An examination of US pet owners’ use of veterinary services, 2006–2018

Abstract

Objectives

Examine US consumer pet‐related and veterinary service expenditures and factors influencing US households’ use of veterinary services.

Methods

Descriptive analysis on pet‐related and veterinary service expenditures and regression analysis on pet owners’ use of veterinary services, using data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure from 2006 to 2018, with the sample size of 257,836 households, of which 73,593 had pet expenses.

Results

From 1980 to 2018, the proportion of households with pet‐related and veterinary service expenditures increased. Since 2010, the percentage of pet‐owning households using veterinary services has increased substantially. Household characteristics were examined and significantly affected the probability of both pet and veterinary expenditures. Non‐White and Hispanic groups had increased pet ownership, but the likelihood of veterinary service use has not surpassed White and non‐Hispanic pet owners.

Conclusions

Understanding the effects of household sociodemographics, particularly race and ethnicity, on using veterinary services provides insights for optimizing strategic planning for the pet industry and veterinarians. Reviewing the implications helps adjust and fine‐tune strategies and influence the sustainability of the veterinary service sector by attracting different racial and ethnic groups. Future research might focus on other social and cultural factors influencing the utilization of veterinary care. The veterinary service sector can then effectively address pet care disparities, bridge existing gaps and improve economic viability.

This study analyzes US consumer pet‐related and veterinary service expenditures, utilizing data from 2006 to 2018. Findings reveal a rising trend in households with pet‐related expenses and an increased use of veterinary services since 2010.

While various household characteristics significantly influence pet and veterinary expenditures, there is a noticeable rise in pet ownership across households.

Understanding socio‐demographic effects can inform strategic planning within the pet industry, promoting inclusivity and sustainability in the veterinary service sector.

1. INTRODUCTION

The number of US households owning pets has increased over the past four decades. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) reported that 59.2% of US households owned at least one pet in 2016 (AVMA, 2018). According to a more recent report, dog ownership increased by 6% from 38.4% in 2016 to 44.6% in 2020 and cat ownership increased slightly from 25% in 2016 to 26% in 2020 (AVMA, 2022). Approximately 88.8 million dogs and 61.9 million cats inhabited 62 million and 37 million US households, respectively (AVMA, 2022). With the increasing pet population, American families spend substantial money on their pets. In 2019, $95.7 billion was spent on pets, which included expenditures on veterinary and care services (American Pet Products Association [APPA], 2020). Among the pet‐owning households, about three‐quarters (76%) made at least one visit to veterinarians, with veterinary expenditures reaching approximately $27.8 billion (AVMA, 2018). The estimated veterinary expenditure achieved $107 per pet, with about $253 per dog and $98 per cat in 2016 (AVMA, 2018).

Increasing demand for pet‐related and veterinary services is correlated with the growth in ownership, and household characteristics and socioeconomic conditions have also been found to correlate significantly. For example, households with higher incomes and house ownership and those living in rural areas are more likely to have pets and pet‐related expenditures. Previous studies addressed the factors that correlate households owning pets and expenditures on pets, but a limited number of studies investigated the factors that influence veterinary service use. Examples include Wolf et al. (2008), Decker‐Sparks et al. (2018), Bir et al. (2020), Widmar et al. (2020), Park et al. (2021) and King et al. (2022). The increasing pet population may also cause an increase in veterinary service use and associated expenditures. However, it is unclear whether pet owners would all seek veterinary care for their pets. Possibly, they might reduce veterinary care expenditures due to an increase in other pet‐related expenditures. It is believed that there are various factors influencing veterinary service utilization and associated expenditures. Moreover, the increasing diversity of the US population has created challenges to understanding the factors that cause pet owners to visit veterinarians.

Wolf et al. (2008) examined factors associated with the probabilities of pet ownership and use of veterinary services. They found that total pet‐related and veterinary service expenditures increased from 1980 to 2005, while the percentage of pet‐owning households using veterinary services decreased. In addition, they found that the likelihood of both pet‐related and veterinary service expenditures increased with income, education level and family size. Decker‐Sparks et al. (2018) evaluated a retrospective database (2011–2015) and found that race and ethnicity were not primary determinants of veterinary service utilization. When veterinary and animal welfare organizations remove structural barriers embedded with racial inequalities, individuals, regardless of race and ethnicity, proceed with companion‐animal sterilization.

Bir et al. (2020) used a 2019 survey of 997 US households to document pet ownership and veterinary service use. They found that the likelihood of visiting a veterinarian for dogs and other pets besides cats increased with the age and income of the pet owners; however, the possibility of veterinarian visits decreased for cat owners. Widmar et al. (2020) conducted an online survey in 2019 on telemedicine veterinary consultation. They found that dog and cat owners were willing to pay premiums for having their veterinarian or a veterinarian in their community, compared to a veterinarian from outside the community. However, they found no statistically significant correlations between demographics (gender and income) and willingness to pay for telemedicine veterinary services.

Park et al. (2021) studied the relationships between dog owner characteristics and willingness to use veterinary services and found that dog owners did not differ by demographics in their willingness, but dog owner demographic groups varied in their relationship with their dogs in terms of experience and barriers of seeking veterinary care. For example, males, African Americans, Native Americans or American Indians and those with higher education identified a lack of trust in veterinarians, which is a barrier to seeking veterinary care.

King et al. (2022) analysed pet owners’ perceptions of access to veterinary care to understand how demographic characteristics and financial fragility predict perceived access to veterinary services. They found that race, ethnicity, education and financial fragility significantly predicted perceived ease of access to veterinary care.

A research gap still needs to be addressed, whether the increasing pet population directly drives the growing rate of veterinary service expenditures and how pet owner/household characteristics affect pet owners’ decisions on visiting veterinarians. More importantly, as the US population becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, pet ownership and veterinary service use will be impacted as these factors have been found to be related (Decker‐Sparks et al., 2018; King et al., 2022; Wolf et al., 2008). Recent analyses signalled potential shifts in pet ownership between age groups, races and ethnicity (Girgenti, 2020). More specifically, there was a higher incidence of pet ownership among Hispanic and White households compared to African American and Asian households. Increasing pet ownership rates among Hispanic households may be due to acculturation within the rapidly expanding Latino population (Girgenti, 2020). However, it is not yet clear whether race and ethnicity are significant determinants of pet ownership. There are social and cultural factors that may play a role in pet ownership. According to Wolf et al (2008), sociocultural aspects significantly influence the decision to own a pet. Wolf et al. (2008) suggest that factors such as income, urbanization and lifestyle also contribute to the diversity in pet ownership. Additionally, Decker‐Sparks et al. (2018) emphasize the structural barriers, not the cultural barriers, shaping the prevalence of pet ownership within different communities, for example, the barriers to accessibility and transportation to veterinary services. Pet ownership can vary based on various factors and, as highlighted by Girgenti (2020), pet owners become more diverse.

The previous study by Wolf et al. (2008) examined the factors that influenced the probabilities of pet ownership and use of veterinary services between 1980 and 2005. After more than a decade, it is essential to determine if these relationships, particularly race and ethnicity, have changed. In this study, we focus on a recent period (2006–2018) and examine trends in pet ownership, pet expenditures and veterinary service use, with information collected for pet‐owning households. This study analyses the factors that drive pet owners to use veterinary services. In the following sections, we first summarize the recent trends in pet expenditure and veterinary service use. We then examine the household characteristics that affect veterinary service use, for example, how factors such as race and ethnicity of pet owners influence veterinary service use. Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Expenditure (CE) from 2006 to 2018 was utilized. Important implications for the veterinary profession in developing more client‐oriented and customer segmentation marketing strategies and influencing the sustainability of the veterinary service sector by attracting more potential clients and better serving existing ones are discussed.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Sample data

This study uses data collected by the US BLS Consumer Expenditure surveys. The BLS conducts the CE surveys to collect data on the spending habits of American households. The CE survey primarily uses a diary survey and an interview survey, two methods. The combination of the diary and interview surveys allows the BLS to capture a broad spectrum of household spending. The CE surveys program is the only federal household survey to provide information on the complete range of consumers’ expenditures and incomes for years. It also provides data on US consumers’ demographic characteristics.

Given the changes in pet ownership and the increase in the societal need for veterinary services, the 13‐year period of 2006–2018 was selected to reveal the trends and effects of household characteristics on pet owners’ veterinary service use. We retrieved pet‐related expenditure information, including pet supplies, pet services and veterinary services, from the public‐use microdata files. Household sociodemographic information, that is, socioeconomic variables and the characteristic information of the head of household, were then merged with the quarterly pet‐related expenditures on a quarterly basis using the consumer unit identification code.

Total pet‐related expenditures were defined as three categories of pet expenditures as pet supplies, pet services and veterinary services. Pet supply expenditure includes pet medicine, toys, housing structures and accessories; pet service expenditure provides grooming services, animal boarding, etc.; veterinary service expenditures are the reported veterinarian expenses for pets. To align the purchasing power across the 13 years, we indexed all dollar values to 2005 US dollars to account for inflation and to make the results easily comparable. Household groups are defined in the following groups: all sample households; households that had any pet‐related expenditure (pet supplies expenditure > 0, pet service expenditures > 0 or veterinary service expenditures > 0); and households that had any veterinary service expenditure (veterinary service expenditures > 0). Thus, in this study, the main investigated groups were the percentage of households owning pets (among all households) and the rate of families using veterinary services (among all pet owners).

2.2. Econometric model

Regression analyses were conducted to examine how household characteristics influence the probability of pet‐owning households using veterinary services. Since the sociodemographic factors influencing pet ownership are relatively well known (e.g., AVMA, 2022; Wolf et al., 2008), the probit model was applied only to the likelihood of families with pet‐related expenditures (i.e., pet‐owning homes) using veterinary services in this study. The probit model defines a binary response probability as P(y = 1|x), where x is the complete set of explanatory variables and y = 1 if the household has veterinary service expenditure. The probability can be defined as

$$P(y=1|x)=P(y\ast >0|x)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x\alpha ),y\ast =x\alpha +\epsilon ,y=1\mathrm{if}y\ast >0,$$ (1)

where y* is a latent variable and Φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function. α is a vector of coefficients for the socioeconomic characteristics, and ε is an error term.

We treated pet‐related expenditures as equivalent to pet ownership, similar to Wolf et al. (2008). The inference of this variable needs to be interpreted with caution because households with pets might underreport pet‐related expenditures in CE surveys (e.g., they may have reported pet food expenditure as groceries, which would mean actual pet ownership could be higher).

The Probit model specified the dependent variables as to whether the pet‐owning household had veterinary service expenditures. A set of household characteristics, including household sociodemographic and head‐of‐household characteristics, were selected as the explanatory variables. In addition, a time variable was included to indicate the survey year and a seasonal variable to control for seasonal effects. Most socioeconomic variables (e.g., race, rural/urban, marital status and BLS‐designated region) were included. All analyses were performed using the Stata software (Stata, version 13.0, StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).

3. RESULTS

3.1. Descriptive summary of sample data

Before the empirical analysis, it is necessary to summarize the sample for the studied period. The sample summary reveals demographic differences in pet expenditure groups. The sample characteristics of the three household groups from 2006 to 2018 are outlined (Table 1). The total number of observations is 257,836, of which 73,593 (28.5%) had expenditures on pets (pet‐related expenditures > 0), and of those 24,716 (9.6%) used veterinary services (veterinary service expenditures > 0). Sample households are distributed among four regions, with an average sample household of 2.5 members and a median annual income of $39,743.3 (median incomes by race and ethnicity were also reported in Table 1). Regarding the head of household characteristics, on average, the respondents were 50 years old with 13.3 years of education. Regarding race and ethnicity, 81.2% of respondents were White, 11.9% were African American and 13.4% Hispanic. We realized that the sample was slightly biased, with more White and fewer African Americans and Hispanics (Table 1). However, the deviation (from the Census statistics) of the sample is in the acceptable range, given the strict survey and sample quality control applied in the CE survey.

TABLE 1.

Summary of pet‐related and veterinary service expenditure and household characteristics, 2006–2018.

	Sample households	Households with pet‐related expenditures >$0	Pet‐owning households with veterinary service expenditures > $0	US Census Bureau QuickFacts (2022)
	Quarterly pet‐related expenditure
Pets‐pet supply ($)	30.3	103.9	104.3	‐
Pet service ($)	9.2	31.7	38.4	‐
Veterinary service ($)	25.6	87.8	269.0	‐
Total pet‐related expenditure ($)	65.2	223.5	411.7	‐
The proportion of households (%) a	—	28.5	33.5	‐
	Household characteristics
Region (%)
Northeast	18.4	16.9	17.4	17.2
Midwest	21.8	23.0	24.8	20.7
South	35.3	34.6	32.6	38.3
West	23.0	24.1	23.4	23.7
Annual income after tax (median, in $)	39,743.3	53,579.2	60,381.9	49,390.7
White (median, in $)	41,509.4	54,034.7	60,479.8	51,158.9
Black (median, in $)	27,310.0	39.060.9	47,612.3	45,006.6
Asian (median, in $)	51.845.5	70.879.4	81,476.9	71,986.8
Hispanic (median, in $)	33.267.5	43.689.2	51,548.4	41,589.4
Family size	2.5	2.7	2.6	2.60
Owned residence (%)	64.2	76.7	82.7	64.6
Rural (%)	5.9	6.5	6.8	20.0
Metropolitan (%)	87.5	87.4	86.4	80.0
Age (in years)	50.4	49.5	50.8	38.5
Baby boomers (%) b	36.1	42.0	44.6	22.9
Generation X (%)	26.2	29.1	27.6	18.2
Millennials (%)	18.2	14.7	12.9	20.5
Education (in years)	13.3	13.5	13.8	‐
White (%)	81.2	91.1	93.5	75.5
African American (%)	11.9	4.6	2.9	13.6
Native American (%)	0.5	0.5	0.5	1.3
Asian (%)	4.8	2.2	1.6	6.3
Other (%)	1.6	1.6	1.4	3.0
Hispanic c	13.4	9.9	6.9	19.1
Married	51.6	61.5	65.1	47.6
Widowed	9.6	6.8	6.7	5.7
Divorced	15.0	14.2	13.3	9.5
Separated	2.8	2.1	1.5	1.7
Never married	21.1	15.4	13.4	34.1

Note: All expenditure and income values are adjusted for inflation and reported as 2005 US dollars.

Individual characteristics (i.e., age, race and education) are for the reference person of the household (consumer unit).

^a Proportions of households reflect the average percentage of pet owners among all households and the average percentage of veterinary service users among pet owners, respectively.

^b Age groups defined as Baby Boomer: 1946−1964; Generation X: 1965−1979; Millennial: 1980−1996; Generation Z: born after 1997.

^c Hispanic information is only available after 2009.

Source: QuickFacts, data are retrieved from the U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222.

Among all sample households, 28.5% showed expenditures on pet‐related goods and services. Households with pet expenditures spent an average of $224 on pet‐related items quarterly (Figure 1). However, the CE survey could underestimate pet ownership since pet owners might need pet‐related expenditures. Also, considering that pet owners typically go to the veterinarian once per year, the expenditures of veterinary services could be underestimated. In this study, the average proportion of veterinary service users among households with pet‐related spending is 33.5%, and veterinary service users spent an average of $269 on veterinary services quarterly (Figure 1). Interestingly, on average, veterinary service users spent 84.2% more than pet‐owning households on total pet‐related expenditures. Those pet owners spent more on veterinary services, and they also spent more on pet‐related services (Figure 2).

FIGURE 1.

Average quarterly pet‐related expenditures per household (pet‐owning household.

FIGURE 2.

Average quarterly pet‐related expenditures per household (veterinary care use household).

Economic conditions over the studied period could impact pet‐related expenditures. Economic factors were also likely to influence spending at the individual household level. For example, pet owners and veterinary service users had higher incomes and were more likely to be homeowners (Table 1). Pet‐owning households using veterinary services appeared to have even higher incomes, own their residence more often and were more likely to be married.

Although there were no significant age differences among the three groups (sample households, households with pet expenditures, and families with veterinary service expenditures), among different age groups, Baby Boomers tended to be pet owners and use veterinary services more. At the same time, millennials were less likely to be pet owners and to visit veterinarians. In terms of race, White households were consistently more likely to own pets and take their pets to a veterinary office. African American and Asian groups were less likely to be pet owners and veterinary service users. Hispanic consumers followed a pattern similar to African American and Asian groups. This emphasizes the importance of the veterinary industry's need to understand these differences as ethnic and racial groups continue to grow to capture this potential market.

3.2. Pet ownership and veterinary service use

The US households’ pet‐related expenditures and veterinary service uses are summarized in Figures 3, 4, 5, 6. We extended them from the summaries in Wolf et al. (2008), combining two periods, 1980–2005 and 2006–2018. Four expenditure‐related variables are defined below:

1. Percentage of households that spent money on pets (Figure 3).

2. Average quarterly pet‐related expenditures per household for households with pet‐related expenditures (Figure 4).

3. Percentage of households that had expenditures on veterinary services for households with pet‐related expenditures (veterinary service users) (Figure 5).

4. Average quarterly veterinary service expenditures for veterinary service users (Figure 6).

FIGURE 3.

Proportion (%) of households with expenditures for pet‐related services, pet supply, pet services, veterinary services and total pet‐related spending for all families, 1980–2018.

FIGURE 4.

Mean quarterly pet expenditures: pet supplies, pet services, veterinary services and total pet‐related expenditures (total pet‐related expenditures > 0), 1980–2018.

FIGURE 5.

Proportion of households with veterinary service expenditures among households with pet‐related expenditures, 1980–2018.

FIGURE 6.

Mean quarterly expenditures per household for veterinary service users, 1980–2018.

Notably, the proportion of households reporting pet‐related expenditures was substantially lower than the AVMA and the APPA estimates of pet ownership (AVMA, 2018; APPA, 2020). For the dataset used in this study, pet‐owning families may report pet food under groceries instead of pet‐related expenditures or may not have pet‐related expenditures during the survey period. Thus, using pet‐related expenditures may underreport pet ownership. However, the correlations between demographics and pet and veterinary expenditures were not expected to differ based on reporting.

As shown in Figure 3, the percentage of households with expenditures on pets increased relatively steadily from 20.8% in 1980 to a high of 32.6% in 2009. After 2009, the ratio decreased until 2015, when it began to increase steadily again to the rate of 27.3% in 2018. The proportions of households that used veterinary services changed slightly over time (ranging from 8.8% to 10.8%, the red line).

Average quarterly pet‐related expenditures have increased steadily over time (Figure 4), resulting in an increase of pet‐related total spending of 127.0% over the 39‐year period (from $121 to $274). The increase is also reflected in veterinary service expenditures, which increased by 127.1% from $53 in 1980 to $121 in 2018.

The correlation of pet expenditure with the household economic situation was tested. The increases in pet‐related spending correlate (correlation coefficient of 0.95) with real per capita GDP. For example, the decrease in 2009 could be the result of the economic contraction at the same time.

Among households with pet‐related expenditures (pet‐owning households), the percentage of households with veterinary service expenditures is shown in Figure 5. The decreasing trend in the proportion from 50.1% in 1980 to 29.0% in 2010 was consistent with the findings of Wolf et al. (2008). However, since 2010, the percentage has gradually increased. Between 2010 and 2018, the rate of pet‐owning households using veterinary services returned to 39.5%.

There has been an increasing trend in average quarterly veterinary service expenditures and more pet owners using veterinary services (Figure 6). Between 1980 and 2018, household veterinary service expenditures increased by 188.4%, with the quarterly mean expenditure on veterinary services rising from $106 to $306 per quarter (Figure 6). All dollar values are expressed in 2005 dollars to correct for inflation.

3.3. Factors influencing veterinary service use

The Probit model was used to examine how household characteristics influence the probability of households utilizing veterinary services. The dependent variables specified whether the pet‐owning family had veterinary service expenditures. A household characteristic set was selected as the explanatory variable influencing the household's decision on veterinary service usage. The estimated results are summarized in Table 2. To interpret the results, marginal effects predicted from the estimated coefficients were calculated. The marginal effects represent the changes in the dependent variables (probability) by a one‐unit change in the corresponding explanatory variable (at the mean value for a continuous variable and when that variable is valid for a dummy variable).

TABLE 2.

Estimates of Probit regression for the probability of using veterinary services given households with pet‐related expenditures, 2006–2018.

	Probability of veterinary service (when pet‐related expenditure > 0)
Variable	Marginal effect	p‐value
Year	0.011	0.000
Winter	−0.025	0.000
Spring	0.001	0.777
Summer	0.009	0.083
Income a	0.047	0.000
Family size	−0.032	0.000
Family size2	0.001	0.000
Owned residence	0.055	0.000
Rural	0.024	0.001
Married	0.029	0.000
Widowed	−0.005	0.611
Divorced	−0.011	0.123
Separated	−0.021	0.135
Midwest	0.013	0.019
South	−0.017	0.001
West	−0.012	0.023
Gender	−0.026	0.000
Age	0.001	0.003
Millennial b	−0.011	0.286
Generation X	−0.005	0.460
Education	0.017	0.000
Black	−0.105	0.000
Native	0.010	0.680
Asian	−0.127	0.000
Hispanic c	−0.060	0.000

Note: All expenditure and income values are adjusted for inflation and reported as 2005 US dollars.

Individual characteristics (i.e., age, race and education) are for the reference person of the household.

^a Income uses the natural logarithm of household income after taxes (in 2005 dollars).

^b Baby Boomer: 1946−1964; Generation X: 1965−1979; Millennial: 1980−2000. Baby Boomers as baseline (omitted).

^c Hispanic information is only available after 2009.

In terms of households’ sociodemographics, income level, and house ownership affect the likelihood of using veterinary services. As household income level increases by one natural logarithm unit as ln(income) (to be consistent with Wolf et al., 2008, findings), the probability of veterinary service use increases by 4.7%. Also, homeowners are 5.5% more likely to use veterinary services than renters. Our study also includes other related characteristics that are worth mentioning. Compared to urban households, rural households have a 2.4% higher probability of using veterinary services. A previous study has shown that households in the Northeast tend to have the highest likelihood of using veterinary services (Wolf et al., 2008). However, the situation has slightly changed. Compared to households in the Northeast region, pet‐owning households in the Mid‐West are 1.3% more likely to be veterinary service users. Households in the South and West regions are less likely to use veterinary services, with marginal effects of −1.7% and −1.2%, respectively.

Other household sociodemographic factors also influence the likelihood of pet owners using veterinary services. For example, the larger a household is, the less likely they are to spend money on veterinary services. Among pet‐owning households, married households show a significantly higher likelihood of being veterinary service users (with a marginal effect of 2.9% more than veterinary service users (with a marginal impact of 2.9% more than single‐member households). It is worth mentioning that the BLS CE data also include information on the head of the household. Since the head of the household could be the primary decision‐maker of the family, the effects of the characteristics of the head of the household may be even important in deciding use veterinary service or not. In this study, we find that the head of household's characteristics significantly impact the probability of using veterinary service. For instance, households with male heads are 2.6% less likely than female heads of households to use veterinary services. In addition, age is another factor influencing pet ownership and veterinary service use. Although younger households generally are more likely to own pets, the age of veterinary service users shows that older pet owners are more likely to use veterinary services. The age effect is statistically significant, with a marginal effect of 0.001 (for every year of age, they are 0.1% more likely to use the services).

Moreover, we noticed that the sample (retrieved from BLS CE public use data) included slightly more White households, with fewer African American, Asian and Hispanic households, contrasted to the 2022 Census data (Table 1). Although it could be one of the limitations of the study, since the BLS CE survey has controlled the data quality, it reflects the change in population composition and would not affect the results substantially. It is worth noting that Decker‐Sparks et al. (2018) found that race and ethnicity were not primary determinants of certain veterinary service utilization. Our results revealed that during the 13‐year period, compared to White heads of household, African American and Asian households are less likely to use veterinary services (with marginal effects of −10.5% and −12.7%, respectively). Although in this study, some social and cultural effects were controlled (income, family size, marriage status), there were still factors/barriers that were not included, which might affect the use of veterinary services (e.g., structural discrimination, racial inequalities and regional service disparities). Therefore, future research may include more structural factors to investigate whether race and ethnicity are significant determinants of veterinary service utilization.

Regarding ethnicity, Hispanic heads of households have not shown a higher likelihood than non‐Hispanic households in veterinary service utilization (with a marginal effect of −6%) This result is consistent with Wolf and colleagues’ findings, in which African American and Asian pet owners were approximately 10% less likely to seek veterinary care than White pet owners (Wolf et al., 2008). However, we notice that the number of Hispanic households and Hispanic pet‐owning households has increased over the years (Girgenti, 2020). Future research should also focus on this new trend. Although it takes years to change societal norms, over time, Hispanic pet owners may utilize veterinary services at similar rates as non‐Hispanic owners.

4. DISCUSSION

This study examines trends in pet ownership, pet expenditures and veterinary service use from 2006 to 2018. Our findings provide evidence that the effects of household sociodemographic factors and the characteristics of the head of household on the likelihood of using veterinary services are significant.

Economic booms and busts continuously impact pet‐related expenditures and the use of veterinary services. The planning and pricing for veterinary services should carefully relate to economic conditions. Geographic location also affects the use of veterinary services. Research shows a need for more availability of veterinary clinics in rural areas, but the demand for services by pet owners in these areas appears to be strong (Dieleman et al., 2021). Improving the availability of veterinary clinics in rural areas can enhance the revenue and economic performance of veterinary services. Although the long‐term financial viability and sustainability of the veterinary profession may still be a concern, the increasing number of pet owners using veterinary services is encouraging. When combining these factors, in accordance with established best practices for improving access to veterinary care, it is advisable to prioritize the creation of new veterinary clinics in geographic areas and specific communities where economic barriers to accessing such services are relatively minimal.

Although White and non‐Hispanic households are likely to still dominate the numbers in pet‐related and veterinary care expenditures, our findings regarding the effects of the head of household's race and ethnicity on using veterinary services provide valuable insights. For the pet industry and veterinary professionals, a better understanding of the racial and ethnic disparities in veterinary care and how to better support these pet‐owning households are crucial for long‐term strategic planning. Consistent with Wolf et al. (2008), the effects of race on using veterinary services have not changed much after 2008. Compared to White pet owners, African American and Asian pet owners are slightly less likely to use veterinary services. Hispanic pet owners are also less likely to use veterinary services, even though this group tends to have higher rates of pet ownership. These households could be the groups owning pets but are ready to spend more on veterinary care (potential veterinary care users).

As mentioned earlier, there are other social determinants of health care, racial disparities and cultural competence that might affect veterinary care utilization. Further research is needed to determine the primary factors in veterinary care utilization by race and ethnicity. Interestingly, these findings are also comparable to the likelihood of the expenditure on human medical care. Different races and ethnic groups have significant differences in estimated health care spending. White families tended to spend more on health care, while African American, Asian and Hispanic families were likely to spend less on health care (Dieleman et al., 2021). Similar to health care spending and utilization, there are structural barriers/racism that could shape veterinary care utilization. We hope this study inspires further research to shed light on the scope of potential disparities by race and ethnicity. It is worth continuing research to examine the correlation between pet veterinary services and expenditures on health care. Due to limitations in sample size and lack of statistically significant regression results, pet ownership among Native American/American Indian households was not included in this study. Future research endeavours could address this gap by including a more diverse participant pool, encompassing individuals from various demographic groups.

According to Girgenti (2020), the author found that Hispanic households are starting to increase rates of pet ownership. Although the analyses signal potential shifts of pet ownership between race and ethnicity and the effect of race and ethnicity on veterinary service use may evolve, it has yet to happen in using veterinary care. A related issue is the need for more diversity of veterinarians. In 2018, 86% of veterinarians in the United States were White and non‐Hispanic (Data USA, 2020). This may hinder ethnic groups from obtaining veterinary services if they seek veterinarians who share their culture. Understanding and addressing the needs of potential clients should be the ongoing priority to initiate new strategies to develop a broader‐based inclusive environment. While various social and cultural factors may impact the utilization of veterinary care among different groups of pet owners, it is essential for the veterinary profession to understand this when targeting specific client segments. By acknowledging and addressing socioeconomic status, cultural beliefs and access to veterinary services as key factors influencing pet ownership, the veterinary profession can enhance inclusiveness and diversity by expanding and enriching its veterinarian team to reflect the age group, race and ethnicity trends. The veterinary profession may benefit from fostering an environment that actively addresses these considerations, creating a more comprehensive and accessible approach to pet care.

Building upon the valuable insights provided by Wolf et al. (2008), this study presents a timely opportunity for leaders in the veterinary profession to reevaluate and prioritize the veterinary marketing approach, specifically focusing on racial and ethnic groups. With more than a decade since the previous research, it is imperative to reassess the various factors influencing pet ownership, pet expenditure and the decision‐making process regarding veterinary services. By thoroughly reviewing the implications derived from this study, veterinary professionals can better understand their client's specific needs, preferences and challenges. This knowledge will enable them to make necessary adjustments and fine‐tune their marketing strategies accordingly.

Our study provides specific veterinary use information and household characteristics that influence the use of veterinary services over 13 years. Our findings suggest that the customer‐centric approach should still be a practical approach to prioritize the needs of all clients and ensure they feel acknowledged, appreciated and provided with high‐quality care. This approach fosters lasting loyalty and generates positive word‐of‐mouth referrals within the communities served. Highlighting its effectiveness in the current literature, fellow veterinary professionals can further improve their services and create a more positive and patient‐centric experience for their clients. Further research should focus on a thorough assessment of the situation to determine the potential impact of these marketing strategies.

Veterinary professionals can effectively connect with underrepresented communities to improve service access and foster greater pet ownership. By tailoring their marketing strategies to cater to the diverse needs of different racial and ethnic groups, veterinary professionals can improve the overall satisfaction and retention of existing clients. By prioritizing the veterinary marketing approach for racial and ethnic groups, the veterinary service sector can effectively address pet care disparities, bridge existing gaps and improve economic viability. The comprehensive and inclusive marketing strategy will foster a more diverse and representative client base and contribute to pets’ overall well‐being and health.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Xumin Zhang: Data curation; Formal Analysis; Methodology; Software; Visualization; Writing‐original draft; Writing‐review and editing. Lisa House (Corresponding Author): Conceptualization; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Validation; Writing – review and editing. Matthew Salois: Conceptualization; Methodology; Validation; Writing – review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that there were no conflicts of interest.

ETHICAL STATEMENTS

We hereby certify that all relevant legal and ethical requirements have been met with regard to the humane treatment of animals, as outlined by the Journal of Small Animal Practice, for the study titled ‘An Examination of US Pet Owners’ Use of Veterinary Services, 2006−2018’. This study exclusively utilized a secondary dataset obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Surveys. There are no human participants in this article and informed consent is not applicable.

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1002/vms3.1370

Zhang, X. , House, L. , & Salois, M. J. (2024). An examination of US pet owners’ use of veterinary services, 2006–2018. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 10, e1370. 10.1002/vms3.1370

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available at https://www.bls.gov/cex/pumd_data.htm. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: https://www.bls.gov/cex/pumd_data.htm