ArticleVeterinary sciences2025
Promoters and Detractors Identify Virtual Care as "Worlds Better than Nothing": A Qualitative Study of Participating Veterinarians' Perception of Virtual Care as a Tool for Providing Access.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Veterinary virtual care holds the potential to alleviate some barriers to accessing care, yet concerns within the profession exist. Understanding veterinarians' perspectives and identifying the potential opportunities and challenges that virtual care poses for access to veterinary care are thus needed. (2) Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually with 22 companion-animal veterinarians practicing across Canada and the United States. Interviews were accompanied by an electronic survey, with which a Net Promoter Score (NPS) was calculated for each participant. Using their NPS, participants were categorized as a "promoter" or "detractor", with respect to their perspective on veterinary virtual care. A thematic analysis was conducted on verbatim transcripts of the interviews. (3) Results: A total of 11 detractors and 11 promoters were interviewed. Four subthemes were identified, including the following: (1) there are limitations to virtual care, (2) virtual care plays a role in access to care, (3) "virtual care is better than no care" and (4) virtual care offers specific value in supplementing in-person care. (4) Conclusion: When no other option for care delivery exists, virtual care was viewed as a way to increase access to veterinary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.