Perceptions of Evidence in the Veterinary Medicine of Pets

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Veterinary medicine for small domestic animals (SDA) in Russia began its development in the 1990s and is currently undergoing professional formation, engaging in a dialogue with traditional agricultural veterinary medicine. Over the last decade, the evidence-based approach has been actively developing as a foundation for making informed decisions in various aspects of professional practice. SDA veterinary medicine, as a relatively young and emerging professional field within the conservative profession of veterinary medicine, is facing a legitimacy crisis. This crisis is related to the lack of specialized education in the pathology of dogs and cats, as well as the absence of treatment protocols for SDA approved by the professional community and the state. The evidence-based approach is the foundation of modern medicine and serves as a method of legitimizing SDA veterinary practice. It addresses the needs of the primary stakeholders: colleagues, government regulators in case of disputes, and animal owners as service consumers.

About the authors

Yakov Ivanovich Shcheglov

European University at St. Petersburg; Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy

Email: yschglv@gmail.com
MA, Researcher, The Institute for Interdisciplinary Health Research Professor, European University at St. Petersburg; Junior Researcher, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy St. Petersburg, Russia; Moscow, Russia

Zhanna Vladimirovna Chernova

Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy; Sociological Institute of RAS — Branch of the FCTAS RAS

Email: chernova30@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 1080-4280
Doctor of Sociology, Leading Researcher, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy; Leading Researcher, Sociological Institute of RAS — Branch of the FCTAS RAS Moscow, Russia; St. Petersburg, Russia

References

  1. Абрамов Р.Н. Историко-теоретический анализ форм профессионального знания: фронезис и подразумеваемое знание // Вторые Давыдовские чтения. М.: Институт социологии РАН, 2014 С. 308–332. EDN: SWSXGR
  2. Вахштайн В.С. Резидентность как фактор социальной стратификации // Экономическая социология. 2003. Т. 4. №. 3. С. 120–135. EDN: OYUYST
  3. Губа К.С., Семенов А.В. В центре внимания или в центрах внимания? Анализ системы авторитетов локального академического сообщества // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2010. Т. 13. №. 3. С. 133–154. EDN: NCFHON
  4. Соколов М.М., Титаев К.Д. Провинциальная и туземная наука // Антропологический форум. 2013. № 19. С. 239–275. EDN: SWNIWB
  5. Чернова Ж.В., Шпаковская Л.Л. Профессионализация родительства: между экспертным и обыденным знанием // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2016. Т. 14. №. 4. С. 521–534. EDN: XHFLVH
  6. Щеглов Я.И. Влияние структуры организационного поля ветеринарной медицины мелких домашних животных на процессы профессионализации ветеринарных врачей // Социология власти. 2022. Т. 34. № 3–4. С. 247–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2022-4-247-273 EDN: JLDRPC
  7. Эттингер А.П., Жарова М.Е. Что такое доказательная медицина? // Доказательная гастроэнтерология. 2021. Т. 10. № 1. С. 38–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17116/dokgastro20211001138 EDN: WDYYQS
  8. Becker H.S. (2017) Evidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Chalmers I., Haynes B. (1994) Systematic Reviews: Reporting, Updating, and Correcting Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care. Bmj. Vol. 309. No. 6958. P. 862–865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6958.862
  10. Chalmers I. (1993) The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 703. P. 156–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26345.x
  11. Braun V., Clarke V. (2012) Thematic Analysis. Washington: American Psychological Association.
  12. Connor L. et al. (2023) Evidence-Based Practice Improves Patient Outcomes and Healthcare System Return on Investment: Findings from a Scoping Review. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing. Vol. 20. No. 1. С. 6–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12621
  13. DiMaggio P.J. et al. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review. Vol. 48. No. 2. С. 147–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1
  14. Djulbegovic B., Guyatt G.H. (2017) Progress in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Quarter Century on. The Lancet. Vol. 390. No. 10092. С. 415–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31592-6
  15. Flick U. (ed.). (2013) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Dorchester: The Dorset Press.
  16. Given L. (2006) Qualitative Research in Evidence-Based Practice: A Valuable Partnership. Library Hi Tech. Vol. 24. No. 3. С. 376–386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692145
  17. Greenhalgh T. (2002) Integrating Qualitative Research into Evidence Based Practice. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics. Vol. 31. No. 3. P. 583–601. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-8529(02)00009-9
  18. Kozleski E.B. (2017) The Uses of Qualitative Research: Powerful Methods to Inform Evidence-Based Practice in Education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. Vol. 42. No. 1. P. 19–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916683710
  19. LoBiondo-Wood G., Haber J. (2021) Nursing Research E-Book: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences.
  20. Meskell L., Pels P. (2020) Embedding Ethics. London: Routledge. P. 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003085249
  21. Stunnenberg B.C. et al. (2020) N-of-1 Trials: Evidence-Based Clinical Care or Medical Research that Requires IRB Approval? A Practical Flowchart Based on an Ethical Framework. Healthcare. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 1–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010049
  22. Tracy S.J. (2010) Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol. 16. No. 10. P. 837–851. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Канал журнала в Telegram: t.me/inter0000

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).