Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T09:20:18.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2011

Jennifer Cox ,
Georgia Halkett ,
Claudia Anderson  and
Robert Heard
Jennifer Cox*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia
Georgia Halkett
Affiliation:
Curtin University of Technology, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia
Claudia Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia
Robert Heard
Affiliation:
University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia
*
Correspondence to: Associate Professor Jennifer Cox, Faculty of Health Science, The University of Sydney, P.O. Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Radiation therapistradiotherapy technologistradiographerresearchDelphi
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 228 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Australian Institute of Radiography (AIR). Competency Based Standards for the Accredited Practitioner. Collingwood: AIR 2005.Google Scholar
White, E, Kane, G. Radiation medicine practice in the image-guided radiation therapy era: new roles and new opportunities. Semin Radiat Oncol 2007; 17:298–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, R. Technology and its consequences. Radiography 2009;15:185–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, SM. Randomized controlled trials in health technology assessment: overkill or overdue? Radiother Oncol 2008; 86:142–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, M, Verfaillie, C, Heeren, G, Leer, JW. Shaping the future: training of professionals for radiotherapy in Europe. Radiother Oncol 2004; 70:103–105.Google Scholar
Cox, J, Halkett, G, Anderson, C, Heard, R. A Delphi study on research priorities in radiation therapy: the Australian perspective. Radiography 2010; 16:26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, S, Kristjanson, LJ, Sinclair, T, Hyde, S. Priorities for adult cancer nursing research: a West Australian replication. Cancer Nurs 2001; 24:88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodger, M, Hills, J, Kristjanson, L; Delphi Study. A Delphi study on research priorities for emergency nurses in Western Australia. J Emerg Nurs 2004; 30:117–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenwick, J, Butt, J, Downie, J, Monterosso, L, Wood, J. Priorities for midwifery research in Perth, Western Australia: a Delphi study. Int J Nurs Pract 2006; 12:78–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helmer, O. Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method. Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation 1967.Google Scholar
Cox, J, Halkett, G, Anderson, C. Research interests identified at the coal-face: initial Delphi analysis of Australian radiation therapists’ perspectives. The Radiographer 2009; 56:9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, S, Hasson, F, McKenna, HP. A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud 2001; 38:195–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malcolm, C, Forbat, L, Knighting, K, Kearney, N. Exploring the experiences and perspectives of families using a children’s hospice and professionals providing hospice care to identify future research priorities for children’s hospice care. Palliat Med 2008; 22:921–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalkidou, K, Whicher, D, Kary, W, Tunis, S. Comparative effectiveness research priorities: identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25:241–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radiation Therapy Advisory Panel (RTAP) of the Australian Institute of Radiography (AIR). 2006 Radiation therapy workforce survey. Spectrum 2008; 16:17–19.Google Scholar
Francis, G. Introduction to SPSS for Windows Versions 7.5, 8.0 - with notes for studentware, 2nd edition. Sydney: Prentice Hall 1999.Google Scholar
White, P, McKay, JC. Guidelines and legal requirements which inform role expansion in radiography. Radiography 2002; 8:71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, CA, Hilder, B, Schneider-Kolsky, ME. Meeting the research agenda in Australian radiation therapy: the current picture. J Radiother Pract 2009; 8:67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pain, K, Magill-Evans, J, Darrah, J, Hagler, P, Warren, S. Effects of profession and facility type on research utilization by rehabilitation professionals. J Allied Health 2004; 33:3–9.Google ScholarPubMed
McCleary, L, Brown, GT. Research utilization among pediatric health professionals. Nurs Health Sci 2002; 4:163–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tasman Radiation Oncology Group; http://www.trog.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=71 (accessed 18 March 2010).Google Scholar
Australian College of Scientists, Physicists and Engineers in Medicine; http://www.acpsem.org.au/index.php/program-info.html (accessed 18 March 2010).Google Scholar
Tai, KH, Duchesne, G, Turner, S, Kneebone, A, See, A, Gogna, K, Berry, M. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer in Australia and New Zealand: Report on a survey of radiotherapy centres and the proceedings of a consensus workshop. Australas Radiol 2004; 48:502–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rybovic, M, Halkett, G, Banati, R, Cox, J. Radiation therapists’ perceptions of the minimum level of experience required to perform portal image analysis. Radiography 2008; 14:294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, K, Touma, N, Zhu, L, Duchesne, GM, Cox, J. Implementation of daily image-guided radiation therapy using an in-room CT scanner for prostate cancer isocentre localization. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2009; 53:132–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaffray, DA. Image-guided radiation therapy: from concept to practice. Semin Radiat Oncol 2007; 17:243–244.Google Scholar
Skala, M, Holloway, L, Bailey, M, Kneebone, A. Australia-wide comparison of intensity modulated radiation therapy prostate plans. Australas Radiol 2005; 49:222–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IMRT Collaborative Working Party Group. Intensity modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51:880–914.Google Scholar
Overgaard, J, Baumann, M. Translational research in radiotherapy - getting closer to the bedside. Radiother Oncol 2007; 83:217–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNair, HA, Francis, G, Balyckyi, J. Clinical implementation of dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: radiographers’ perspectives. Br J Radiol 2004; 77:493–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ACORRN Research Radiographer Working Party. Gap analysis of role definition and training needs for therapeutic research radiographers in the UK. Br J Radiol 2007; 80:693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cancer Council NSW. Roadblocks to Radiotherapy – Stories behind the Statistics. Sydney: Cancer Council NSW 2009.Google Scholar
Bolderston, A, Harnett, N, Palmer, C, Wenz, J, Catton, P. The scholarly radiation therapist. Part two: developing an academic practice - the Princess Margaret Hospital experience. J Radiother Pract 2008; 7:105–111.Google Scholar