ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Rural-urban differences in the economic contributions of veterinary practices across 10 states.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Quantify and compare the economic contributions of veterinary services across rural and urban counties in 10 U.S. states, and assess whether rural status is associated with higher veterinary economic intensity. Methods: We conducted a county-level economic contribution analysis of veterinary services using 2023 IMPLAN data. For each county, we extracted direct employment and output and calculated total effects (direct + indirect + induced) and multipliers. Counties were classified by rural-urban status, and log-linear OLS models estimated employment and output per veterinary establishment per 1,000 residents, controlling for county poverty and unemployment rates and state effects. Results: Across the sample, veterinary services generated 75,438 direct jobs and 97,912.70 total jobs, and $7.20B in direct output and $11.94B in total output. Rural counties accounted for 8,010 direct jobs and $706.90M in direct output vs. 67,428 direct jobs and $6,489.58M in urban counties. Employment multipliers ranged from 1.25 to 1.38 and output multipliers from 1.57 to 1.70. In regression models, rural status was positively associated with higher employment intensity and output intensity. Conclusion: Veterinary services generate substantial local economic activity with meaningful spillovers. Although urban counties dominate in total scale, rural counties show higher standardized intensity, supporting continued policy initiatives that target rural workforce recruitment and retention.
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.