An assessment of radiation oncology medical physicists’ perspectives on undertaking research

Abstract

As part of a study of the radiation oncology workforce, radiation oncology medical physicists (ROMPs) who had worked in Australia were surveyed regarding their attitudes to participating in research. Responses from 88 ROMPs were available for analysis, representing a broad mix of employment situations and research experience. Greater than 70% of ROMPs described their involvement in research as “liking it” or “loving it”, with associated identified benefits including skills development, job satisfaction and career progression. Over half of respondents agreed that involvement in research inspired them to stay in their profession. However, lack of time, support and motivation were all identified as barriers to participation in research. Areas of research interest were identified. This study highlights the importance of a research culture for job satisfaction and staff retention.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    ACPSEM (2016) ACPSEM Training, Education and Assessment Program For Medical Physics and Radiopharmaceutical Science. Version 5.0 edn. Australasian College of Physics Scientists and Engineers in Medicine, Sydney

  2. 2.

    IAEA (2009) Clinical training of medical physicists specializing in radiation oncology. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ng KH, Cheung KY, Hu YM, Inamura K, Kim HJ, Krisanachinda A, Leung J, Pradhan AS, Round H, van Dorn T, Wong TJ, Yi BY (2009) The role, responsibilities and status of the clinical medical physicist in AFOMP. Aust Phys Eng Sci Med 32(4):175–179. doi:10.1007/bf03179236

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Chu RY, Henly M (2004) AAPM Research Survey Final Report American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Alexandria, VA

  5. 5.

    Langelier M, Forte G (2010) Workforce Study of Medical Physicists in the U.S. Center for Health Workforce Studies, Rensselaer, NY

  6. 6.

    Leung J, Rioseco P, Munro P (2015) Stress, satisfaction and burnout amongst Australian and New Zealand radiation oncologists. J Med Imag Radiat Oncol 59(1):115–124. doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Radiation Oncology Workforce Planning Final Report (2009). Health Consult Pty Ltd

  8. 8.

    Mackay RI, Burnet NG, Green S, Illidge TM, Staffurth JN, on behalf of the NCEG (2012) Radiotherapy physics research in the UK: challenges and proposed solutions. Br J Radiol 85(1018):1354–1362. doi:10.1259/bjr/61530686

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Agustin C, Grand M, Gebski V, Turner S (2008) Radiation therapists’ perspective on barriers to clinical trials research. J Med Imag. Radiat Oncol 52(2):178–182. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.01938.x

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Halkett GK, McKay J, Hegney DG, Breen LJ, Berg M, Ebert MA, Davis M, Kearvell R (2016) Radiation therapists’ and radiation oncology medical physicists’ perceptions of work and the working environment in Australia: a qualitative study. Eur J Can Care. doi:10.1111/ecc.12511

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sehlen S, Vordermark D, Schäfer C, Herschbach P, Bayerl A, Pigorsch S, Rittweger J, Dormin C, Bölling T, Wypior HJ, Zehentmayr F, Schulze W, Geinitz H (2009) Job stress and job satisfaction of physicians, radiographers, nurses and physicists working in radiotherapy: a multicenter analysis by the DEGRO Quality of Life Work Group. Radiat Oncol. doi:10.1186/1748-717X-4-6

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kron T, Azhari HA, Voon EO, Cheung KY, Ravindran P, Soejoko D, Inamura K, Han Y, Ung NM, TsedenIsh B, Win UM, Srivastava R, Marsh S, Farrukh S, Rodriguez L, Kuo M, Baggarley S, DilipKumara AH, Lee CC, Krisanachinda A, Nguyen XC, Ng KH (2015) Medical physics aspects of cancer care in the Asia Pacific region: 2014 survey results. Aust Phys Eng Sci Med 38(3):493–501. doi:10.1007/s13246-015-0373-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hegney D, Eley R, Plank A, Buikstra E, Parker V (2006) Workforce issues in nursing in Queensland: 2001 and 2004. J Clin Nurs 15(12):1521–1530. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01558.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Whitworth A, Haining S, Stringer H (2012) Enhancing research capacity across healthcare and higher education sectors: development and evaluation of an integrated model. BMC Health Serv Res 12(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Crowe SB, Kairn T (2016) Women in medical physics: a preliminary analysis of workforce and research participation in Australia and New Zealand. Aust Phys Eng Sci Med 39(2):525–532. doi:10.1007/s13246-016-0428-z

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Scutter S, Halkett G (2003) Research attitudes and experiences of radiation therapist. Radiographer 50(2):69–72

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Turner A, D’Alimonte L, Fitch M (2013) Promoting radiation therapy research: understanding perspectives, transforming culture. J Radiother Pract 12:92–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wright C, Hilder B, Schneider-Kolsky M (2009) Meeting the research agenda in Australia radiation therapy: the current picture. J Radiother Pract 8:67–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Egestad H, Halkett GKB (2016) A Delphi study on research priorities in radiation therapy: the Norwegian perspective. Radiography 22(1):65–70. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2015.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing as part of the project Establishing a Sustainable Radiation Oncology Workforce Through Greater Access to Collaborative Research and Education Facilities. We are very grateful to members of the Radiation Oncology Workforce Western Australia group, survey reviewers and those who provided survey responses. We also thank the WA Cancer and Palliative Care Network for their ongoing support of the WA Workforce group beyond completion of our initial project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin A. Ebert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from Curtin University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (RD-25-13).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ebert, M.A., Halkett, G.K., Berg, M. et al. An assessment of radiation oncology medical physicists’ perspectives on undertaking research. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 40, 173–180 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-016-0505-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Radiation oncology
  • Physicists
  • Research
  • Occupational
  • Workforce
  • Satisfaction