Farms.com Home   News

All Causes of Death Among Veterinarians in the United States During 1979 through 2015

Abstract: All causes of death among veterinarians in the United States during 1979 through 2015

OBJECTIVE To assess proportionate mortality from all causes for male and female US veterinarians during 1979 through 2015.

SAMPLE Death records for 11,620 veterinarians.

PROCEDURES For this proportionate mortality ratio (PMR) study, information for veterinarians who died during 1979 through 2015 was obtained from AVMA obituary and life insurance databases and submitted to a centralized database of US death records to obtain underlying causes of death. Decedent data that met records-matching criteria were imported into a software program for calculation of PMRs for all causes stratified by sex and indirectly standardized for age, race, and 5-year calendar period with 95% CIs.

RESULTS 11,620 decedents consisted of 11,049 (95%) males and 571 (5%) females with a median age at death of 77 years. Proportionate mortality for all veterinarian decedents was higher than expected for melanoma (PMRs, 2.1 and 2.2 for males and females, respectively), suicide (PMRs, 2.1 and 3.5 for males and females, respectively), and transportation injuries (PMRs, 1.7 and 1.6 for males and females, respectively). Proportionate mortality for all decedents was lower than expected for respiratory cancers (PMRs, 0.6 and 0.5 for males and females, respectively), diabetes mellitus (PMRs, 0.7 and 0.4 for males and females, respectively), heart disease (PMRs, 0.9 and 0.6 for males and females, respectively), and respiratory disorders (PMRs, 0.7 and 0.6 for males and females, respectively).

Click here to see more...

Trending Video

Buying Sheep: Misleading Terms Used To Sell Sheep!/August 5, 2022

Video: Buying Sheep: Misleading Terms Used To Sell Sheep!/August 5, 2022

I hesitated a day before I decided to post this video because I know there are lots of points I make in it that people will disagree with. This is about what I consider to be misleading terms used to sell or market sheep that are made to influence buyers that those animals are better than others. Now in some cases this may be true but in some cases not. I would argue that anyone can have good or bad sheep and that proper knowledge, feeding, care, management, genetics, etc all play a role in producing healthy, quality, breeding stock. I see no place in the sheep industry for attacking other sheep farmers and I feel that we should be more supportive of one another instead of being so harsh and judgmental. The bottom line is that anyone can do and achieve success in the sheep industry with good management and care regardless of being a closed or tested flock. And the assumption that those flocks are better than flocks not on tests are flawed.