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 Aus...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2010
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/17189 |
| _version_ | 1848749395435061248 |
|---|---|
| author | Cox, J. Halkett, Georgia Anderson, C. Heard, R. |
| author_facet | Cox, J. Halkett, Georgia Anderson, C. Heard, R. |
| author_sort | Cox, J. |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T07:20:15Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-17189 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T07:20:15Z |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-171892017-09-13T16:03:15Z Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy Cox, J. Halkett, Georgia Anderson, C. Heard, R. Radiation therapist radiographer research Delphi radiotherapy technologist 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. 2010 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/17189 10.1017/S1460396910000464 Cambridge University Press restricted |
| spellingShingle | Radiation therapist radiographer research Delphi radiotherapy technologist Cox, J. Halkett, Georgia Anderson, C. Heard, R. Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy |
| title | Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy |
| title_full | Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy |
| title_fullStr | Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy |
| title_full_unstemmed | Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy |
| title_short | Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy |
| title_sort | australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy |
| topic | Radiation therapist radiographer research Delphi radiotherapy technologist |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/17189 |