Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38304544›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Access to veterinary care: evaluating working definitions, barriers, and implications for animal welfare.

Kayla Pasteur, Alessia Diana, Jane Kinkus Yatcilla, Shanis Barnard, Candace C Croney

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kayla PasteurDepartment of Comparative Pathobiology, Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
Alessia DianaDepartment of Comparative Pathobiology, Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
Jane Kinkus YatcillaPurdue University Libraries, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
Shanis BarnardDepartment of Comparative Pathobiology, Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
Candace C CroneyCenter for Animal Welfare Science, Departments of Comparative Pathobiology and Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans have a moral obligation to meet the physical and mental needs of the animals in their care. This requires access to resources such as veterinary care, which is integral to achieving animal welfare. However, "access" to veterinary care is not always homogenous across communities and currently lacks a consistent definition. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) understand how "access" to veterinary care has been defined in the literature, (2) map a broad list of potential barriers that may influence access to veterinary care, and (3) identify how access to care impacts the welfare of companion and livestock animals. The literature search yielded a total of 1,044 publications, 77 of which were relevant to our inclusion criteria, and were published between 2002 and 2022. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United States (

Indexed as

animal health servicescompanion animalsdemographicslivestock animalsresourcesstakeholderswell-being

Identifiers

PMID38304544
PMCPMC10830634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.