Risk factors for, metrics of, and consequences of access to veterinary care for companion animals: A scoping review.
Abstract: Barriers to accessing veterinary care can be challenging for companion-animal caregivers and may lead to preventable health conditions or even death of pets. Objective: We conducted a scoping review to: 1) catalog the definitions of access to veterinary care (A2VC) used by researchers, 2) identify risk factors for and consequences of A2VC, and 3) map the risk factors onto dimensions of access to care (affordability, availability, accessibility, accommodation, acceptability). Methods: Primary research on companion animals not involved in commercial enterprises (e.g., horse racing) examining consequences of and/or risk factors for A2VC for which the full text was available in English. Methods: PubMed (1996-6 July 2023) and CAB Abstracts (1973-13 July 2023, Web of ScienceTM) were searched. Additionally, a topic expert (KM) identified relevant references. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts of potentially relevant references. Forward and backward citation searches were also conducted on all eligible studies using Citation Chaser. Methods: Risk factors were categorized and mapped to the five dimensions of access to care. An evidence gap map was created using the risk factor studies. Results: Fifty-one references describing fifty-two relevant studies were included. Forty-one studied risk factors associated with A2VC, and twelve studied consequences of A2VC. (One study examined both risk factors and consequences.) The majority of risk factors examined were demographic. The majority of outcomes measured were pet-centric. No relevant studies focused on pet horses, representing a gap in the literature. Conclusions: Consensus needs to be reached on how A2VC is defined and measured to help reduce research wastage and strengthen impact of future studies on improving A2VC. Future studies of risk factors for A2VC should focus on creating a risk-mapping framework specific for A2VC, distinguishing factors that are susceptible to change and those which are not.
Copyright: © 2025 O’Connor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Publication Date: 2025-05-30 PubMed ID: 40446001PubMed Central: PMC12124545DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325455Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
- Journal Article
- Scoping Review
Summary
This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.
The research article focuses on the challenges faced by pet owners in accessing veterinary care (A2VC) due to various factors and the impacts of these challenges on pet health. The study aims to identify and examine these risk factors and consequences with the goal of improving A2VC.
Article Overview
In the scoping review, the authors attempted to:
- Define A2VC as used by various researchers
- Identify the risk factors and the consequences of A2VC
- Map these risk factors to the five dimensions of access to care namely; affordability, availability, accessibility, accommodation, and acceptability.
Methods Employed
Primary research was carried out on companion animals not involved in commercial enterprises. The study considered articles available in full text and in English. Research databases like PubMed and CAB Abstracts were scoured for this purpose, and a topic expert also provided relevant references. Titles, abstracts and full texts of potential references were screened independently by two reviewers. To further ensure completeness, both forward and backward citation searches were conducted on all eligible studies.
Results and Findings
In total, fifty-two relevant studies from fifty-one references were included. Forty-one of these studies explored risk factors associated with A2VC, and twelve studied the consequences of A2VC. The researchers found that the majority of risk factors were demographic, while most outcomes measured were centred around the pet. The study also highlighted an evident gap in the literature, as no relevant studies focused on pet horses.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The study concluded by stressing the need for a consensus on how A2VC is defined and measured in order to reduce research wastage and enhance the impact of future studies. It also recommended that future research on A2VC risk factors should aim to develop a risk-mapping framework specific to A2VC, distinguishing between factors that can be changed and those that cannot.
Cite This Article
APA
O'Connor A, Totton SC, Hernandez M, Meyers E, Meyers K, Abreu HM, Spofford N, Morrison J.
(2025).
Risk factors for, metrics of, and consequences of access to veterinary care for companion animals: A scoping review.
PLoS One, 20(5), e0325455.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325455 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
- Private Consultant, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
- Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
- Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
- Michigan State University Veterinary Medical Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
- Michigan State University Veterinary Medical Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
- Mars Veterinary Health, Vancouver, Washington, United States of Amierica.
- Mars Veterinary Health, Vancouver, Washington, United States of Amierica.
MeSH Terms
- Animals
- Pets
- Risk Factors
- Veterinary Medicine
- Humans
- Health Services Accessibility
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
References
This article includes 23 references
- Jain B, Syed S, Hafford-Letchfield T, O’Farrell-Pearce S. Dog-assisted interventions and outcomes for older adults in residential long-term care facilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. Int J Older People Nurs 2020;15(3):e12320.
- Purewal R, Christley R, Kordas K, Joinson C, Meints K, Gee N. Companion Animals and Child/Adolescent Development: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017;14(3):234.
- Williams CYK, Townson AT, Kapur M, Ferreira AF, Nunn R, Galante J. Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness during COVID-19 physical distancing measures: A rapid systematic review.. PLoS One 2021;16(2):e0247139.
- Lem M. Barriers to accessible veterinary care.. Can Vet J 2019;60(8):891–3.
- Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction.. Med Care 1981;19(2):127–40.
- McLaughlin CG, Wyszewianski L. Access to care: remembering old lessons.. Health Serv Res 2002;37(6):1441–3.
- American Veterinary Medical Association [Internet]. Schaumburg: AVMA; [cited 2024 March 15]. Diversity, equity, and inclusion in veterinary medicine; [about 2 screens]. Available from: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/diversity-and-inclusion-veterinary-medicine#:~:text=AVMA%20and%20the%20American%20Association,actionable%20goals%20with%20defined%20timeframes
- Neal SM, Greenberg MJ. Putting Access to Veterinary Care on the Map: A Veterinary Care Accessibility Index.. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:857644.
- Friedman E, Krause-Parello CA. Companion animals and human health: benefits, challenges, and the road ahead for human-animal interaction.. Rev Sci Tech 2018;37(1):71–82.
- Chur-Hansen A, Stern C, Winefield H. Gaps in the evidence about companion animals and human health: some suggestions for progress.. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2010;8(3):140–6.
- Berrada M, Ndiaye Y, Raboisson D, Lhermie G. Spatial evaluation of animal health care accessibility and veterinary shortage in France.. Sci Rep 2022;12(1):13022.
- Bergia F, Fortin M-È, Patry J. Linking animal health to human health by establishing veterinary services within a community health clinic: Overall health of marginalized people.. Can Fam Physician 2022;68(7):485–6.
- Baker T, Rock M, Brook R, van der Meer F, Kutz S. Indigenous community perspectives on dogs in Northern Canada after 10 years of veterinary services indicates improved animal and human welfare.. Prev Vet Med 2020;181:105061.
- Dzikamunhenga RS, Anthony R, Coetzee J, Gould S, Johnson A, Karriker L. Pain management in the neonatal piglet during routine management procedures. Part 1: a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized intervention studies.. Anim Health Res Rev 2014;15(1):14–38.
- Sargeant JM, O’Connor AM, LeBlanc SJ, Winder CB. Invited review: Maximizing value and minimizing waste in clinical trial research in dairy cattle: Selecting interventions and outcomes to build an evidence base.. J Dairy Sci 2022;105(11):8594–608.
- Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18(1):143.
- Roberts C, Woodsworth J, Carlson K, Reeves T, Epp T. Defining the term “underserved:” A scoping review towards a standardized description of inadequate access to veterinary services.. Can Vet J 2023;64(10):941–50.
- Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.. Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467–73.
- Thomas J, Graziosi S, Brunton J, Ghouze Z, O’Driscoll P, Bond M. Version 4 [software]. EPPI-Reviewer: advanced software for systematic reviews, maps and evidence synthesis.. EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London. 2023. [cited 5 Dec 2023].
- Digital Solution Foundry, EPPI Centre. EPPI-Mapper. Version 2.2.4.. EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London. 2023. [cited 6 Dec 2023].
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.. BMJ 2021;372:n71.
- Belshaw Z, Robinson NJ, Dean RS, Brennan ML. Motivators and barriers for dog and cat owners and veterinary surgeons in the United Kingdom to using preventative medicines.. Prev Vet Med 2018;154:95–101.
- Evason M, McGrath M, Stull J. Companion animal preventive care at a veterinary teaching hospital - Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of clients.. Can Vet J 2021;62(5):484–90.
Citations
This article has been cited 0 times.Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
