[Vaccination - yes or no? What reasons influence the vaccination decision of dog owners? - A survey of responses from private dog owners, breeders and veterinarians]. / Impfen ­ ja oder nein? Wodurch wird die Impfentscheidung von Hundehaltern beeinflusst?

OBJECTIVE: Dogs are important companions in many people's lives. This high priority leads to differentiated considerations regarding the health care of the animal, also with regard to vaccinations. In this study, reasons for the vaccination decision of private dog owners and breeders as well as possible influencing factors were analyzed and compared with the information provided by the participating veterinarians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1480 private dog owners, 349 breeders, and 365 veterinarians participated in this survey, which was conducted exclusively online using the LimeSurvey software. Absolute and percentage frequencies, mean values and standard deviations were analyzed based on the information provided by dog owners and veterinarians. A Mann Whitney test was used to compare the change in vaccination behavior between private dog owners and breeders. RESULTS: A total of 98 % of participants in this study classified their dog as a family member. The evaluation of reasons that influence the vaccination decision of dog owners showed that anxieties and a sense of responsibility play a greater role for dog owners than external circumstances. However, from the point of view of the participating veterinarians, financial aspects and requirements of third parties such as dog schools or boarding houses possess a stronger influence on the vaccination decision than dog owners stated. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The evaluation of the vaccination motives of dog owners revealed results similar to the information provided in parental vaccination decisions. The comparison between statements of the interviewed veterinarians and accounts by the dog owners shows a clear need for communication and education for vaccinations in veterinary practice. Already established strategies from human medicine may also be used for this purpose in veterinary practice and should be developed for veterinary medicine in the future.

What influence do vets have on vaccination decision of dog owners? Results of an online survey.

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to analyse the influence of veterinary advice as well as other sources of information on vaccination decision of dog owners. METHODS: A total of 1480 dog owners participated in this exclusively online conducted survey. Mean comparisons and correlation analyses were performed to check bivariate relationships between general data from the dogs, the dog owners, the vaccination decision making and risk/benefit analyses. RESULTS: The results confirm that veterinarians are the most important source of information on vaccination for dog owners. Nevertheless, the World Wide Web including social media has also to be taken into consideration as a strongly influencing factor. Additionally, the availability of serious information about vaccinations on the internet and on social media has to be reconsidered in general by the veterinarian professional sector. CONCLUSIONS: Veterinarians should be aware of their significant influence on the owner's decision about vaccination and use this knowledge in a targeted way to achieve a high vaccination rate in order to ensure effective herd immunity. Communication strategies for veterinarians to improve information transfer to dog owners are required.

Incidence of bovine neonatal pancytopenia in 243 farms in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Several research groups from different European countries have worked on the aetiopathogenesis of bovine neonatal pancytopenia (BNP) and an association between the use of the vaccine PregSure BVD (Pfizer, Germany) and the development of this haemorrhagic disease was confirmed. Because BNP is not a notifiable disease, it is difficult to obtain information on its incidence. Based on pharmacovigilance (PhV) data, which are the only officially available data at the national level, the incidence of BNP is considered low. However, voluntary reporting of the disease can lead to underreporting. To gain more insight into the incidence of BNP among the affected herds, an epidemiological study was performed, which focused on 243 farms in Germany with cases of BNP. Farmers were asked to report the occurrence of BNP, including the number of cases, which allowed calculation of incidence in the affected herds. Matching such data with the registered cases in the National PhV System (NPhVS) gave us an opportunity to assess the extent of BNP underreporting. RESULTS: On 243 farms, a total of 1195 calves younger than 4 weeks with haemorrhagic diathesis were registered. In 58 % of the reports, a diagnosis of BNP was confirmed by blood analysis and or by necropsy. The number of cases observed on individual farms ranged from 1 to 80. Based on these results, the incidence of BNP on affected farms ranged from 0.3 to 15.2 % (median 2.9 %). The maximal incidence in the year with the highest number of BNP calves ranged between 0.4 and 18.6 % (median 3.3 %). Comparing the number of cases registered in the NPhVS to the numbers found in this study revealed considerable underreporting to the national database: only 44 % of the farms and 41 % of the BNP calves included in the study were registered in the NPhVS. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the opportunity to report BNP calves to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (Langen, Germany), the estimated number of undetected BNP cases is remarkably high. However, even if the revealed substantial underreporting is taken into account, the incidence of BNP is low. Nevertheless, the incidence on some affected farms is very high, resulting in considerable financial losses that should not be underestimated. Although the exact pathomechanism of BNP at the molecular level is still not known, its incidence is clearly declining following withdrawal of PregSure BVD from the market.