|
a Responses to the owner questionnaire, categorical answers. |
|||
| Question |
Category |
Number |
% |
|
|
|||
| 1) Opinions on the dog and family members related to radiation treatment (RT). |
|||
| How did I learn about RT as an available treatment option for my dog |
Advice of my primary vet |
20 |
87 |
| Second opinion of another veterinarian |
2 |
9 |
|
| Trough media/internet |
1 |
4 |
|
| I had previous knowledge about RT in humans |
Yes |
9 |
39 |
| No |
14 |
61 |
|
| How did I decide to use RT for my dog? |
My own decision |
6 |
26 |
| Consensus of family members in favor |
17 |
74 |
|
| Family disagreed |
0 |
0 |
|
| My dog had veterinary care insurance that covered most of the cost for RT |
Yes |
9 |
39 |
| No |
14 |
61 |
|
| 2a) Describe your impression of the well-being of your dog during the weeks while RT was performed |
|||
| My dog appeared well during the time of treatment |
Yes, very well |
15 |
65 |
| Yes, fairly well |
8 |
35 |
|
| Did not appear well |
0 |
0 |
|
| My dog found it unpleasant to visit the hospital |
Yes |
3 |
13 |
| Yes a little |
11 |
48 |
|
| No |
9 |
39 |
|
| My dog appeared tired during the treatment |
Yes |
5 |
22 |
| Yes a little |
6 |
26 |
|
| Not tired |
12 |
52 |
|
| Did I notice a change in the dog's quality of life? |
No Impact |
19 |
83 |
| Positive impact |
3 |
13 |
|
| Negative impact |
1 |
4 |
|
| 2b) Describe what happened during the 4 weeks following completion of RT. (This is when acute skin and/or mucosal effects occur and heal). |
|||
| My dog appeared well during these weeks |
Yes, very well |
14 |
61 |
| Yes, well |
6 |
26 |
|
| No, not well |
3 |
13 |
|
| My dog experienced discomfort in the radiation field |
Yes severe |
5 |
22 |
| Yes, minor |
10 |
44 |
|
| No discomfort seen |
8 |
35 |
|
| My dog was in pain during these Weeks |
Yes, severe |
3 |
13 |
| Yes, modest |
6 |
26 |
|
| No |
14 |
61 |
|
| My dog experienced side effects |
Yes, severe |
5 |
22 |
| Yes, minor |
10 |
44 |
|
| No |
8 |
35 |
|
| During post treatment, did the quality of life of the dog seem different? |
No impact |
15 |
65 |
| Positive impact |
5 |
22 |
|
| Negative impact |
3 |
13 |
|
|
|
|||
| b Responses to owner questionnaire, categorical answers. |
|||
|
|
|||
| Question |
Category |
Number |
% |
|
|
|||
| 3) Describe your own perception or personal experience from when your dog had RT: |
|||
| I believe that RT cured my dog's cancer |
Yes |
9 |
39 |
| No |
11 |
48 |
|
| Can't decide |
2 |
9 |
|
| I believe that RT does prolong life until tumour related discomfort occur |
Yes |
21 |
91 |
| No |
2 |
9 |
|
| My dog's clinical signs disappeared because of RT: (limited to 14 dogs with gross disease) |
Yes, completely (n = 14) |
5 |
36 |
| Yes, in part (n = 14) |
4 |
29 |
|
| No (n = 14) |
5 |
36 |
|
| NAa (subclinical disease) (n = 23) |
9 |
39 |
|
| I believe I was adequately informed about the RT before starting RT |
Yes |
22 |
96 |
| No |
1 |
4 |
|
| The information was consistent with the outcome for the dog |
Yes |
21 |
91 |
| No |
2 |
9 |
|
| The information agreed with what I experienced |
Yes |
22 |
96 |
| No |
1 |
4 |
|
| My dog experienced more severe side effects than I expected |
Yes |
5 |
22 |
| No |
18 |
78 |
|
| My dog experienced fewer side effects than I expected |
Yes |
14 |
61 |
| No |
9 |
39 |
|
| I was well informed how to care for side effects |
Yes |
19 |
83 |
| No |
0 |
0 |
|
| NA |
4 |
17 |
|
| Management of side effects was effective |
Yes |
10 |
43 |
| Yes in part |
5 |
22 |
|
| No |
0 |
0 |
|
| NA |
8 |
35 |
|
| 4) Describe the level of satisfaction with RT in your dog. |
|||
| RT was worth my commitment in time, travel, caring for the dog at home etc. |
Yes |
23 |
100 |
| No |
0 |
0 |
|
| Subjecting my dog to RT was worth my financial cost |
Yes |
22 |
96 |
| No |
1 |
4 |
|
| I consider that the discomfort to my dog due to RT was worth the gain |
Yes |
23 |
100 |
| No |
0 |
0 |
|
| I would use RT again in a similar situation with another dog. |
Yes |
22 |
96 |
| No |
0 |
0 |
|
| Missing |
1 |
4 |
|
|
a NA- not applicable | |||
Denneberg and Egenvall Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2009 51:19 doi:10.1186/1751-0147-51-19 |
|||