• How do accessible veterinary c...

*Result*: How do accessible veterinary care providers evaluate programmes and engage communities? Results of a qualitative analysis of Canadian service providers.

Title:
How do accessible veterinary care providers evaluate programmes and engage communities? Results of a qualitative analysis of Canadian service providers.
Authors:
Rausch Q; Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada., Geddes N; Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada., Liao TP; Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada., Van Patter L; Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.
Source:
The Veterinary record [Vet Rec] 2026 Jan/Jul 31; Vol. 198 (3), pp. e115-e124. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Dec 02.
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0031164 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2042-7670 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00424900 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Vet Rec Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: 2021- : [Oxford] : Wiley
Original Publication: -June 2009 : London : British Veterinary Medicine
MeSH Terms:
Veterinary Medicine*/organization & administration , Veterinarians*/psychology , Health Services Accessibility* , Program Evaluation* , Community Participation*, Canada ; Humans ; Qualitative Research ; Focus Groups ; Animals ; Female ; Male
References:
Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 14;7:17. (PMID: 22417162)
BMC Public Health. 2020 Apr 16;20(1):508. (PMID: 32299398)
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Aug 9;20(1):88. (PMID: 35945538)
Trends Cogn Sci. 2024 Dec;28(12):1089-1104. (PMID: 39322489)
Front Vet Sci. 2024 Jan 18;11:1335410. (PMID: 38304544)
Front Vet Sci. 2025 May 30;12:1581316. (PMID: 40520429)
Front Psychol. 2023 Jun 23;14:1156661. (PMID: 37425146)
Can Vet J. 2024 Apr;65(4):325-333. (PMID: 38562985)
Front Vet Sci. 2021 Jun 17;8:644556. (PMID: 34222392)
Child Dev. 2014 Sep-Oct;85(5):1836-42. (PMID: 24779480)
Prev Vet Med. 2021 Nov;196:105471. (PMID: 34509773)
Nurs Adm Q. 2008 Jan-Mar;32(1):40-8. (PMID: 18160862)
Implement Sci. 2008 Jun 04;3:34. (PMID: 18533021)
SSM Popul Health. 2016 Dec 07;3:153-161. (PMID: 29349212)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025 Jan 7;122(1):e2400931121. (PMID: 39793032)
PeerJ. 2014 Oct 30;2:e646. (PMID: 25374785)
NAM Perspect. 2022 Feb 14;2022:. (PMID: 35891775)
Can Vet J. 2024 Jan;65(1):49-58. (PMID: 38164387)
Can Vet J. 2014 Dec;55(12):1203-6. (PMID: 25477552)
Health Soc Care Community. 2011 May;19(3):250-60. (PMID: 21138495)
Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Oct 1;47(5):1714-1722. (PMID: 29982600)
Vet Rec. 2026 Jan/Jul 31;198(3):e115-e124. (PMID: 41328705)
Prev Vet Med. 2018 Sep 1;157:59-69. (PMID: 30086850)
Can Vet J. 2018 Oct;59(10):1121-1122. (PMID: 30510322)
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002 Feb;56(2):119-27. (PMID: 11812811)
Grant Information:
PetSmart Charities of Canada Ecosystem Grant
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: access to care; animal welfare; community engagement; programme evaluation; qualitative methods; veterinary medicine
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20251202 Date Completed: 20260130 Latest Revision: 20260201
Update Code:
20260201
PubMed Central ID:
PMC12857524
DOI:
10.1002/vetr.6022
PMID:
41328705
Database:
MEDLINE

*Further Information*

*Background: A 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.
Methods: Three 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.
Results: Thirty-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.
Conclusion: This 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.
(© 2025 The Author(s). Veterinary Record published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Veterinary Association.)*