Advertisement

Training the Radiation Oncology Workforce of the Future: Course Correction to Supply the Demand

      Concern exists regarding an excess in radiation oncology (RO) residency positions and resultant workforce oversupply in the United States (
      • Pan H.Y.
      • Haffty B.G.
      • Falit B.P.
      • et al.
      Supply and demand for radiation oncology in the United States: Updated projections for 2015 to 2025.
      ,
      • Falit B.P.
      • Pan H.Y.
      • Smith B.D.
      • et al.
      The radiation oncology job market: The economics and policy of workforce regulation.
      ,
      • Burt L.M.
      • Trifiletti D.M.
      • Nabavizadeh N.
      • et al.
      Supply and demand for radiation oncology in the United States: A resident perspective.
      ). This “excess” could be viewed from different perspectives that delve beyond the mismatch between supply and demand. Practice-environment physician maldistribution may magnify the oversupply, given that 3.1 million Americans lack RO access. (
      • Aneja S.
      • Smith B.D.
      • Gross C.P.
      • et al.
      Geographic analysis of the radiation oncology workforce.
      ) This imbalance is most striking in the rural Midwest (
      • Aneja S.
      • Smith B.D.
      • Gross C.P.
      • et al.
      Geographic analysis of the radiation oncology workforce.
      ), a region struggling to attract graduates.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ASTRO Member Login
      ASTRO Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Pan H.Y.
        • Haffty B.G.
        • Falit B.P.
        • et al.
        Supply and demand for radiation oncology in the United States: Updated projections for 2015 to 2025.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 96: 493-500
        • Falit B.P.
        • Pan H.Y.
        • Smith B.D.
        • et al.
        The radiation oncology job market: The economics and policy of workforce regulation.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 96: 501-510
        • Burt L.M.
        • Trifiletti D.M.
        • Nabavizadeh N.
        • et al.
        Supply and demand for radiation oncology in the United States: A resident perspective.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 97: 225-227
        • Aneja S.
        • Smith B.D.
        • Gross C.P.
        • et al.
        Geographic analysis of the radiation oncology workforce.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82: 1723-1729
        • Ahmed A.A.
        • Holliday E.B.
        • Ileto J.
        • et al.
        Close to home: Employment outcomes for recent radiation oncology graduates.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 95: 1017-1021
        • Doximity
        Doximity Residency Navigator Radiation Oncology.
        2016 (Available at:) (Accessed November 21, 2016)
        • US Census Bureau
        Population Estimates.
        2015 (Available at:) (Accessed November 21, 2016)
        • Nabavizadeh N.
        • Burt L.M.
        • Mancini B.R.
        • et al.
        Results of the 2013-2015 Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology survey of chief residents in the United States.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 94: 228-234
        • TheMednet
        Is there harm in doing a radiation oncology fellowship?.
        2016 (Available at:) (Accessed November 1, 2016)
      1. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2015 NRMP Applicant Survey by Preferred Specialty and Applicant Type. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2015.

      2. National Resident Matching Program, Data Release and Research Committee: Results of the 2014 NRMP Program Director Survey. Washington, DC: National Resident Matching Program; 2014.

        • Vichare A.
        • Washington R.
        • Patton C.
        • et al.
        An assessment of the current US radiation oncology workforce: Methodology and global results of the American Society for Radiation Oncology 2012 Workforce Study.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 87: 1129-1134
        • Hussey D.H.
        • Horton J.L.
        • Mendenhall N.P.
        • et al.
        Manpower needs for radiation oncology: A preliminary report of the ASTRO Human Resources Committee. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996; 35: 809-820
        • Politzer R.M.
        • Trible L.Q.
        • Robinson T.D.
        • et al.
        The National Health Service Corps for the 21st century.
        J Ambul Care Manage. 2000; 23: 70-85
        • Phillips R.L.
        • Petterson S.
        • Bazemore A.
        Do residents who train in safety net settings return for practice?.
        Acad Med. 2013; 88: 1934-1940
        • Regan L.
        • Stahmer S.
        • Nyce A.
        • et al.
        Scholarly tracks in emergency medicine.
        Acad Emerg Med. 2010; 17: S87-S94
        • Ahmed A.A.
        • Holliday E.B.
        • Deville C.
        • et al.
        Attracting future radiation oncologists: An analysis of the national resident matching program data trends from 2004 to 2015.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 93: 965-967

      Comments

      Commenting Guidelines

      To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:

      • We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
      • This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
      • We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
      • Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
      • Comments are not peer-reviewed.