13.1, 29.5) |
| Minimally concerned | 21 | 20.4 (13.1, 29.5) |
| Not at all concerned | 9 | 8.7 (4.1, 15.9) |
One-sided, 97.5% confidence interval.
Italics used to denote exact phrasing of survey questions.
Vaccination attitudes and practices
Respondents (n = 104), generally agreed (strongly agree: 70%, somewhat agree: 18%) with the statement that based on information received from your veterinarian, I believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the health risks that may occur to my pet(s) (Table 3). Most dog-owning respondents (n = 96) reported their adult dogs had received core vaccinations or had titers performed in the past 3 y [rabies: 79%; DAPP (distemper, adenovirus, parainfluenza, parvovirus): 66%; Table 3]. More than half (57%) of the participants reported their dog had received at least 1 “lifestyle” vaccine in the past year, with overall low coverage by individual vaccines [19% (Borrelia burgdorferi) to 33% (Bordetella); Table 3]. Cat-owning respondents (n = 9) reported cats received core and “lifestyle” vaccinations as: rabies (n = 3); combination [FVRCP (feline viral rhinotracheitis, calicivirus, panleukopenia) (n = 3)]; feline leukemia virus (FeLV) (n = 4); feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) (n = 3); and Bordetella bronchiseptica (n = 1).
Parasite control attitudes and practices
Most respondents (95/100) reported that they agreed with the statement, I trust my veterinarian’s recommendations regarding tick/flea/worm preventative measures for their pet(s) (strongly agree: 84%; somewhat agree: 11%; Table 3). Many clients (71% of 103) reported concern regarding the transmission of ecto- and endo-parasites (e.g., fleas, ticks, tapeworm, heartworm) and their associated diseases to their pets (very concerned 24%, concerned 26%, somewhat concerned 20%; Table 2). Most (90%) respondents indicated that they had purchased flea and tick medication for their pet(s) (topical, oral) in the past year. A small number of participants (8% of 100) reported use of home remedies (e.g., amber necklace, brewer’s yeast, essential oils) for endo- and ecto-parasite control for their pets (Table 2).
Information sources
Respondents cited various resources they used to learn about specific vaccine (n = 103) and parasite needs for their pets (n = 101) (Figure 1). Face-to-face conversations with a veterinarian was the most frequently reported resource for both vaccine and parasite education needs (vaccine: 89%; parasite: 92%), followed by on-line (vaccine: 50%; parasite: 39%) and previous experience (vaccine: 19%; parasite: 13%).
Figure 1.
Responses to What types of resources do you use to learn about your pet’s vaccine/parasite prevention needs? Responses reported for vaccine needs displayed in white (n = 103); responses reported for parasite prevention needs displayed in speckled bars (n = 101); respondents were able to select multiple options; therefore, the sum is greater than 100%.
Zoonotic disease attitudes and household risk
Nearly half of respondents (45% of 96) reported having 1 or more individuals in their household who were at increased risk of zoonoses due to underdeveloped or weakened immune systems (Table 1). Less than half (47% of 105) of respondents reported concerns (very to somewhat) regarding the health of themselves and human household members with respect to the transmission of fleas/ticks/worms and their potentially associated diseases from pets, with 54% responding that they had minimal (25%) or no (29%) concerns (Table 2).
Veterinary clinic interactions and preferences
Many respondents (77% of 102) recalled receiving reminders from their veterinary clinic for vaccinations and preventive care. Of the participants who did not recall receiving reminders (16%), most (74%) replied that they would like to receive these communications. Approximately half of all survey respondents (46% of 104) indicated that they would be interested in learning more from their veterinarian about parasites and infectious disease (Table 2).
Discussion
Overall, our work indicated that there are critical gaps in preventive care practices by pet owners visiting the AVC-VTH that may translate into inadequate infectious disease prevention for the respondents’ pets. Furthermore, our results indicated low reported coverage for canine and feline “lifestyle” vaccines, with less than 1/3 of dog owners recalling vaccination for leptospirosis in the past year. This reported low vaccine coverage is concerning considering the known risk of leptospirosis exposure in the Maritimes (17–19) and a high-profile outbreak of leptospirosis in the Halifax, NS region in 2017 (19). In addition, there was high respondent reported pet travel from PE and within Canada, particularly within the Atlantic Canada provinces. Along with the low coverage for leptospirosis vaccination, only 18% of dogs were reported to have been vaccinated for Lyme disease, despite 2 Maritime provinces (NS, NB) and other regions of Canada (ON, QC, MB) having known Lyme disease risk regions (25). This level of reported travel within Canada, as well as internationally (5%), is concerning as there are known infectious disease risks, such as leptospirosis (26,27), canine influenza virus, and others, in several regions of Canada and in the USA, to which these dogs could be exposed and lacked (or have reduced) protection due to inadequate vaccine preventive care.
Despite respondents reporting their dog routinely spent time outside the home, with several reporting places with suspected high dog-to-dog contact (e.g., dog park, dog-friendly beach), very few dogs were vaccinated against either Bordetella bronchiseptica or canine influenza virus. Furthermore, 55% of the pets in this study were reported to have underlying health concerns, some of which may have negatively impacted their immunity to infectious disease and further increased their risk of severe illness following infection with canine infectious respiratory disease complex pathogens or other pathogens.
There was a difference in ages between the cats and dogs in our study; however, and as we had only 9 cat-owning respondents, we were unable to derive clear findings from this group of owners. Our preliminary work here indicated that only 3 of 9 cats had received core or “lifestyle” vaccines in the past 1 to 3 y. Another study reported a large gap between pet owner and veterinary team feelings on a follow-up plan for cats; this may partially explain the low vaccination reports in our results, as cat-owners may not feel a need to repeat vaccination beyond the primary feline visits (4). Regardless of the reason for low reported feline vaccination, this preliminary finding was concerning for feline risk of infectious disease, some of which have high human health risk implications, e.g., rabies virus.
We observed variable responses regarding pet owner infectious disease knowledge, with high awareness of Lyme disease and its tick vector (87%), compared to relatively low knowledge regarding endoparasites, (i.e., tapeworms 15%), and their vector, fleas. These findings were despite a pet owner self-reported high knowledge base surrounding infectious disease and pets (89%). This variability and disconnect in knowledge of infectious disease have been noted in other studies (4–8) and within Canada (18). Fortunately, similar to these studies (4–7,18) a high reported trust (95%) in veterinary recommendations related to infectious disease and preventive care (i.e., vaccination, parasite control) was observed in our work, together with a strong indication that many pet owners (46%), even those with adult animals, were interested in learning more about preventive care from their veterinary providers. This is potentially useful information for practitioners to target educational discussions of preventive care towards topics about which pet owners may be less knowledgeable, e.g., flea prevention, regular deworming, and to do so with the awareness that many clients want these discussions to occur, even beyond puppy- or kittenhood evaluations.
Ideally, reliable and credible sources of information would be provided and used by clients to help inform options and key needs for preventive care for pets. Similar to other work, our study determined that veterinarians (89 to 92%) remain the most influential and trusted source of information relating to preventive care topics, such as vaccination, parasite control, and nutrition, respectively (4–7,18,28). We determined that most pet owners were receiving preventive care reminders, and those who were not wanted this form of veterinary communication. Once again, this is potentially useful information for veterinary teams to allay concerns that clients are not interested in preventive care information and to increase time dedicated to educational discussions of preventive care during appointments for adult animals along with puppies and kittens.
It is clear from our work that pet owners have some concerns (29% concerned/very concerned) regarding infectious disease risks to themselves from their pets, and nearly half reported that an immunocompromised member of their household would be at a higher risk for infectious disease and zoonosis. These findings were similar to a previous Canadian study (22) that documented a comparable level of higher risk household members (52%) and a somewhat lower level of concern (7% concerned/very concerned) compared to our findings. Although pathogen testing was not available on our study animals, previous work within Atlantic Canada, on a comparable study population to ours, reported that the proportional infection of dogs and cats with endoparasites was 15% (20). Canine and feline endoparasites, including Cryptosporidium spp., Echinococcus spp., and Toxocara spp., do pose health risks to owners (24). Taken together, in our study, the low reported knowledge surrounding endoparasites, high level of concern for pet-associated zoonoses, and high proportion of higher risk household members reinforced the need and interest by the public to receive education on pet-associated zoonoses and prevention efforts, including regular preventive care.
Limitations of this work include the lack of information obtained on study population demographics and its impact on the external validity of our findings, i.e., generalizability to other regions. Participants in our study were convenience sample respondents and consisted of a mixture of AVC-VTH new appointments and reassessment clientele, visiting as: i) referrals presenting to speciality services, i.e., dermatology, internal medicine, cardiology and surgery; and ii) community (general) practice clients. As such, our findings may not reflect the “average” veterinary clinic clientele and may not be representative of a wider population. The overall advanced age of our study groups’ pets, particularly dogs, likely reflected our mixed referral/general practice clientele and may have impacted reported KAPs. Additionally, as many participants were presenting to a known student teaching and specialty (referral) care hospital and participation was voluntary, our results may have been biased by a higher-than-typical interest in educational topics discussed by their veterinarian. However, given the high response proportion we observed and the inclusion of general practice clients, the impact of this selection bias is likely limited.
We hope the results of this study will lead to improved veterinary understanding of Canadian pet owner infectious disease preventive care in order to aid communication of pet health needs, particularly those related to prevention of regional and travel-related infectious disease risks and zoonotic concerns. By identifying, understanding, and mitigating client education gaps, veterinarians will be able to more effectively communicate the importance of preventive care and continue to provide a source of trusted information to their clients, thus increasing the preventive care that pets receive and reducing risk of infectious disease to pets and humans.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge our cooperative clientele and supportive referring veterinarians in the Atlantic Canada region for their commitment to (and assistance with) our companion animal clinical research programs. CVJ
Footnotes
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office (hbroughton@cvma-acmv.org) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere.
References
- 1.Boss N, Holmstrom S, Hoyumpa A, et al. Development of the new canine and feline preventive healthcare guidelines designed to improve pet health. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2011;47:306–311. doi: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-4007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Day MJ, Horzinek MC, Schultz RD, Squires RA. Guidelines for the vaccination of dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract. 2016;57:1–45. doi: 10.1111/jsap.12431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Robinson NJ, Brennan M, Cobb ML, Dean RS. Investigating preventive-medicine consultations in first-opinion small-animal practice in the United Kingdom using direct observation. Prev Vet Med. 2016;124:69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.12.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Corrigan VK, Nappier MT, Bartl-Wilson L, Freeman M, Were SR, Tempel E. Assessing differences in understanding of companion-animal preventive care between a veterinary health care team and pet owners in a veterinary teaching hospital. J Vet Med Educ. 2019;46:56–76. doi: 10.3138/jvme.0317-035r1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Belshaw Z, Robinson NJ, Dean RS, Brennan ML. Motivators and barriers for dog and cat owners and veterinary surgeons in the United Kingdom to using preventive medicines. Prev Vet Med. 2018;154:95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.03.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Belshaw Z, Robinson NJ, Dean RS, Brennan ML. Owners and veterinary surgeons in the United Kingdom disagree about what should happen during a small animal vaccination consultation. Vet Sci. 2018;5:1–12. doi: 10.3390/vetsci5010007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Belshaw Z, Robinson NJ, Dean RS, Brennan ML. “I always feel like I have to rush . . .” Pet owner and small animal veterinary surgeons’ reflections on time during preventative healthcare consultations in the United Kingdom”. Vet Sci. 2018;5:1–11. doi: 10.3390/vetsci5010020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Pennelegion C, Drake J, Wiseman S, Wright I. Survey of UK pet owners quantifying internal parasite infection risk and deworming recommendation implications. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04086-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Shaw JR, Bonnet BN, Adams CL, Roter DL. Veterinarian-client-patient communication patterns used during clinical appointments in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006;228:714–721. doi: 10.2460/javma.228.5.714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Shaw JR, Adams CL, Bonnet BN, Larsen S, Roter DL. Veterinarian-client-patient communication during wellness appointments versus appointments related to a health problem in companion animal practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2008;233:1576–1586. doi: 10.2460/javma.233.10.1576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.American Animal Hospital Association. [Last accessed March 12, 2021];Partners for Healthy Pets. Available from: https://www.partnersforhealthypets.org.
- 12.Volk JO, Felsted KE, Thomas JG, Siren CW. Executive summary of the Bayer veterinary care usage study. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2011;238:1275–1282. doi: 10.2460/javma.238.10.1275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bayer HealthCare Animal Health. [Last accessed March 12, 2021];Bayer veterinary care usage study. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.6045&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
- 14.Ogden NH, Koffi JK, Pelcat Y, Lindsay LR. Environmental risk from Lyme disease in central and eastern Canada: A summary of recent surveillance information. Public Health Agency of Canada. CCDR. 2014;40:74–82. doi: 10.14745/ccdr.v40i05a01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Evason M, Stull J, Pearl DL, et al. Prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma spp., Ehrlichia spp. and Dirofilaria immitis in Canadian dogs, 2008 to 2015: A repeat cross-sectional study. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12:1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3299-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Alton GD, Berke O, Reid-Smith R, Ojkić D, Prescott JF. Increase in seroprevalence of canine leptospirosis and its risk factors, Ontario 1998–2006. Can J Vet Res. 2009;73:167–175. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Bourassi E, Savidge C, Foley P. Serologic and urinary survey of exposure to leptospirosis in a feral cat population of Prince Edward Island. 2019 ACVIM Forum; June 6 to 9; Phoenix, Arizona. [Last accessed March 12, 2021]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jvim.15597. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Evason M, Stull J, Clancey N, Weese JS. Vector-borne pathogen and Leptospira spp. antibodies in Atlantic Canada dogs: The Canadian K9 lifetime study. 2019 ACVIM Forum; June 6 to 9; Phoenix Arizona. [Last accessed March 12, 2021]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jvim.15597. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Evason M, Szlosek D, Weese JS, Stull JW. Canine leptospirosis in Canada, test-positive prevalence and risk factors 2009–2018. J Vet Intern Med. 2020 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270313. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Morandia B, Greenwood SJ, Conboy GA, Galuppi R, Poglayen G, VanLeeuwen J. Endoparasites in dogs and cats diagnosed at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital (VTH) of the University of Prince Edward Island between 2000 and 2017. A large-scale retrospective study. Prev Vet Med. 2020;175:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Stull JW, Kasten JI, Evason M, et al. Risk reduction and management strategies to prevent transmission of infectious disease among dogs at dog shows, sporting events, and other canine group settings. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2016;249:612–627. doi: 10.2460/javma.249.6.612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Stull JW, Peregrine AS, Sargeant JM, Weese JS. Household knowledge, attitudes and practices related to pet contact and associated zoonoses in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:553. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bowser NH, Anderson NE. Dogs (Canis familiaris) as sentinels for human infectious disease and application to Canadian populations: A systematic review. Vet Sci. 2018;5:1–24. doi: 10.3390/vetsci5040083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Stull JW, Brophy J, Weese JS. Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections. CMAJ. 2015;187:736–743. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.141020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lyme Disease Risk Maps. Public Health Canada; [Last accessed March 12, 2021]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/risk-lyme-disease.html#map. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lee HS, Levine M, Guptill-Yoran C, Johnson AJ, von Kamecke P, Moore GE. Regional and temporal variations of Leptospira seropositivity in dogs in the United States, 2000–2010. J Vet Intern Med. 2014;28:779–788. doi: 10.1111/jvim.12335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Smith AM, Gonçalves AA, Evason MD, et al. A cross-sectional study of environmental, dog, and human-related risk factors for positive canine leptospirosis PCR test results in the United States, 2009 to 2016. BMC Vet Res. 2019;15:412. doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-2148-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Evason M, Peace M, Munguia GG, Stull J. Clients’ knowledge, attitudes and practices related to pet nutrition and exercise at a teaching hospital. Can Vet J. 2020;61:512–516. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]