Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39657763›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2025

Clinical workload profile of medical physics professionals at particle therapy Centers: a National Survey in Japan.

Seiichi Ota, Keisuke Yasui, Toshiyuki Ogata, Yutaro Mori, Teiji Nishio, Naoki Tohyama, Hiroyuki Okamoto, Masahiko Kurooka, Kohei Shimomura, Toru Kojima and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Seiichi OtaDivision of Radiological Technology, Department of Medical Technology, University Hospital, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto 602-8566, Japan.
Keisuke YasuiDivision of Medical Physics, School of Medical Sciences, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukakecho, Toyoake, Aichi 470-1192, Japan.
Toshiyuki OgataDepartment of Radiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto 602-8566, Japan.
Yutaro MoriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8575, Japan.
Teiji NishioMedical Physics Laboratory, Division of Health Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 1-7 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan.
Naoki TohyamaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Komazawa University, 1-23-1 Komazawa, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 154-8525, Japan.
Hiroyuki OkamotoRadiation Safety and Quality Assurance Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan.
Masahiko KurookaDepartment of Radiation Therapy, Tokyo Medical University Hospital, 6-7-1 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-0023, Japan.
Kohei ShimomuraDepartment of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Medical Science, Kyoto College of Medical Science, 1-3 Sonobechooyamahigashimachi, Nantan-shi, Kyoto 622-0041, Japan.
Toru KojimaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina-machi, Saitama 362-0806, Japan.
Hiroshi OnishiDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi School of Medicine, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo-shi, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan.

Funding

Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare for Health Sciences Research in Japan 21EA1010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current research on staffing models is primarily focused on conventional external photon beam therapy, which predominantly involves using linear accelerators. This emphasizes the need for comprehensive studies to understand better and define specific particle therapy facilities' staffing requirements. In a 2022 survey of 25 particle therapy facilities in Japan with an 84% response rate, significant insights were obtained regarding workload distribution, defined as the product of personnel count and task time (person-minutes), for patient-related tasks and equipment quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). The survey revealed that machinery QA/QC tasks were particularly demanding, with an average monthly workload of 376.9 min and weekly tasks averaging 162.1 min. In comparison, patient-related workloads focused on treatment planning, exhibiting substantial time commitments, particularly for scanning and passive scattering techniques. The average workloads for treatment planning per patient were 291.3 and 195.4 min, respectively. In addition, specific patient scenarios such as pre-treatment sedation in pediatric cases require longer durations (averaging 84.5 min), which likely include the workloads of not only the physician responsible for sedation but also the radiotherapy technology and medical physics specialists providing support during sedation and the nursing staff involved in sedation care. These findings underscore the significant time investments required for machinery QA/QC and patient-specific treatment planning in particle therapy facilities, along with the need for specialized care procedures in pediatric cases. The results of this survey also emphasized the challenges and staffing requirements to ensure QA/QC in high-precision medical environments.

Indexed as

Health PhysicsWorkloadHumansJapanQuality ControlSurveys and Questionnairescarbon ion therapyFTEmedical physicistproton therapyRTTworkload

Identifiers

PMID39657763
PMCPMC11753842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.