Highlights
- •We designed a national survey to quantify interest in scientific activities of MPEs.
- •34.7% of the respondents dedicated <10% of their working time to research activities.
- •Time spent on scientific activities was not enough for 67.5% of the respondents.
- •The lack of time was the most frequent (77%) barrier to scientific activities.
Abstract
Purpose
The “FutuRuS” working group of the Italian Association of Medical Physics and Health
Physics (AIFM) designed a survey (SicAS) to get feedback from its members regarding
their interests and their experience in taking part in scientific activities and events,
with the objective of focusing future efforts of the AIFM towards increasing the scientific
activity of the medical physics expert (MPE).
Methods
SicAS was sent out in March 2022 to all AIFM members by newsletter and official communication.
SicAS was structured into three sections: personal information and institution of
affiliation information, involvement in scientific activities, interest in and commitment
to scientific activities. Responses were collected in a fully anonymised mode from
the Google Forms platform and analysed with descriptive statistics.
Results
Out of 1289 members (active at the end of 2021), 467 responded to the Survey (response
rate of 36%). The Survey results highlighted that AIFM members ranked the involvement
of the MPE in scientific activities as highly relevant to the profession. However,
34.7% indicated devoting less than 10% of their working time to scientific activities.
67.5% of the respondents were dissatisfied with the time spent on scientific activities.
The primary barrier was the lack of time (77%), followed by a lack of mentoring (32%).
Conclusions
SicAS highlighted the need for AIFM initiatives to support members’ scientific activities.
National societies should help develop and support networks between members, create
links among universities, hospitals, research institutions and industries, and provide
guidelines and learning platforms for enhancing the MPEs’ involvement in scientific
activities.
Graphical abstract
Graphical Abstract
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical PhysicsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Medical physics now classified internationally as a profession.Med Phys. 2011; 38: ihttps://doi.org/10.1118/1.3605469
Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom n.d.:73.
- The research versus clinical service role of medical physics.Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2015; 114: 285-288https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.02.003
- Expanding the scientific role of medical physics in radiotherapy: Time to act.Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2015; 117: 401-402https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.11.007
- Improving radiotherapy through medical physics developments.Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2015; 117: 403-406https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.11.008
- Grand challenges for medical physics in radiation oncology.Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2020; 153: 7-14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.10.001
- The 3rd ESTRO-EFOMP core curriculum for medical physics experts in radiotherapy.Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2022; 170: 89-94https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.02.012
- Redefining and reinvigorating the role of physics in clinical medicine: a report from the AAPM Medical Physics 3.0 Ad Hoc Committee.Med Phys. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13087
- Medical physics 3.0: a renewed model for practicing medical physics in clinical imaging.Phys Medica PM Int J Devoted Appl Phys Med Biol Off J Ital Assoc Biomed Phys AIFB. 2022; 94: 53-57https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.12.020
- Leadership and mentoring in medical physics: The experience of a medical physics international mentoring program.Phys Medica PM Int J Devoted Appl Phys Med Biol Off J Ital Assoc Biomed Phys AIFB. 2020; 76: 337-344https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.07.023
- The need for dedicated time for medical physicists practice quality improvement efforts in radiation oncology department: A commentary.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022; 23: e13515
- A snapshot of medical physics practice patterns.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018; 19: 306-315https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12464
- Radiotherapy physics research in the UK: challenges and proposed solutions.Br J Radiol. 2012; 85: 1354-1362https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/61530686
- Radiation therapists’ perspective on barriers to clinical trials research.J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2008; 52: 178-182https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.01938.x
- Radiation therapists’ and radiation oncology medical physicists’ perceptions of work and the working environment in Australia: a qualitative study.Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017; : 26https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12511
- Professional quality of life and burnout among medical physicists working in radiation oncology: the role of alexithymia and empathy.Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2020; 15: 38-43https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2020.07.001
- The scientific publications of AIFM members in 2015–2019: A survey of the FutuRuS working group.Phys Medica PM Int J Devoted Appl Phys Med Biol Off J Ital Assoc Biomed Phys AIFB. 2021; 88: 111-116https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.06.011
- Radiation therapy technologists’ involvement and opinion in research: A national survey in Italy.Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2020; 15: 11-14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2020.05.002
- An assessment of radiation oncology medical physicists’ perspectives on undertaking research.Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2017; 40: 173-180https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-016-0505-3
- The European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics Policy Statement No. 6.1: Recommended Guidelines on National Registration Schemes for Medical Physicists.Phys Medica PM Int J Devoted Appl Phys Med Biol Off J Ital Assoc Biomed Phys AIFB. 2016; 32: 1-6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.01.479
- Medical physics aspects of cancer care in the Asia Pacific region: 2014 survey results.Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2015; 38: 493-501https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-015-0373-2
- Report of the ACPSEM radiation oncology medical physics workforce modelling project task group.Phys Eng Sci Med. 2021; 44: 1013-1025https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-021-01078-z
- A survey of the Australasian clinical medical physics and biomedical engineering workforce.Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2007; 30: 13-24https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178405
- A 2009 survey of the Australasian clinical medical physics and biomedical engineering workforce.Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2010; 33: 153-162https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-010-0023-7
- A 2012 survey of the Australasian clinical medical physics and biomedical engineering workforce.Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2013; 36: 147-157https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-013-0195-z
- The physical basis and future of radiation therapy.Br J Radiol. 2011; 84: 485-498https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/86221320
- Early career medical physicist groups in Europe: an EFOMP survey.Phys Medica PM Int J Devoted Appl Phys Med Biol Off J Ital Assoc Biomed Phys AIFB. 2022; 95: 89-93https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.02.001
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 24, 2023
Accepted:
April 10,
2023
Received in revised form:
March 3,
2023
Received:
October 19,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica e Sanitaria. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
