Research culture, barriers and facilitators within the radiography workforce in the UK – results of a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Research is vital for diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers, providing the evidence base for disease diagnosis, screening, surveillance, radiotherapy planning, delivery, and treatment. Despite its benefits in improving patient outcomes and imaging services, little is known about the research culture barriers and facilitators within the UK radiography workforce. METHODS: An online survey with three sections was created, including demographic questions and a validated research and development culture index to measure research capacity, equality, diversity, and inclusivity. The survey was distributed between May and October 2023 to radiographers and nuclear medicine technologists via email and social media. Mixed methods analysis was performed using statistical analysis (R version 4.2.2) and qualitative analysis utilising a coding framework for open-ended responses. RESULTS: A total of 970 completed surveys were returned: 629 diagnostic radiographers, 306 therapeutic radiographers and 35 nuclear medicine technologists (∼3 % of the UK workforce). Of respondents, 47.4 % had completed or were undertaking a postgraduate qualification and 41.1 % had engaged in research. The barriers to research yielded similar trends over all the radiographers. 'Lack of protected time at work', 'other roles taking priority' and 'lack of funding' being key barriers. The only enablers that scored less than 90 % agreement were 'research encouraged by manager', 'experienced external colleagues able to supervise', and the 'desire to prove a theory or hunch' and 'research written into the role description'. CONCLUSION: Research remains underdeveloped in UK radiography roles. This national survey highlights that currently less than half of the UK radiographers have experience in research within their role. Protected time, funding, managerial support, and supervision access are crucial to embedding research into practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Greater support is needed for radiographers and managers to overcome barriers and promote radiographer-led research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".