Table 7.
VHHM: Satisfaction with VHHM/scope of VHHM and importance of VHHM subjects.
| Satisfaction with VHHM [1 = very good −5 = insufficient] | |||||||
| n | 25% | Mean | Median | 75% | SD | Shapiro wilk | |
| Statistics | Sig. | ||||||
| 98 | 1.80 | 2.18 | 2.13 | 2.42 | 0.48 | 0.97 | 0.013 |
| Correlation | n | r (rP = Pearson; rS = Spearman−Rho) | p-value | ||||
| Scope of VHHM [0–100%] | 73 | rP −0.477 | <0.001 | ||||
| Satisfaction with veterinarian [1 = very good −5 = insufficient] | 98 | rS 0.576 | <0.001 | ||||
| Decision making with veterinarian [1 = never −5 = always] | 98 | rS −0.402 | <0.001 | ||||
| Herd visit (in-)dependent of curative visit [1 = yes/2 = no] | 98 | rS 0.367 | <0.001 | ||||
| Financial added value [1 = fully applicable −5 = not applicable at all] | 85 | rS 0.563 | <0.001 | ||||
| Participation if VHHM fee is increased by 10% [1 = yes; 2 = yes, but reduced hours; 3 = no] | 75 | rS 0.266 | 0.021 | ||||
| Scope of VHHM [0–100%] | |||||||
| n | 25% | Mean | Median | 75% | SD | Shapiro wilk | |
| Statistics | Sig. | ||||||
| 68 | 21.02% | 36.41% | 33.33% | 51.02% | 19.76% | 0.953 | 0.008 |
| Correlation | n | r (rP = Pearson; rS = Spearman−Rho) | p-value | ||||
| Satisfaction with veterinarian [1 = very good −5 = insufficient] | 73 | rS −0.320 | 0.006 | ||||
| Decision-making with veterinarian [1 = never −5 = always] | 73 | rS 0.366 | 0.002 | ||||
| Herd visit (in-)dependent of curative visit [1 = yes/2 = no] | 73 | rS −0.363 | 0.002 | ||||
| Recording of the current state and setting goals [1 = yes/2 = no] | 73 | rS −0.583 | <0.001 | ||||
| Setting written goals [1 = yes/2 = no] | 73 | rS −0.369 | 0.001 | ||||
| Establishing a cost-benefit analyses [1 = yes/2 = no] | 73 | rS 0.494 | <0.001 | ||||
| Financial added value [1 = fully applicable −5 = not applicable at all] | 73 | rS −0.416 | <0.001 | ||||
| Participation if VHHM fee is increased by 10% [1 = yes; 2 = yes, but reduced hours; 3 = no] | 73 | rS −0.232 | 0.049 | ||||
| Farm size (number of animals lactating/dry) | 73 | rP 0.051 | 0.671 | ||||
| Ranking: Importance of VHHM subjects (n = 73) | Rank | Mean | |||||
| Fertility | 1 | 1.40 | |||||
| Udder health | 2 | 1.81 | |||||
| Claw health | 3 | 2.79 | |||||
| Young stock health | 4 | 2.97 | |||||
| Animal welfare | 5 | 3.03 | |||||
| Nutrition | 6 | 3.07 | |||||
| Herd data | 7 | 3.33 | |||||
| Biosecurity | 8 | 3.56 | |||||
| Farm economics | 9 | 3.78 | |||||
| Facilities | 10 | 3.90 | |||||
| Staff management/training | 11 | 4.05 | |||||