Exploring attitudes and opinions of radiation therapists in British Columbia towards advanced practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Although the notion of advanced practice (AP) has been widely accepted and implemented in some countries, for example, the United Kingdom, in Canada it is has yet to be widely tested as a model of working. Currently it has been implemented and evaluated in Ontario, but this approach is not widespread across the country. To date in British Columbia (BC), there are no advanced practitioners and no research has been conducted regarding the opinions and attitudes of radiation therapists (RTs) in BC towards the implementation of AP. Understanding RTs attitudes and perceptions towards AP may be important when considering the acceptance and implementation of new roles. The research objectives were to explore the attitudes and opinions of RTs and establish what the term AP means to BC RTs, and also to discover what they consider to be benefits, and barriers to implementing AP. Materials and methods A quantitative approach was utilised and an on-line questionnaire was sent to 266 RTs that currently practice in BC. Likert and demographic questions were used to explore the definition of AP and ascertain opinions about the barriers and benefits of implementing AP in BC. Results A total of 183 questionnaires were completed for a response rate of 69%. The majority of respondents agreed with the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologies (CAMRT) and the literature's definition of AP. Cost, time, lack of support and training and issues of medical dominance were cited as barriers. Job satisfaction, autonomy, and increased recruitment and retention of staff were considered benefits. Conclusions Although RTs believe there are obstacles to be overcome regarding the adoption and implementation of AP, these are outweighed by the potential benefits such as enhanced patient care due to increased levels of professional knowledge and development that can lead to increased levels of job satisfaction. These are seen as important drivers for creating the AP role in BC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".