ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment
Exploring the administrative burden faced by hematologists: a comprehensive study in Italy.
Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Mediated Discharge Document for Accessible Health Care (AIM-HEALTH): Protocol for a Prospective, Observational, Noninterventional Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Observational
- Perspectives on emerging challenges and training needs for the Laboratory Medicine specialist of the future.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Burnout and workload among hematologists in the Community of Madrid (Spain): a survey based on the Copenhagen burnout inventory.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Erratum in: Exploring the administrative burden faced by hematologists: a comprehensive study in Italy.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Administrative burdens have been identified as a major issue impacting patient care, professional practice, and the overall efficiency of healthcare systems. The aim of this study is to assess the administrative burden faced by Italian hematologists. Methods: A cross-sectional survey that included both closed-ended quantitative questions and open-ended free text answer options was administered to 1,570 hematologists working with malignancies and members of Italian GIMEMA Foundation - Franco Mandelli ONLUS and the Italian Linfomi Foundation (FIL). The survey was conducted online from May 24 to June 30, 2023. Descriptive statistics were computed for the quantitative data to clearly summarize the responses and descriptive analysis of free text responses was carried out. Results: Surveyed hematologists spend an average of 47.07% of their time on administrative tasks, with 63.22% (n = 110) of respondents reporting spending at least half of their time on these activities. More than half (57.47%, n = 100) reported that "Patient care" is the medical task most affected by a lack of time. Additionally, 55.17% (n = 96) reported experiencing burnout in the past 6 months, with filling out "Forms" being identified as the top contributing administrative task by 27.59% (n = 48) of respondents, followed by "Scheduling" (24.71%, n = 43) and "Managing IT system failures" (21.84%, n = 38). Nearly half of the surveyed hematologists (45.40%, n = = 79) identified patient care as the top priority requiring more time. Conclusions: The study confirms that the administrative workload of hematologists has a significant impact on patient care, communication, and burnout risk, reducing the time available for patient care, leading to exhaustion and concern about clinical errors.
Indexed as
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.