ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Accessibility of Otolaryngology Care in Virginia: A Geospatial Workforce Analysis.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Geographic access to otolaryngologic care is a critical determinant of timely diagnosis and management for time-sensitive conditions, yet state-level disparities remain incompletely characterized. This study evaluated the geographic distribution of Virginia otolaryngologists and identified rural-urban differences in care access. Methods: A cross-sectional geospatial workforce analysis was conducted using public data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngologists in Virginia were geocoded to primary practice addresses. Counties and independent cities were classified using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC). Otolaryngologist density per 100,000 population, jurisdictions lacking in-county access, adjacency to independent cities with otolaryngologists, and fellowship training distribution were analyzed across metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. Results: A total of 377 otolaryngologists were identified statewide. Per-capita availability was higher in metropolitan jurisdictions (RUCC 1-3), with a mean density of 4.67 per 100,000 population compared with 1.49 per 100,000 in non-metropolitan jurisdictions (RUCC 4-9). Overall, 67.4% of counties lacked an in-county otolaryngologist; after accounting for adjacency to independent cities with at least one provider, 55.8% remained without local access. Non-metropolitan jurisdictions were disproportionately affected. Although 35.8% of otolaryngologists reported fellowship training, approximately 98% of fellowship-trained physicians practiced in metropolitan jurisdictions. Conclusion: Otolaryngology care in Virginia remains geographically uneven, with many jurisdictions lacking local specialty access. These findings highlight gaps in access to care and may inform workforce planning and strategies to improve availability of otolaryngologic services in underserved regions. Level of Evidence: Level IV (cross-sectional observational study).
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.