MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414340093 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1633149

Understanding the motivations, deterrents, and incentives for rural Albertan veterinary practice

2025· article· en· W4414340093 on OpenAlexaffabout
H N Mughal, Tom O’Neill, Lena Le Huray, Megan Bergman, John Remnant, Angelica M. Galezowski, Kent G. Hecker, Robert McCorkell

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Medical AssociationUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveEconomic shortagePerceptionRural areaKey (lock)Path (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The shortage of rural veterinarians is a growing concern globally. This shortage increases the risk of significant negative impacts on livestock management, agriculture, and public health in rural and remote communities. To provide concrete solutions to sustain our rural veterinarian workforce, we examine motivations, incentives, and deterrents to rural veterinary practice (RVP). We do this through a qualitative study in Alberta, Canada, which is a geographically unique and understudied context. Methods: We surveyed veterinary students and practicing veterinarians, obtaining 124 responses. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Results revealed key motivating factors that influence attraction and retention included personal and family considerations that require living in rural contexts, the nature of strong relationships that develop in rural communities, experiencing a range in work factors that enhances professional development, feeling fulfilled by rural veterinary work, and exposure during veterinary school leading to a strong interest in rural settings. Deterrents included limited resources and supports in rural contexts, personal and family needs that require living in urban settings, and challenges inherent to rural communities and environmental characteristics. Finally, key incentives included better salary and benefits, financial incentives, tuition/debt forgiveness, enhanced mentorship, fewer on-call duties, and tailored incentives. Discussion: Strong alignment between student and practicing veterinarian motivations, deterrents, and incentives was observed, extending previous findings that only look at the perceptions of a single group. The results corroborated previous findings, while revealing that the same motivations and deterrents remained important for students and PVs in Alberta's geographically unique context. Finally, they provided key insights to inform policy, practice, and education developments to enhance attraction and retention rates of rural veterinarians, contributing to a path forward for addressing the rural shortage of veterinary services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.313
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207