ArticleThe Veterinary record2025
How do accessible veterinary care providers evaluate programmes and engage communities? Results of a qualitative analysis of Canadian service providers.
Article in The Veterinary record, 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
Abstract
backgroundA growing number of organisations are working to address barriers to accessing veterinary care. There is limited knowledge about how such programmes develop, evolve over time to meet community needs, and how clients and communities are engaged in programme design or evaluation of impacts. Without community-engaged evaluation, programmes cannot determine the effectiveness, potential harms or broader impacts of their services.
methodsThree focus groups and four interviews were conducted with a total of 18 accessible veterinary care providers in Canada. Transcripts were qualitatively analysed using a priori and emergent double content coding in NVivo 14.
resultsThirty-three subcodes were identified across five code categories: (1) programme initiation, (2) programme evolution, (3) evaluating success, (4) ideal programme evaluation, and (5) community engagement. Participant's organisations showed large diversity in programme initiation, evolution, evaluation and community participation, reflecting the complexity of access to care and presenting an opportunity for inter-organisational knowledge sharing. Concerns about ethical community engagement, funder reporting requirements, and limited knowledge and resources hinder animal healthcare organisations' ability to effectively engage in community-based evaluation. LIMITATIONS: Potential limitations of this study include small sample size, self-selection bias, limited geographical representation, and power dynamics which can influence responses within interviews and focus groups.
conclusionThis study contributes to the limited literature on the development and evaluation of accessible animal healthcare care programmes in a Canadian context, and from service providers' perspectives.
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.