Exploring factors behind first-year radiation therapy students' decision to pursue the profession at english-language institutions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy departments experience an imbalance of patient volumes with insufficient staffing. Limited research exists about factors influencing individuals' desire to pursue a career in radiation therapy. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the factors behind first-year students' decision to pursue this profession in Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed to first-year radiation therapy students in Canada through program directors of each Canadian institution. The survey contained closed and open-ended questions for comprehensive insight and were developed through extensive literature reviews. RESULTS: A total of 33 complete responses were obtained. Primary reasons for choosing a career in radiation therapy included a desire to help others (16.8%), interest in the healthcare field (16.2%), and job stability (15.1%). Influential factors guiding respondents' decisions were university resources (22.9%), reading articles related to radiation therapy (22.9%), YouTube videos about the profession (21.7%), and other online resources (18.1%). Two themes were identified when respondents were asked what would have made radiation therapy more appealing as a career: public profile and accessibility. CONCLUSION: While research dedicated solely to radiation therapy remains limited, drawing inspiration from recruitment strategies and resource allocation models utilized in other allied healthcare professions can be invaluable. Shared factors like altruism and job stability justify integrating radiation therapy into broader healthcare recruitment initiatives. Targeted recruitment campaigns and accessible resources can raise awareness about the profession. Further research is warranted to explore these factors.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".