Radiation Oncology Resident and Program Director Perceptions of the Job Market and Impact on Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Radiation oncology graduates occasionally experience difficulties obtaining employment. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of radiation oncology residents (RORs) and program directors (PDs) about the job market and the potential impact on their well-being. Methods RORs and PDs from 13 Canadian training programs were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from March 2014 to January 2015. Knowledge/perception of the job market, impact on personal/professional life, as well as opinions regarding possible contributing factors/solutions to the job market were assessed. A conventional content analysis of each transcript was performed with the clustering of conceptually similar expressions into themes. Demographic information was summarized with descriptive statistics. Results Twenty RORs and four PDs participated. All the participants described delayed retirement and over-training as contributors to the job shortage. The majority of trainees interviewed were concerned about the job market (60%) and reported that it impacted their personal (60%) and professional (55%) relationships. PDs described the job market as negatively impacting their job satisfaction. Resident morale was ranked as poor by both groups. Conclusions Job market shortages can negatively impact the personal and professional well-being of trainees and PDs. Attention to manpower planning is important to maintaining a high-quality workforce. The cyclical undersupply and oversupply of residents occur in several countries, which makes our findings potentially relevant to residency training programs internationally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".