ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Oncology Trainee Perceptions of the Prior Authorization Process: A National Survey.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caregiver experiences of healthcare-related administrative burden: a scoping review.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Integrating Prior Authorization Into Clinical Workflows for Care Access and Practitioner Experience.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Perceptions of prior authorization burden and solutions.Health affairs scholar · 2024Article
- Active steps to reduce administrative spending associated with financial transactions in US health care.Health affairs scholar · 2023Article
- Strategic Operational Redesign Improves Prior Authorization Access: A Validation Study.International journal of particle therapy · 2023Article
- Teaming in Graduate Medical Education: Ward Rounds and Beyond.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
- Worsening Racial Disparities in Utilization of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe medical trainee perspective regarding the prior authorization process has not been previously assessed. Here we evaluate the perceptions of radiation and medical oncology trainees regarding the prior authorization process and its effect on their training and patient care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 12-question, nonincentivized, electronic national survey of radiation and medical oncology trainees at all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited oncology programs was conducted. Participation, perspectives, and experiences with the prior authorization process were assessed by Likert scale, free response, and multiple response selection.
resultsBetween January and March of 2019, the survey was distributed to 1505 trainees at 76 institutions with responses from 174/616 radiation (28.2%) and 139/889 medical oncology trainees (15.6%). The majority (69.2%) reported participating in the prior authorization process (radiation: 78.2% vs medical: 57.6%;
conclusionsThese data indicate that trainees in US oncology programs are active participants in the prior authorization process and report that prior authorization approvals negatively influence their medical training and the quality of patient care. Additional efforts to revise the insurance approval process are warranted.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.