ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2023
Australian medical radiation practitioners perspectives of continuing professional development: An online cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Not coping with stress and screen-time: mixed methods.International journal of circumpolar health · 2026Article
- Delivering online communication skills training for radiation therapists.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Investigating the Potential of Generative AI Clinical Case-Based Simulations on Radiography Education: A Pilot Study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Participation in Continuing Professional Development Among Radiographers in Lilongwe District, Malawi.Journal of CME · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionContinuing professional development (CPD) is mandatory for registered Australian medical radiation practitioners (MRPs) to maintain competence in their respective scopes of practice. The aim of this study was to explore MRPs attitudes, opinions and satisfaction towards CPD activities offered by the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (ASMIRT).
methodsAn online cross-sectional survey was emailed to 6398 ASMIRT members and included questions on: demographics, ASMIRT CPD activities, learning mode preferences, barriers and perceptions of CPD outcomes. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.
resultsThe survey was completed by 1018 MRPs. While MRPs were satisfied with face-to-face CPD quality (n = 540, 58.1%) and provision (n = 492, 55.3%), they were dissatisfied with the quantity of online CPD activities (n = 577, 65.1%) delivered by ASMIRT. Online learning was the most preferred mode of CPD delivery (n = 749, 74.2%), followed by face-to-face (n = 643, 64.0%) and collaborative learning (n = 539, 53.4%). Younger participants (19-35 years) had positive opinions regarding ASMIRT CPD activities and outcomes. Access to professional development leave (PDL) supported achievement of mandatory CPD requirements (P < 0.001). Lack of time, lack of access and workload were the highest ranked barriers preventing CPD participation. Rural/remote MRPs were dissatisfied with availability (P = 0.023), access (P < 0.001) and adequacy of ASMIRT provided CPD (P < 0.01) and were more likely to encounter barriers to CPD participation (P < 0.001).
conclusionsMany MRPs experienced barriers which prevented them from participating in CPD. Provision of more online CPD activities by ASMIRT and access to PDL can assist. Future improvements will ensure MRPs remain motivated to engage in CPD to improve clinical skills, patient safety and health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.