Introduction
Identifying current and future veterinary workforce needs is essential to plan for targeted recruitment and training of future veterinarians. The results of the Veterinary Workforce Study (2013)1 suggested an excess capacity of veterinary clinical services that was expected to persist into the future; however, concerns have arisen over the last several years regarding current and future veterinary workforce shortages.2 Recent estimates suggest a shortage of 14,000 to 24,000 companion animal veterinarians by 2030.3,4 In response, a number of veterinary programs are expanding class size and new veterinary schools are being developed.5
Previous research in the veterinary workforce has examined factors contributing to entry and/or retention in the Netherlands,6 Ireland,7 the UK,8 and Australia.9,10 In the US, the research focus regarding veterinary workforce demands to date has been directed toward retention and entry in rural practice.11,12 Concerns regarding salary and work-life balance were commonly found to be associated with veterinarians leaving rural practice10 or veterinary practice in general.6–8,10
Identification of practice, community, and veterinarian factors that contribute to retention in or departure from clinical veterinary practice can inform strategies to meet workforce needs. The objectives of this study were to gather information on the current state of the veterinary workforce in the US with the use of a cross-sectional survey and identify potential reasons for staying in or leaving a veterinary practice. Because of specific concerns regarding workforce shortages in specific areas (eg, rural), we also sought to examine relationships between veterinarian, practice, and community factors13 and practice environment (nonrural or rural).11
Methods
This study was approved by Louisiana State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRBAM-22-0020). A survey was designed and pilot tested by a subset of the investigators (OG, ASH, BB, CN, and HEB; Supplementary Material S1). The survey questions covered respondents’ scope of practice, practice characteristics, perceptions of current and future workforce needs, factors contributing to retention or departure, community attachment and satisfaction,13 institution and year of graduation, and demographics. The survey was distributed to alumni from veterinary schools (Louisiana State University, University of Pennsylvania, Lincoln Memorial University, Utah State University, Washington State University, Iowa State University, Oklahoma State University, and Kansas State University) and state veterinary medical association listservs (Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, Iowa, and Kansas). Surveys were open for 6 to 8 weeks; due to rolling enrollment of institutions and individual veterinary medical associations, the survey deployment date for enrolled institutions and veterinary medical associations varied from February 2022 to January 2023. A link was also posted on Facebook pages (DVMoms–Life in the Trenches, Equine Vet-2-Vet, Equine Veterinary Mothers, LMU CVM Alumni by SA) and X (from the account of HEB) on April 25, 2022.
Year of graduation and respondent age were categorized by decade (2012 to 2021, 2002 to 2011, 1992 to 2001, 1982 to 1991, and before 1981). Population size of towns was categorized into countryside (< 2,500 people), small town (2,500 to 9,999), suburb (10,000 to 49,999), and city (> 50,000). For comparison between groups, population size was categorized by reported zip code into rural (< 10,000 people) and nonrural (≥ 10,000 people). Community satisfaction and attachment was evaluated with a series of questions (scored from 1 to 4 or 1 to 5) regarding respondents’ satisfaction with and sense of belonging in the community, as well as satisfaction with specific community factors. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction or attachment, with the exception of 1 question surrounding perception of being sorry or displeased to leave the community of practice, in which lower scores indicated greater displeasure (Tables 1 and 2).
Respondent satisfaction with practice community amenities and characteristics and between rural and nonrural communities on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = completely dissatisfied, 5 = completely satisfied). Data presented as mean ± SD.
| Community amenities and characteristics | Nonrural | Rural | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opportunity to earn an adequate income | 4.21 ± 0.95* | 3.93 ± 1.07 | 4.16 ± 0.98 |
| Medical and healthcare services | 4.21 ± 0.97* | 3.78 ± 1.12 | 4.13 ± 1.02 |
| As a place to raise a family | 4.06 ± 1.05* | 4.25 ± 0.96 | 4.08 ± 1.04 |
| Employment for significant other | 3.96 ± 1.00 | 3.86 ± 1.05 | 3.93 ± 1.01 |
| Local shopping | 4.03 ± 1.02* | 3.45 ± 1.12 | 3.92 ± 1.07 |
| Overall physical appearance of the community | 3.93 ± 1.06* | 3.75 ± 1.11 | 3.89 ± 1.07 |
| Recreation facilities and program | 3.95 ± 0.97* | 3.61 ± 1.06 | 3.88 ± 1.00 |
| Local schools | 3.80 ± 1.12 | 3.76 ± 1.11 | 3.79 ± 1.12 |
| Youth programs | 3.72 ± 0.94 | 3.67 ± 1.00 | 3.70 ± 0.95 |
| Senior citizens’ programs | 3.49 ± 0.83 | 3.46 ± 0.90 | 3.49 ± 0.85 |
| Daycare | 3.38 ± 0.93* | 3.15 ± 1.01 | 3.33 ± 0.95 |
*P < .05 between rural and nonrural respondents.
Respondent attachment to practice community in nonrural and rural communities (full text of survey questions available in Supplementary Material S1). Data presented as mean ± SD.
| Nonrural | Rural | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community attachment | |||
| Community connection (1–4; 4 = very much connected) | 2.84 ± 0.98* | 3.22 ± 0.89 | 2.91 ± 0.98 |
| Sorry to leave community (1–4; 4 = extremely pleased) | 2.15 ± 1.01* | 1.97 ± 0.94 | 2.12 ± 1.00 |
| Interest in community (1–5; 5 = very interested) | 4.03 ± 1.02* | 4.25 ± 0.98 | 4.07 ± 1.02 |
| Feeling “at home” (1–4; 4 = feel very much at home) | 3.34 ± 0.88* | 3.45 ± 0.78 | 3.36 ± 0.86 |
| Community satisfaction | |||
| Like where practice (1–5; 5 = very much) | 4.43 ± 0.88* | 4.55 ± 0.71 | 4.45 ± 0.85 |
| Satisfactory place to practice (1–5; 5 = very much) | 4.39 ± 0.84 | 4.46 ± 0.79 | 4.40 ± 0.84 |
| Identify as member of community (1–5; 5 = very much) | 4.33 ± 0.95 | 4.41 ± 0.93 | 4.34 ± 0.95 |
| Community is part of my history (1–5; 5 = very much) | 3.52 ± 1.35* | 3.82 ± 1.27 | 3.58 ± 1.34 |
| Community is an ideal place to live (1–5; 5 = very much) | 4.08 ± 1.05* | 4.30 ± 0.91 | 4.12 ± 1.03 |
| Sense of community (1–5; 5 = very much) | 3.92 ± 1.09* | 4.19 ± 0.97 | 3.97 ± 1.07 |
| Fit in practice community (1–5; 5 = very much) | 4.22 ± 0.97 | 4.23 ± 1.01 | 4.22 ± 0.99 |
*P < .05 between rural and nonrural respondents.
Statistics were performed with SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp). Descriptive data were reported across all respondents. Species of practice, length of commute to work, nights on call per week, weekends on call per month, hours per week worked, number of veterinarians in the practice, estimated number of veterinarians needed in the community presently and in 10 years, veterinary needs by species and practice type, and community satisfaction and attachment were compared between groups with a Student t test with Welch correction as indicated or a χ2 test. When a χ2 test was used, outcome variable was dichotomized at median. Confidence intervals were calculated for mean differences between rural and nonrural groups for community characteristics, satisfaction, and attachment. Confidence intervals for proportions were calculated with an online statistical calculator (Epitools; Ausvet). A Spearman correlation coefficient was used to evaluate relationships of practice species with perceived veterinary workforce needs by species.
Results
Demographics
There were 2,205 responses; 10 blank or preview responses were excluded. Not all respondents answered all questions; response rates are reported for individual questions. When categorizing respondents by degree-granting veterinary program, there were 11 institutions with > 20 respondents: Kansas State University (n = 411), Oklahoma State University (188), Louisiana State University (144), Washington State University (136), University of Pennsylvania (117), Texas A&M University (61), Mississippi State University (50), Virginia-Maryland (37), Iowa State University (34), University of California-Davis (25), and Colorado State University (21). A complete list of the number of respondents by institution is provided in Supplementary Table S1.
The majority (63%) of respondents identified as women, 35% identified as men and 0.1% as nonbinary, 0.1% preferred to self-identify, and 1.4% preferred not to answer (n = 1,440). Ninety-two percent were White, with a small proportion of other ethnicities reported (2.3% mixed race, 1% Asian, 0.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.4% Black or African American, 0.1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 0.3% other; 3.7% preferred not to answer; n = 1,423). Twenty-six percent of respondents graduated between 2012 and 2021, 23% of respondents graduated from 2002 to 2011, 19% of respondents graduated from 1992 to 2001, 20% graduated from 1982 to 1991, and 13% graduated before 1981 (earliest-reported graduation year, 1968) (n = 1,477). When grouped by age, 6.3% of respondents were 20 to 29 years old, 25% were 30 to 39 years old, 20% were 40 to 49 years old, 21% were 50 to 59 years old, 19% were 60 to 69 years old, and 9.8% were > 70 years old (n = 1,441).
When respondents were asked whether they had ever lived in a town of < 10,000 people, 64% had and 36% had not. A greater proportion of practitioners currently working in rural environments (82%; 95% CI, 77% to 86%) compared to nonrural environments (60%; 95% CI, 57% to 63%; n = 1,441; P < .001) reported ever living in a small town.
Practice characteristics and scope of practice
On the basis of reported zip code data, all 50 states were represented (Figure 1). Scope of practice by species is reported in Table 3. When comparing respondents in rural versus nonrural practices, nonrural had a greater proportion of small animal (nonrural, 83% [95% CI, 81% to 84%]; rural, 57% [95% CI, 52% to 62%]; P < .001) and a smaller proportion of food animal (nonrural, 4% [95% CI, 3.1% to 5.1%]; rural, 21% [95% CI, 17% to 25%]; P < .001) and equine (nonrural, 7% [95% CI, 6% to 8%]; rural, 15% [95% CI, 12% to 19%]; P < .001) as part of their practice, while exotics did not differ (nonrural, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1% to 2.5%]; rural, 0.9% [95% CI, 0.2% to 2.2%]; P = .07).
Distribution of respondents by zip code across the US after survey distribution via 8 veterinary school alumni listservs, 7 state veterinary medical association listservs, and posting on X (formerly known as Twitter) and Facebook. Gray dots indicate individual respondents.
Citation: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 263, 3; 10.2460/javma.24.08.0513
Scope of practice categorized by town size into rural (< 10,000) or nonrural (≥ 10,000). Data presented as mean ± SD.
| Small animal | Equine | Food animal | Exotics | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nonrural | 83 ± 34% | 7.1 ± 23% | 4.0 ± 16% | 1.7 ± 7.9% | 4.7 ± 21% |
| Rural | 57 ± 41% | 15 ± 30% | 21 ± 32% | 0.9 ± 3.2% | 5.6 ± 23% |
| Total | 78 ± 37% | 8.7 ± 25% | 7.4 ± 21% | 1.5 ± 7.2% | 4.9 ± 21% |
When asked about specialty training, 15% of respondents reported being board certified in 1 or more specialties (n = 2,153). Thirty-four percent of respondents had been at their practice for < 5 years, 26% from 5 to 14 years, 15% from 15 to 24 years, and 25% > 24 years (n = 2,050). Four percent of respondents were enrolled in public service loan forgiveness (n = 1,558).
When asked about practice characteristics, 55% of respondents reported living in the same town or city in which they practiced (n = 1,876). Population size of the town in which respondents practiced was city, 43%; suburb, 33%; and rural, 24% (n = 1,954). Population size of the town in which respondents lived was city, 25%; suburb, 33%; and rural, 42%. There were no differences between respondents from rural (57%; 95% CI, 52% to 62%) and nonrural (54%; 95% CI, 52% to 57%) practice areas with respect to living in the same community in which they practiced (P = .35).
Length of commute most frequently reported was < 30 minutes (78%; n = 1,538; Supplementary Table S2). There was a difference between respondents practicing in rural versus nonrural areas when commute length was evaluated, with veterinarians in rural practices commuting < 30 minutes more frequently (83%; 95% CI, 78% to 87%) than veterinarians in nonrural practices (77%; 95% CI, 75% to 79%; P = .041). The majority of respondents reported 0 nights per week (not including weekends) on call (67%) and 0 weekends per month on call (61%; n = 1,538; Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). A greater proportion of nonrural (73%; 95% CI, 71% to 76%) versus rural respondents (41%; 95% CI, 35% to 46%) reported 0 nights per week on call (P < .001) and a greater proportion of nonrural (66%; 95% CI, 63% to 69%) versus rural (37%; 95% CI; 31% to 42%) respondents reported 0 weekends per month on call (P < .001; n = 1,538). Overall, 34% of respondents reported working < 40 hours per week and 37% reported working 40 to 49 hours per week, with a smaller number reporting 50 or more hours per week of work (n = 1,536; Supplementary Table S5). There were a greater proportion of veterinarians practicing in rural areas (79%; 95% CI, 74% to 83%) versus veterinarians practicing in nonrural areas (63%; 95% CI, 60% to 66%; P < .001) working > 40 hours per week. Respondents most frequently reported working at practices with a total practice size of 1 (19%) or 2 (19%) veterinarians (n = 1,535; Supplementary Table S6). When the number of veterinarians at the practice was examined, rural practices were smaller; 65% (95% CI, 59% to 70%) of rural practices versus 53% (95% CI, 50% to 56%) of nonrural practices had ≤ 3 veterinarians (P < .001; n = 1,245).
Workforce needs
When respondents were asked about current workforce needs in their practice area, there was a greater perceived need for 7 or more veterinarians in nonrural (55%; 95% CI, 52% to 58%) versus rural (29%; 95% CI, 24% to 34%) practice (P < .001). As expected, perceived needs in 10 years were generally higher, with a greater proportion of veterinarians reporting a need for ≥ 10 veterinarians in nonrural (64%; 95% CI, 61% to 66%) versus rural (26%; 95% CI, 21% to 32%) practice (P < .001).
When asked regarding species coverage in the respondents’ area, 64% indicated a need for small animal coverage, 12% food animal, 10% equine, 4.8% exotics, and 2.3% other (Supplementary Table S7). Practitioners generally perceived needs in their area of practice, as demonstrated by relationships between species practice type and perceived species practice needs in the respondents’ communities (Table 4).
Spearman correlation coefficient demonstrating relationships among scope of practice and perceived workforce needs by species in the community in which respondents practiced.
| Scope of practice | Small animal | Food animal | Equine | Exotics | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small animal | 0.52* | –0.28* | –0.19* | 0.12* | –0.18* |
| Food animal | –0.30* | 0.47* | 0.24* | –0.16* | –0.01 |
| Equine | –0.34* | 0.30* | 0.38* | –0.16* | 0.03 |
| Exotics | –0.02* | 0.08* | 0.04 | 0.33* | –0.03 |
| Other | –0.15* | –0.01 | –0.04 | –0.04 | 0.36* |
*P < .05.
When practice scope was examined, 31% indicated a need for veterinarians to provide preventative or routine care coverage, 26% emergency, 17% medicine, 14% surgical, and 3% other (n = 1,640; Supplementary Table S8).
Factors contributing to retention or departure from current practice
When asked about intention to stay or leave their current practice (Table 5), 78% of respondents indicated an intent to remain (n = 1,571). There was no difference in proportion of respondents in rural (81%; 95% CI, 76% to 85%) compared to nonrural (78%; 95% CI, 76% to 80%) practice with respect to intent to stay in their current practice (P = .43). When respondents were asked about reasons for remaining, relationship with other veterinarians or staff (10%), practice atmosphere (9.0%), practice location (9.0%), salary (8.5%), and relationship with clients and work-life balance (8.4%) were the 6 most commonly reported factors. When respondents were asked about reasons for leaving, the top 5 reasons were other (19%), work-life balance (10%), practice atmosphere (8.8%), salary (8.3%), and time off (8.0%). Free-text comments indicated retirement (12%) as the most common other reason for leaving.
Reasons for staying or leaving practice, listed as percentage of respondents.
| Factor | Staying | Leaving |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship with other veterinarians or staff | 10.06% | N/A |
| Practice atmosphere | 9.04% | 8.84% |
| Practice location | 8.97% | 4.78% |
| Salary | 8.49% | 8.32% |
| Relationship with clients | 8.43% | N/A |
| Work-life balance | 8.39% | 10.19% |
| Time off | 7.74% | 8.00% |
| Benefits | 6.81% | 4.99% |
| Caseload and variety | 6.47% | 2.81% |
| Quality of facilities or equipment | 6.22% | 3.95% |
| Insurance | 4.24% | 3.43% |
| Family satisfaction | 4.20% | N/A |
| Other | 4.17% | 19.23%* |
| Emergency duty | 2.35% | 3.33% |
| Mentorship | 2.29% | 3.22% |
| Potential for practice ownership | 1.53% | N/A |
| Loan forgiveness | 0.61% | N/A |
| Injury or health issues | N/A | 2.08% |
| No potential for practice ownership | N/A | 3.43% |
| Family concerns | N/A | 3.64% |
| Conflict with other veterinarians or staff | N/A | 3.74% |
| Lack of respect from clients | N/A | 5.30% |
| Lack of opportunity for partner to find employment | N/A | 0.73% |
*Based on free-text responses, the most common other reason for leaving practice was retirement (11.75%).
Community characteristics, satisfaction, and attachment
Community characteristics are listed in Table 1 (n = 1,446). Factors that differed between rural and nonrural respondents, with nonrural respondents having greater satisfaction, were the opportunity to earn adequate income (P < .001; mean difference, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.41), medical and healthcare services (P < .001; mean difference, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.58), local shopping (P < .001; mean difference 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73), community appearance (P = .01; mean difference 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.33), recreation facilities and programs (P < .001; mean difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.48), and daycare (P < .001; mean difference, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.36). Rural respondents had greater satisfaction regarding their communities as a place to raise a family (P = .006; mean difference, –0.19; 95% CI, –0.33 to –0.05).
Overall, respondents indicated satisfaction with and connection to their communities (Table 2; n = 1,453). When asked about community attachment and satisfaction, respondents in rural practice felt more at home in (P = .03; mean difference, –0.12; 95% CI, –0.22 to –0.01), more connected to (P < .001; mean difference, –0.37; 95% CI, –0.49 to –0.25), and more interested in (P < .001; mean difference, –0.22; 95% CI, –0.36 to –0.09) their communities than those in nonrural practice. Respondents from rural practices reported that they liked where they practiced (P = .01; mean difference, –0.13; 95% CI, –0.22 to –0.03), would be sorry or regretful to leave their community (P = .005; mean difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.31), and felt their community was an important part of their personal history (P < .001; mean difference, –0.30; 95% CI, –0.47 to –0.13) more than veterinarians from nonrural practices. Finally, respondents from rural practices had a greater sense of community (P < .001; mean difference, –0.27; 95% CI, –0.41 to –0.13) and felt like their community was an ideal place for families to live (P = .002; mean difference, –0.22; 95% CI, –0.35 to –0.08). Comfort in identifying as a member of their community, feeling like they fit into their communities, and feeling their community was a satisfactory place to practice did not differ between rural and non-rural practitioners (P > .05).
Discussion
The results of this survey provided information surrounding current and future veterinary workforce needs and potential insights into veterinarian, practice, and community factors that may contribute to retention in or departure from a practice.
The gender distribution in our current study (63% women, 35% men, 0.1% nonbinary, 0.1% preferred to self-identify, and 1.4% preferred not to answer) was similar to statistics on the US veterinary workforce in 2023 (n = 127,131), which reported 67% women, 32% men, 0.1% nonbinary, and 0.1% who preferred not to answer.14 However, population size of the town in which respondents lived was city (25%), suburb (33%), and rural (42%). In comparison, a 2023 AVMA report15 indicated that the type of community veterinarians lived in was 16% urban, 53% suburban, and 32% rural, suggesting that rural and urban environments were underrepresented and suburban overrepresented in the present study.
Most respondents perceived a need for additional practitioners in their area both short-term (within the next year) and long-term (within the next 10 years). When the scope of practice in the present study was compared to the AVMA report14 on the veterinary profession (n = 97,192), it appeared that food animal (7.4% vs 3.6%), equine (8.7% vs 4.1%), and small animal (78% vs 70%) veterinarians were overrepresented, although it was challenging to compare due to differences in species categories included (eg, mixed animal). The highest-perceived need was in small animal preventative health and emergency practice, although most respondents (81% nonrural; 56% rural) worked in this area of practice. This is supported by economic data suggesting a substantial shortage of veterinarians by 2030.3,4 The perceived shortage by respondents may be due in part to the impending retirement of a number of current practitioners. Of 962 responses regarding a reason for leaving practice, 119 responses (12%) indicated retirement as a reason for leaving practice. In addition, the large number (34%) of veterinarians reporting working < 40 hours per week suggests that a growth in workforce may be necessary to support shorter working weeks. The 2013 Veterinary Workforce study1 estimated the needed full-time equivalents on the basis of an average of 44.5 hours per week, while a more recent survey16 suggested that veterinarians work an average of 43.5 hours per week. Furthermore, > 60% of respondents reported working no weekends per month and no weeknights on call. The large proportion of respondents indicating a < 40-hour work week and no on-call duty in the present study suggests that practicing veterinarians prioritize work-life balance and might expect this type of work schedule when seeking future employment. Importantly, work-life balance was also reported as being the top reason respondents reported leaving their practice, both in the present study and in prior investigations.6,7,10,11 Attending to work-life balance and providing time off through flexible work hours, shorter working weeks, and provision of alternative solutions to on-call responsibilities might improve recruitment and retention of practitioners. Work-life balance has been demonstrated to predict well-being and lower levels of burnout in veterinarians.17
Most veterinarians indicated a plan to stay in their current practice. In addition to work-life balance and time off, practice atmosphere and work relationships (with both practice personnel and clients) were key factors influencing a veterinarian’s desire to stay or leave. These relationships may be important in helping to prevent moral distress during difficult ethical decisions.18 Helping people (ie, clients) has been previously demonstrated to contribute to meaningful work and belonging, which in turn contributes to veterinarian well-being.19 These findings suggest that practice culture is an important factor in recruitment and retention of veterinarians.20 Similarly, both academic residents and faculty indicated that workplace environment and culture were key factors influencing career decisions.21
When examining respondents’ perspectives on community characteristics and amenities, opportunity for income was one of the top factors with which respondents were most satisfied, followed by healthcare and environment in which to raise a family. This suggests that, overall, respondents are earning sufficient income and are satisfied with their communities. The lowest satisfaction overall was with daycare. Consideration of in-practice daycare services or a practice-supported provider of childcare may help promote additional satisfaction and provide the additional benefit of improving work-life balance.
In human healthcare, person inputs (including rural background),22,23 learning experiences,22,23 lifestyle appeal (social and nature bonding), and relational integration (social bonding) are key factors contributing to attraction and retention of healthcare workers in rural areas.24 Similarly, prior studies in veterinary medicine indicate that growing up in a small town leads to increased likelihood of selecting a rural practice.25–27
Although growing up in a small town may lead to greater interest in returning to work in the rural environment, the training environment may modify a student’s interest in rural practice. A small study28 performed at the University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine demonstrated that students from both urban and rural environments perceived rural areas to be less appealing after 4 years of training compared to program entry. Importantly, the University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine is situated in a large urban center where students are educated for their first 3 years before entering into a distributive model for their fourth year of clinical education. Similarly, a prior study29 suggested that, among other factors, location of a medical school in a rural state was associated with development of physicians practicing in rural communities. Taken together, these findings suggest that both factors at entry to veterinary programs (eg, rural upbringing) and learning-experience environment may impact practice location selection after graduation.
Lifestyle appeal includes factors such as work-life balance, variety of leisure activities, lower cost of living, and less traffic.24 A prior study12 indicated that the rural lifestyle was a key factor in respondents selecting rural veterinary practice. Relational integration includes factors such as mentorship, provision of additional training, having positive working relationships with others, being satisfied with the work, and feeling like you are respected by and making a difference in the local community.24 These factors were in part evaluated by examining respondents’ community attachment and satisfaction. When differences between practice location (rural versus nonrural) were examined, urban practitioners indicated overall increased satisfaction with many community characteristics. However, feelings of community attachment were generally higher for rural practitioners. This was in contrast to a prior study13 investigating physician assistant students, whereby those students from rural communities reported lower levels of community satisfaction but similar community attachment compared to those from suburban or urban areas.
Limitations of this survey included selection bias, as those who responded may have been more likely to perceive workforce needs, and recall bias, as respondents may not have accurately recalled some factors (eg, hours worked per week). In addition, a large number of respondents lived in the lower Midwest or west South Central states (eg, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana), which may have influenced the findings.
The present workforce study provides perspectives on reasons for staying in and leaving a veterinary practice. Importantly, this study did not identify differences between rural and nonrural practitioners with respect to intent to leave a practice. Work-life balance and practice culture remain important factors for veterinary practices to consider in recruitment and retention. When examining the rural workforce specifically, community attachment may be an important factor to consider in veterinary training programs and leverage in recruiting veterinarians into rural practice.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials are posted online at the journal website: avmajournals.avma.org.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Leslie Sprunger and Dr. Katherine Fogelberg for assisting with the survey distribution.
Disclosures
The authors have nothing to disclose. No AI-assisted technologies were used in the generation of this manuscript.
Funding
The authors have nothing to disclose.
ORCID
H. E. Banse https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0120-0376
J. K. Roush https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7144-8529
References
- 1.↑
Dall TM, Forte GJ, Storm MV, et al. Executive summary of the 2013 US Veterinary Workforce Study. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2013;242(11):1507-1514. doi:10.2460/javma.242.11.1507
- 2.↑
Salois M, Golab G. Are we in a veterinary workforce crisis? Understanding our reality can guide us to a solution. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2021;259(6):560-566.
- 3.↑
Lloyd J. Pet healthcare in the U.S.: another look at the veterinarian workforce. Mars Veterinary Health. Accessed August 8, 2024. https://www.marsveterinary.com/media/uploads/2023/08/Characterizing-the-Need.pdf
- 4.↑
Gitter RJ, LaFayette B. Demand for and supply of veterinarians in the U.S. to 2032. American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges. Accessed September 23, 2024. https://www.aavmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Demand-for-and-Supply-of-Veterinarians-in-the-U.S.-to-2032-New.pdf
- 5.↑
Larkin M. A proliferation of newly proposed veterinary colleges. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2023;261(11):1613-1615.
- 6.↑
Sonneveld D, Goverts Y, Duijn CCMA, Camps G, Bougie R, Mastenbroek NJJM. Dutch veterinary graduates leaving practice: a mixed-methods analysis of frequency and underlying reasons. Vet Rec. 2023;192(4):e2178. doi:10.1002/vetr.2178
- 7.↑
Ryan EG, Beatty SH, Gray E, et al. Factors affecting retention of veterinary practitioners in Ireland: a cross-sectional study with a focus on clinical practice. Ir Vet J. 2022;75(1):13. doi:10.1186/s13620-022-00222-9
- 8.↑
Hagen JR, Weller R, Mair TS, Kinnison T. Investigation of factors affecting recruitment and retention in the UK veterinary profession. Vet Rec. 2020;187(9):354-354. doi:10.1136/vr.106044
- 9.↑
Arbe Montoya AI, Hazel SJ, Matthew SM, McArthur ML. Why do veterinarians leave clinical practice? A qualitative study using thematic analysis. Vet Rec. 2021;188(1):e2. doi:10.1002/vetr.2
- 10.↑
Arbe Montoya AI, Hazel SJ, Hebart ML, McArthur ML. Risk factors associated with veterinary attrition from clinical practice: a descriptive study. Aust Vet J. 2021;99(11):495-501. doi:10.1111/avj.13111
- 11.↑
Villarroel A, McDonald SR, Walker WL, Kaiser L, Dewell RD, Dewell GA. A survey of reasons why veterinarians leave rural veterinary practice in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2010;236(8):859-867. doi:10.2460/javma.236.8.859
- 12.↑
Villarroel A, McDonald SR, Walker WL, Kaiser L, Dewell RD, Dewell GA. A survey of reasons why veterinarians enter rural veterinary practice in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2010;236(8):849-857. doi:10.2460/javma.236.8.849
- 13.↑
Stough-Hunter A, Lekies KS. Where to live and work? Examining the influence of job and community characteristics on post-graduation plans among physician assistant students. J Rural Community Dev. 2020;15:17-32.
- 14.↑
U.S. veterinarian numbers. AVMA. Accessed August 8, 2024. https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/reports-statistics/market-research-statistics-us-veterinarians#categories
- 15.↑
Bain B, Ouedraogo FB, Hansen C. 2023 AVMA Report on the Economic State of the Veterinary Profession. AVMA; 2023:19.
- 16.↑
Larkin M. Veterinarian salaries struggle to keep up with inflation. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2023;261(12):1781-1795.
- 17.↑
Volk JO, Schimmack U, Strand EB, et al. Work-life balance is essential to reducing burnout, improving well-being. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2024;262(7):950-957. doi:10.2460/javma.24.02.0135
- 18.↑
Florian M, Skurková L, Mesarčová L, Slivková M, Kottferová J. Decision-making and moral distress in veterinary practice: what can be done to optimize welfare within the veterinary profession? J Vet Med Educ. 2024;51(3):292-301. doi:10.3138/jvme-2022-0073
- 19.↑
Wallace JE. Meaningful work and well-being: a study of the positive side of veterinary work. Vet Rec. 2019;185(18):571-571. doi:10.1136/vr.105146
- 20.↑
Sanford JR, DeBowes RM. Top veterinary practice issues that negatively affect culture, retention, and performance. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2024;54(2):423-440. doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2023.10.014
- 21.↑
Fletcher KN, Bergman ME, Austin JW, et al. Survey indicates addressing workplace environment, work-life balance, and flexibility are key to attracting and retaining veterinarians in academia. Am J Vet Res. 2024;85(9):ajvr.24.03.0082. doi:10.2460/ajvr.24.03.0082
- 22.↑
Strasser RP, Lanphear JH, McCready WG, Topps MH, Hunt DD, Matte MC. Canada’s new medical school: the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. Social accountability through distributed community engaged learning. Acad Med. 2009;84(10):1459-1464. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6c5d7
- 23.↑
Rabinowitz HK, Diamond JJ, Markham FW, Wortman JR. Medical school programs to increase the rural physician supply: a systematic review and projected impact of widespread replication. Acad Med. 2008;83(3):235-243. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318163789b
- 24.↑
Beccaria L, McIlveen P, Fein EC, Kelly T, McGregor R, Rezwanul R. Importance of attachment to place in growing a sustainable Australian Rural Health Workforce: a rapid review. Aust J Rural Health. 2021;29(5):620-642. doi:10.1111/ajr.12799
- 25.↑
Schmitz JA, Vogt RJ, Rupp GP, et al. Factors associated with practice decisions of Nebraska veterinarians regarding type of practice and community size. J Vet Med Educ. 2007;34(3):340-349. doi:10.3138/jvme.34.3.340
- 26.
Lenarduzzi R, Sheppard GA, Slater MR. Factors influencing the choice of a career in food-animal practice among recent graduates and current students of Texas A&M University, College of Veterinary Medicine. J Vet Med Educ. 2009;36(1):7-15. doi:10.3138/jvme.36.1.7
- 27.↑
Jelinski MD, Campbell JR, Naylor JM, Lawson KL, Derkzen D. Factors affecting the career path choices of graduates at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine. Can Vet J. 2008;49(2):161-166.
- 28.↑
Hashizume CT, Woloschuk W, Hecker KG. Changes in veterinary students’ attitudes toward the rural environment and rural veterinary practice: a longitudinal cohort study. J Vet Med Educ. 2015;42(2):112-119. doi:10.3138/jvme.1014-101R
- 29.↑
Rosenblatt RA, Whitcomb ME, Cullen TJ, Lishner DM, Hart LG. Which medical schools produce rural physicians? JAMA. 1992;268(12):1559-1565. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03490120073031
