Research interests identified at the coal-face: initial Delphi analysis of Australian radiation therapists' perspectives

Australian radiation therapist's research capacity and culture: investigating the extent of assistance required to build research capacity

Introduction

Building research capacity within the radiation therapist workforce/profession is essential to guarantee research is embedded into core practices. Assessment of current capacity levels within organisation, department and individual domains needs to occur to establish a baseline and ensure research capacity building (RCB) strategies will be targeted successfully. This exploratory study aimed to identify the areas within each domain where radiation therapists would benefit from extra research assistance, that being research support and process changes, particularly in relation to the workplace and health sector.

Methods

Practising radiation therapists (RTs) within Australia were recruited through professional organisations and invited to complete the online Research Capacity Culture Tool (RCCT). The survey was conducted using Qualtrics with data exported to SPSS.V27 for analysis. Descriptive statistics and the Industry Specific Item Interpretation for Policy and Strategy were used to analyse and report the results.

Results

Survey participation rate was 121/2640 (4.6%). Within the Organisation and Department domains, the most research assistance was required in infrastructure (n = 92–37) and support (n = 66–45) categories, respectively. Participants from private sector (Organisation: 42.7%, Department: 53.7%) and metropolitan centres (Organisation: 32.6%, Department: 47.5%) required a higher rate of assistance when compared to their counterparts in both categories. The individual domain showed similar levels of assistance required across health sectors and work locations. Workplaces showed similar levels of complexity of research activity; private sector (62.5%) recorded the highest level of no research activity.

Conclusion

This study has provided insight into how the research capacity and culture of organisations and departments in which individuals' work will influence their abilities and opportunities to perform research.

Phenomena of radiography science - A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study is to clarify the domain of radiography science. The main goal of science is building knowledge and developing ideas and theories that explain, predict, understand or interpret the phenomena investigated. Each discipline has its own perspective to view and study the phenomena of interest. The disciplinary perspective enables researchers in radiography science to reason and conceptualize phenomena, but it can also restrict them. The aim of this review was to investigate phenomena that are at the core of the discipline of radiography science.

METHODS

This study used a scoping review as the method. A systematic search was carried out in the databases: Science Direct, Pubmed, Cinahl, and Scopus. The selection of articles was conducted by predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria for the title, abstract and full text. After the exclusion process, fourteen articles were selected for a final review. The articles were analyzed with inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

From the articles, 117 research interests were identified; these were merged into 17 categories and further into six main categories. The main categories represent the phenomena radiography science investigates. The phenomena are: the radiographers' profession, clinical practices in diagnostic and therapeutic patient pathways, safe and high quality use of radiation, radiographic technology, discipline, management and leadership of radiography professionals CONCLUSIONS: Radiography science has a conceptual structure of its own that needs more investigation. Radiography science researches distinctive phenomena and specialized knowledge, common to researchers from different traditions and subspecialties thus justifying its existence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Investigating the core phenomena of interest in radiography science can support researchers in the field to focus their research and to develop the concepts of radiography.

Radiation therapy technologists' involvement and opinion in research: A national survey in Italy

Introduction

This survey describes Italian RTTs' involvement and opinions in research activities related to radiation oncology. Primary aim was to assess the degree of involvement of the national RTTs community in research and to describe how RTTs can integrate their skills collaborating with other professionals.

Materials and methods

A ten-items multiple-choice questionnaire, with 2-8 possible responses, was developed by a steering committee and generated on a survey platform. Links were sent via email to Italian RTTs.The questions were divided in 3 domains: demographic data; scientific research and activity; opinions about RTTs role in scientific research. The survey started on October 1, 2018 and ended on January 31, 2019.

Results

One hundred thirty-five out of 509 (26.5%) RTTs responded to the questionnaire at its expiring date; 97.73% think to be valid contributors in radiation oncology research, expressing clear interest in "data collection" tasks (52.71%); 38.64% feel unsupported by other professionals in the research team and 59.85% of the respondents are not members in any scientific society.

Conclusions

The role of Italian RTTs in research is heterogeneous. Mainly RTTs in the age range from 30 to 40 years responded to the survey showing their interest in scientific research. This might be related to different informatics and educational skills as well as to personal attitudes. RTTs particular skills, like data management and technical hypothesis generation abilities, are of benefit to realize research projects. Therefore, engaging RTTs in research activities is strongly suggested.

Radiation therapists' perspectives on participating in research

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this research were to: (1) determine the extent of Australian radiation therapists (RTs) research participation; (2) evaluate the impact of research involvement on career perceptions (3) explore which research topics require investigation and (4) identify benefits and barriers to research participation.

METHODS

This study used mixed methods to collect qualitative and quantitative data using an online survey from a larger workforce study of RTs and radiation oncology medical physicists. Participants practising in Australia completed questions about their research involvement. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to analyse quantitative data and content analysis was used to explore qualitative data.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-six RTs answered the research questions. Forty-six percent had been involved in research. Of these, 91% had been involved in departmental, 28% in national, 14% in international and 29% in informal or self-directed research studies. Eleven RTs (8%) had received funding as a chief/principal investigator. Involvement in research was associated with a desire to make a career change. However, it also appeared to be associated with greater satisfaction with career progression and staying in the career. Respondents identified a range of potential research topics, benefits of participating in research and barriers which included lack of time, support and cost.

CONCLUSION

Almost half of the RT participants identified that they were participating in research. Our data suggest that continued involvement in research, and opportunities to participate, improve RT job satisfaction. RTs' research activities are likely to be extended through provision of additional time and support.

Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy

Background and purpose: Research is increasingly important in radiation therapy, but radiation therapists (or therapy radiographers) (RTs) are relatively new to research and may have difficulty defining research topics. Our aim was to identify the group interests and focus research priorities of Australian RTs. Although not measured, an additional aim was to make RTs more aware of the relevance of RT research.

Materials and methods: An Australia-wide Delphi process was used, examining the problems related to patient care, working with colleagues, and radiotherapy in general, that RTs experienced in their daily work. In an initial study, 374 problems were identified. These were translated into 53 research areas which were prioritised in the second stage of the study. Agreement between groups was analysed using a hierarchical cluster procedure and post hoc Scheffe multiple comparisons.

Results: There were three groups of responders with varying degrees of research interest. There was agreed high importance (p > 0.01) for the technical aspects of radiation therapy, such as image guidance, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and patient positioning. There was significant disagreement (p < 0.001 to p = 0.023) between groups on the importance of patient care research.

Conclusions: The strong interest in technical research is consistent with the rapid influx of technology, particularly in imaging. The disagreement on patient-related research may be of concern. The list of potential research areas specific to radiation therapy will be useful for new RT researchers to consider.