3724 - The Current and Future State of Radiation Therapy Practice - An Analysis of a Professional Workforce Survey
Presenter(s)

S. Skubish1, S. T. Caldwell2, S. Hayden3, M. Culp4, J. Culbertson4, J. Paisley5, S. Green6, and N. Uricchio7; 1Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY, 2MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 3Galveston College, Galveston, TX, 4American Society of Radiologic Technologists, Albuquerque, NM, 5Coastal Carolina Radiation Oncology, Wilmington, NC, United States, 6Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, 7Manchester Community College, Manchester, CT, United States
Purpose/Objective(s): This national workforce survey, conducted by a professional society for medical imaging and radiation therapists, assesses the evolving role of radiation therapists in the U.S. amid staffing constraints, technological advancements, and an expanding scope. It also examines therapists' general perceptions of advanced practice radiation therapy (APRT).
Materials/Methods: Survey questions were adapted from a 2016 pilot survey and updated based on current trends. In October 2023, 14,822 emails were sent to radiation therapy-certified registrants, yielding 403 responses (2.7% response rate). Adjusted for a finite population of 23,000 therapists, the margin of error was ±4.8% at a 95% confidence level. The survey had two parts:
- Respondents rated 16 practice-related subjects across four dimensions:
- Frequency of task performance
- Level of supervision required
- Self-assessed clinical knowledge
- Comfort in performing tasks
- Respondents shared opinions on APRT.
Results: Analysis of 17 practice-related subjects across four dimensions revealed three clusters:
- Highest knowledge, comfort, and frequency; lowest supervision: included patient education, treatment delivery, imaging, immobilization, and basic planning.
- Moderate knowledge, comfort, frequency; less supervision: included contouring, advanced patient assessment, side-effect management, and manual dose calculations.
- Lowest knowledge, comfort and frequency; highest supervision: included advanced contouring, adaptive radiotherapy, medication documentation, research, and academic publishing.
Conclusion: Radiation therapists fulfill a broad clinical and technical role, practicing safely and ethically, as reflected in the cluster analysis. Many respondents hold master’s degrees, potentially positioning them well for advancement. Perceptions of APRT exist in relation to current technological advancements and required education and training. Further APRT research should be done to compare internationally established skillsets to the results of this current practice survey and existing practice standards. These findings may inform policy discussions and workforce strategies aimed at attracting/sustaining the radiation therapy workforce.