In veterinary practice, we often focus on what we recommend – vaccinations, parasite control, diagnostics. But how much time do most of us spend thinking about the impact of how we frame those recommendations?
Two statements can contain exactly the same clinical information, yet land very differently with a client.
“Vaccines protect your pet.”
Vs.
“Without vaccines, your pet is at risk of serious diseases.”
Both are true, but they trigger slightly different responses in the brain.
Understanding the impact that message framing has can help veterinary teams guide better decisions and improve uptake of recommendations.
Small shifts really can create big impacts.
Our brains don’t process information neutrally
Humans like to think we make decisions logically. In reality, the brain uses shortcuts to interpret information quickly.
One of those shortcuts relates to framing – whether information is presented in terms of gains or potential losses.
Research shows that people often tend to be more motivated to avoid losses than to pursue equivalent gains, a phenomenon known as loss aversion.¹
In healthcare communication, framing has also been shown to influence how people respond to medical advice - but not always in the same way.
Broadly speaking:
- Loss-framed messages (highlighting risks or what could go wrong) tend to be more effective for behaviours like screening or disease detection, where the potential problem feels real and immediate
- Gain-framed messages (highlighting benefits) tend to work well for everyday preventive behaviours, like improving diet or increasing exercise²,³
One way to think about this is:
When a risk feels real and tangible, making that risk visible can strengthen motivation.
When a behaviour is about maintaining health over time, emphasising the benefits often lands better.
Of course, these aren’t rigid rules. Context matters - including the client, the situation, and how the information is delivered.
But the key takeaway is simple:
The frame we choose shapes what the client notices, and what they act on.
Why this matters in veterinary practice
In veterinary conversations, we’re often dealing with preventive care that also carries meaningful risk if missed – like vaccinations.
That means relying on a single frame can sometimes limit how clearly the message lands.
Let’s go back to the example we just highlighted:
“Vaccines protect your pet.”
Vs.
“Without vaccines, your pet is at risk of serious diseases.”
Both are valid. But they highlight different aspects of the same decision.
In many cases, the most effective approach is to combine frames – helping clients understand both the benefit of acting and the risk of not acting.
This helps clients fully appreciate what’s at stake, so they can understand not just what the intervention does, but also why it matters.
Should we frame things deliberately?
Framing is simply about communicating the full meaning of a recommendation clearly and in a way the brain can easily process.
In practice, that often means:
- Linking the recommendation to something the client values
- Making risks visible, not just benefits
- Explaining the why, not just the what
When we do that well, clients are better equipped to make informed decisions.
A small shift with a big impact
Veterinary teams already give great advice.
Often the difference between average uptake and strong uptake isn’t the science behind the recommendation. It’s how it’s explained – the way it’s framed.
A small shift in wording can help clients see not just what an intervention will do, but also the problem it helps avoid and why that matters for their animal.
Those small moments take seconds, but across hundreds of conversations, they shape better outcomes for animals, clients and practices alike.
If you’d like to find out more about how we can help your team use small shifts to create big impacts, get in touch.
References
- Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica. 1979.
- Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2012.
O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviours. Journal of Health Communication. 2007.
