ArticlePloS one2025
Risk factors for, metrics of, and consequences of access to veterinary care for companion animals: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring the accessibility of veterinary care for companion animals in England and Wales.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Article
- Correction: Risk factors for, metrics of, and consequences of access to veterinary care for companion animals: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Barriers to the delivery of contextualised care in UK small animal veterinary practice.Veterinary evidenceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBarriers to accessing veterinary care can be challenging for companion-animal caregivers and may lead to preventable health conditions or even death of pets.
objectivesWe 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). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: 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. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: 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. CHARTING
methodsRisk factors were categorized and mapped to the five dimensions of access to care. An evidence gap map was created using the risk factor studies.
resultsFifty-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.
conclusionsConsensus 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.
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.