ALMOST IMMEDIATELY following the discovery of x rays and radium in the late 19th century, ionizing radiation found application in the diagnosis and treatment of a wide variety of human conditions as well as use in industry, academia, power generation, and national defense. Although the federal government has facilitated the development of a community of professionals that ensures the safe and beneficial use of radiation, the number of radiation professionals has shrunk alarmingly of late, as documented by several respected organizations, including the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS 2014), the U.S. Government Accountability Office (USGAO 2014), Health Physics Society (HPS 2013), National Academies/National Research Council (NA/NRC 2011), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 2015), and others. Most recently, NCRP published a statement titled “Where are the Radiation Professionals (WARP)?”, which warned of the possibility that future national needs in several pertinent sectors, including medicine, may go unmet (NCRP 2015).
With specific respect to the clinic, most contemporary medical procedures involving radiation have been refined over decades and now are considered safe and beneficial. In this setting, a team of healthcare professionals works closely together to provide radiation safety in medicine. The primary responsibility for protection and safety for patients lies with the healthcare professional administering the radiation dose, with the medical physicist playing a central role; other involved health professionals have specific responsibilities, as described in national and international safety standards (e.g., IAEA 2014). However, as treatments evolve and increase in complexity, persistent efforts will be necessary to ensure that future exposures to medical radiation remain safe for patients and medical workers alike. Indeed, continued vigilance will be a necessity due to the potentially lethal hazards posed by radiation, the introduction of novel procedures, and the trend of increasing use of radiation in medicine.
A great deal of attention has been paid in the literature to various aspects of the medical physics workforce, and much is well understood. In order to estimate the number of medical physicists required to run a radiotherapy clinic, various staffing models have been proposed (IAEA 2008; ASTRO 2012; Battista et al. 2012; van der Merwe et al. 2013). However, the predicted number of staff required can vary considerably depending on which model is selected. For example, Mills et al. (2010) modeled future trends in the supply and demand for medical physicists, predicting that 150–175 qualified medical physicists per year will be required to meet demand in radiation oncology by 2020. But other projections are less certain, with Mills et al. (2020) themselves underscoring large uncertainties, strong dependencies on assumed input parameters, and the high level of complexity of the problem. In addition, the profession of medical physics continues to evolve in substantive ways. Thus, the acknowledged uncertainties conspire to create a major gap in knowledge regarding the medical physics workforce; namely, if it will be adequate in several years’ time. Consequently, it is prudent to consider the possibility that the workforce may be insufficient and to contemplate strategies to monitor and mitigate against this risk.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDICAL PHYSICS WORKFORCE
The size of the medical physics workforce may be estimated from the number of members in relevant professional societies. This method is approximate because some members of medical physics societies are not medical physicists and some medical physicists are not members of a society. Nonetheless, there appear to be approximately 24,000 medical physicists worldwide (IOMP 2016), of which just over a third, or 8,205, are in the United States (AAPM 2016a) and 2,303 are in Europe (Lievens et al. 2014). Additional, and more specific, information comes from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), which surveys its membership annually and provides descriptive statistics of relevance to the domestic workforce (AAPM 2016a). For example, in 2015, based on data from 2,565 respondents, 51% and 49% held M.S. and Ph.D. degrees, respectively. The majority (76%) of medical physicists were engaged in radiation oncology as their primary subspecialty, and nearly all (94%) were employed full time and only 3% were self-employed consultants. Fifty-nine percent of the medical physicists in the United States graduated from an accredited graduate program, and 62% graduated from an accredited residency program. In 2012, 64% reported having certification from the American Board of Radiology (ABR) (31.7% held lifetime certificates and 32.7% held time-limited certificates) (Chen et al. 2015). In 2015, a professional survey by the AAPM reported that 81% of respondents were certified, with nearly identical proportions of M.S. and Ph.D.s (AAPM 2016a). The large and increasing emphasis on board certification is evidenced by the fact that 1,959 medical physicists were issued certificates between 2004 and 2013, mostly in therapy physics, with smaller contingents in the physics of diagnostic physics and nuclear medicine (ABR 2015). This corresponds to certification of approximately one-fourth of the domestic medical physics workforce in the previous decade.
In a recent survey, Chen et al. (2015) analyzed responses from more than 1,000 medical physicists. They reported that medical physicists spend most of their time on patient-specific clinical tasks (49%), quality assurance (22%), administrative tasks (10%), radiation safety (7%), research (6%), and teaching and training (5%), with most medical physicists working in a hospital (41%), private practice (34%), or an academic setting (26%). Table 1 lists additional workforce data, including patient load, practice size, and services provided, broken down by practice setting. Importantly, in a national assessment of the occupational safety and health workforce (McAdams et al. 2011), it was reported that the number of operational health physicists employed in the United States was only 1,305 (standard error of 579) in 2010. These and other data reveal that the majority of the radiation protection workforce in medicine is composed of medical physicists, with health physicists comprising only a minority of the workers. This possible shift in occupational responsibilities is supported by Fig. 1, which plots the size of the memberships of the leading medical physics and health physics professional societies in the United States vs. time, revealing sustained growth of the former and decline of the latter.
Overall, the size of the professional radiation workforce is tiny when compared to a more common profession, such as teaching. However, even when aggregating medical physicists, health physicists and radiation oncologists together, there is only one radiation professional for every 17,100 persons in the United States vs. one teacher for every 91 persons [based on an estimated 3.5 million elementary and secondary school full-time-equivalent teachers engaged in classroom instruction in the (IES/NCES 2016)]. This comparison hints that the large and positive impact that radiation professions have on society is disproportionate to the smallness of their ranks.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING PATHWAYS
Prior to the turn of the century, the pathways into the profession of medical physics were numerous and diverse. For many physicists, their education was a doctoral degree in physics (commonly from nonmedical physics programs) together with on-the-job and autodidactic training in medical physics. The resultant intellectual diversity of this approach undoubtedly contributed to the success that the profession has enjoyed for many decades. However, this approach also created a situation in which the preparedness and competence of entry level medical physicists to perform clinical work was highly variable.
Today, the pathways to becoming a qualified (clinical) medical physicist are well defined and standardized. According to the (AAPM 2016b), a qualified medical physicist has earned a master's and/or doctoral degree in physics, medical physics, biophysics, radiological physics, medical health physics, or equivalent disciplines from an accredited college or university. Furthermore, qualification requires certification in the specific subfield(s) of medical physics, with its associated medical health physics aspects, by an appropriate national certifying body and compliance with ongoing requirements for continuing education. Pathways into nonclinical medical physics careers (e.g., into academia, industry, and government) also are well defined but less standardized. Fig. 2 illustrates training pathways beginning with the completion of an undergraduate degree in physics (or related field with the equivalent of a minor in physics) and concluding with entry-level employment in the profession.
Importantly, the curricula of graduate programs in medical physics have been standardized. The advantages of following recommended standard curricula are accreditation of the program, certification of trainees, and satisfaction of the education requirements that regulatory agencies require for some positions. AAPM has prepared recommendations on curricula for graduate programs (AAPM 2009), residency programs (AAPM 2013), and post-doctoral certificate programs (AAPM 2011). It is noteworthy that the recommended curricula appear to provide a base-level standard for competencies. As such, they accommodate adaptation to the strengths of individual programs and evolving and emerging topics; i.e., they are not overly prescriptive. That said, the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP) accreditation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for programs to successfully place their students in scarce residency training positions. In fact, many graduates of accredited programs have been unable to obtain admission to residency programs. Thus, the features that programs offer over and above the standardized curricula are important determinants of the success of their graduates.
Graduate education and training
All of the qualifying pathways involve graduate education, and in the United States, academic medical physics programs are numerous and geographically distributed. Indeed, the number of CAMPEP-accredited academic programs grew from nine in 2002 (Clark 2014) to 50 in 2016 (CAMPEP 2016) (Fig. 3). Nonetheless, despite this growth, there are ongoing concerns regarding the long-term health and viability of the medical physics graduate education system in the United States. Dynlacht et al. (2015) noted that very few new academic positions are being created in research and education in health physics and medical physics. Clearly, to maintain training standards over the long term, the programs must attract and retain high-quality scientists as researchers and educators. A completely different concern is the output from these higher education programs. Table 2, listing the number of programs, graduates, and the annual-average number of graduations per program, shows that only four M.S./M.Sc. degrees were awarded per program per year; the number for Ph.D.s was even lower. One explanation may be that the number of post-doctoral certificates is low because accreditation of these programs is still a relatively new development; in comparison, we see similarly low productivity rates for graduate degrees in health physics (Table 3). In the case of medical physics, the low numbers may, at least partly, be attributed to the increase in the number of accredited programs; whereas in the case of health physics, it appears that the reason is mainly attributed to declining enrollments. It is worth noting that the domestic nuclear engineering programs produced 10 M.S. and seven Ph.D. graduates per program per year (Table 4). These average productivity values are influenced by educational capacity, the applicant pool, and resources for education and research. For both medical physics and health physics, the low productivity values reveal limited economies of scale and hint at the possibility of program closures in the future. Additional concerns include the increasing costs of higher education (Fig. 4), a bubble of debt from student loans (presently at $1.3 trillion in the United States), and pervasive divestment from higher education by state governments. Interestingly, according to data reported by CAMPEP, student demand for medical physics graduate education far exceeds supply; in 2014 there were a total of 1,953 applicants, 602 offers of admission, and 324 matriculations (Clark 2015).
Post-graduate education and training
Options for additional training after completion of the terminal graduate degree include enrollment in a residency training program, a post-doctoral training program, and continuing education, with continuing education being necessary for maintenance of certification. The medical physics residency training programs train medical physicists to achieve a level of competency needed to practice in their subspecialty of medical physics in a safe and independent manner and typically includes at least 2 y of clinical training; the AAPM has recommended curricula for medical physics residency programs (AAPM 2006, 2013). The capacity of such training programs in the United States has grown rapidly in recent years, with much of this growth being motivated by the introduction of a requirement for board eligibility. Specifically, to become eligible to sit for an ABR certification exam in 2014 and beyond, applicants must have graduated from a CAMPEP-accredited residency program. In 2014, there were 95 CAMPEP-accredited residency programs, including 80 in oncology physics, 11 in diagnostic physics, and two in nuclear medicine physics (Clark 2015). In 2015, these programs had 117 openings, of which 104 were for oncology physics programs and 13 were in diagnostic imaging physics programs (Clark 2015). However, as discussed above, the number of residency training openings is scarce in relation to the number of applicants; in 2014, only one-third of all applicants were admitted (Clark 2015). Consequently, the application process is extremely competitive and residency admissions are, at present, the predominant factor governing the supply of new workers. In addition, although use of the Medical Physics‐Residency Application Program has streamlined the application process for applicants and residency programs alike (AAPM 2016c), only 39% of applicants were matched and 31 programs received more than 150 applications in 2014 (Clark 2015), evidencing an imbalance in the capacities of academic and residency programs. The number of openings for residents increased slightly in 2015, but the imbalance is expected to worsen in coming years (Ibbott and Frey 2016).
With respect to post-doctoral training, until about 2010, many Ph.D. holders entered the profession through post-doctoral fellowships in medical physics. For many of these trainees, i.e., those with degrees other than medical physics, the post-doctoral fellowship was an alternate pathway to the more common pathway of earning a degree in medical physics from an accredited program. However, some trainees received didactic and practical clinical instruction while others did not, depending on the program’s capabilities, career goals of the fellows, and other factors. Thus, the length and type of post-doctoral training varied strongly. Variability on the research topics helped to invigorate the profession scientifically; however, variability in clinical training complicated the assessment of qualifications to become a clinical medical physicist. A formalized approach to the alternate pathway to clinical medical physics was proposed in 2011, including a recommended curriculum (AAPM 2011) and standards for accreditation of post-doctoral certificate programs (CAMPEP 2013, 2015). However, the certificate programs are a relatively new development and the available statistical data are insufficient to discern trends that will impact the supply of medical physics workers. Nonetheless, anecdotally, even with the advent of accredited certificate programs, the prevalence of post-doctoral training in medical physics appears to have declined substantially in the last decade. This can be attributed to reductions in federal research spending (Britt 2015), increased requirements for eligibility for professional board certification that took effect in 2014 (ABR 2014), and other factors. It is interesting to consider trends in the broader discipline of physics, for which statistical data are available. Since the turn of the century, initial employment of holders of Ph.D. degrees in physics has declined from about 68% in 2005 to about 46% in 2014 (Pold and Mulvey 2016). It is difficult to discern if, or to what extent, these broader national trends apply to the niche field of medical physics.
In summary, it appears that certificate programs are important, yet their potential role is not fully understood. The number of post-doctoral fellows at present is relatively small (corresponding to 7% of the number of graduates from medical physics degree programs) and uncertain. However, the certificate program has features that increase the elasticity of the supply of medical physics workforce. Most importantly, compared with any other medical physics training pathway, it has the shortest period. Second, its graduates hail from diverse backgrounds, which will help to ensure that medical physicists with intellectually diverse strengths are available when needed. Third, for those certificate holders that also have traditional post-doctoral research training (either as a part of the certificate training or separately), they are the most versatile in principle, with the training needed for clinical, research, and academic activities.
PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS OF RELEVANCE TO WORKFORCE SUPPLY
With respect to the size and adequacy of a professional workforce in medical physics, self-regulation has been broadly effective to date (with the disclosure that the author is a medical physicist and therefore is not entirely disinterested). However, it is prudent to question the effectiveness of self-regulation in the future to ensure the adequacy of the workforce to meet national needs. In particular, can the profession appropriately self-regulate in an era of rapid, pervasive, and unprecedented changes to the profession, science and technology, healthcare system, and the demographics of the workforce? There are certainly reasons for concern, particularly with respect to supply. Currently, the regulation of supply is distributed and decentralized. Each link of the supply chain independently regulates its production; e.g., graduate programs may admit any number of students they can attract without regard for the prospects of their graduates to gain admission to residency programs. Residency programs may admit any number of trainees that they can attract without regard for the prospects of their graduates to find entry level positions. Board certification organizations do not discriminate examinees based on the total number of examinees or the number of available entry level positions. Thus, it could be summarized that the profession relies on laissez-faire self-regulation, where control over the supply is distributed among various organizations, programs, and trainees. This autonomy is clearly helpful to at least some of the educational and training institutions to match their training loads with local resources and goals. A compelling rationale for more active or centralized approach to regulation is lacking and increased regulation is controversial (Bayouth et al. 2011).
As a practical matter, the domestic supply is apparently most strongly constrained by resources available for costly education and training. In recent years, tuition has increased while state spending on higher education has plummeted (AAAS 2015), as seen in Fig. 4. In the same era, federal funding for research, which is vital to graduate programs, decreased significantly (Britt 2015). The net effect of these changes is that the cost of higher education has shifted from the government to students and parents. Unless subsidized (e.g., with stipends for teaching assistants), these costs are probably too high for most prospective students and parents to bear. Indirect evidence of this, for both graduate and residency training programs, is the large ratio of applications to admissions. If the cost-barrier hypothesis is correct, this suggests that federal education and research grants would be an effective mechanism to stimulate production of the supply of future workers, should that become necessary.
In the United States, the largest source of funding for research and development (R&D) is the federal government, at over $60 billion per year. Broadly, federal R&D funding has been declining for decades. For example, R&D comprised 10% of the federal budget in 1968 vs. 4% now. R&D comprised about 1.25% of gross domestic product vs. 0.78% in 2014. In 2014, federal funding for higher-education R&D failed to outpace inflation for the third straight year, the longest decline since 1972 (Britt 2015). In 2014, the largest proportions of federal funding for R&D were medical sciences (~$20 billion), biological sciences (~$10 billion), and engineering (~$10 billion). These are huge sums by almost any measure, but are they trickling down to medical physics researchers? A recent analysis suggests they are not. An analysis of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in 2013 for radiation oncology, radiation biology, and radiation physics revealed 197 awards held by 118 full professors, 49 associate professors, and 27 assistant professors (Steinberg et al. 2013). Eighty percent of these awards focused on topics in radiation biology, and only 13% of the awards included a physics topic. Furthermore, they noted that only 18 institutions had three or more investigators with active NIH grants, which creates a critical mass problem for research groups. The low renewal rates were thought to jeopardize the establishment of durable programs. They concluded that “the overall state of NIH funding in radiation oncology raises great concern.” Many academic radiation oncology departments have already become “service departments, where novel research is limited and little or no translational research occurs.” They also stated that “radiation oncology is underfunded by NIH and that the current level of support does not match the relevance of radiation oncology…”. This suggests that the medical physics profession, perhaps through its professional associations, should advocate for increased federal R&D funding to support medical physics workforce development. Specific recommendations were proposed by Jagsi and Wilson (2013).
With respect to compensation, medical physics salaries vary strongly with country, region, degree, certification status, subspecialty, type of employer and employment setting. In the United States, compensation for medical physicists is determined by free market principles. According to the AAPM’s salary survey for 2015 (AAPM 2016a), the average total income was $184,000, excluding benefits. The median salaries ranged from $120,000 for those with an M.S. and without certification to $190,000 for those with a Ph.D. and certification. It is interesting to compare compensation of medical physicists with corresponding rates from other radiation-related professions. In general, the average salaries for medical physicists are nearly double that of health physicists and less than half that of radiation oncologists. Similarly, stipends for trainees in graduate and professional degree programs in medical physics vary strongly with the institution and degree. Some programs provide stipends and waive tuition and fees, while others collect tuition and provide no financial support (Mills 2014). Compensation for post-graduate trainees is typically intermediate to graduate student stipends and entry-level professional salaries. Medical physics residents earned an average of $51,598 per year and post-doctoral fellows earned $46,551 per year (AAPM 2016a). Is important to keep in mind that education and training times are typically protracted, including 4–5 y for a B.S. degree, 2–6 y for a graduate degree, and two or more years of post-graduate training (residency and/or post-doctoral fellowship). An adequate level of compensation for trainees is an important and potentially vital workforce issue in the long term.
The future outlook for the medical physics profession as a whole is favorable. The profession will likely continue to increase in importance, mainly because of the increasing number of incident cancers and the “endless frontier” of science and technology that will continue to improve human health. Certain aspects of the professional workforce, however, are uncertain. Among these is the adequacy of the supply of workers to fulfill future national needs. In the short term, the workforce in the United States generally appears sufficient; however, in the long term, beyond about 2020, the situation is extremely difficult to predict with certainty.
That said, the predicted increase in cancer incidence of about 2% per year (Weir et al. 2015) suggests that, all other things being equal, demand for medical physicists will continue to increase. The present demand is diverse and large, with about two-thirds of all cancer patients receiving radiation at some point (Delaney et al. 2005). In terms of the workforce demands for a particular clinic, the number of workers needed can vary considerably depending on which model is selected (e.g., Battista et al. 2012), the patient case mix, practice setting (private or community hospital, medical school, university hospital, physician group, medical physics group), and other factors. Furthermore, the number has changed dramatically over time; for example, one medical physicist was required per 424 patients in the era prior to intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) vs. one per 302 patients in the IMRT era (Mills 2005). How these factors change in the future will have a large impact on demand.
The future size of the medical physics workforce is likely determined by the size of the current workforce, the continued addition of entry level workers, and future attrition. The size of the current domestic workforce is about 8,200. In 2014, CAMPEP-accredited medical physics training programs conferred 297 degrees and certificates (Clark 2015). However, in 2015 CAMPEP-accredited residencies admitted only 108 applicants (Clark 2015). Indeed, as discussed, residency training capacity has been lagging behind the output of degree and certificate programs, creating a bottleneck in the supply line of entry level medical physicists and, consequently, a glut of graduates who have been unable to gain admission to residency programs. Although the number of accredited residency programs appears likely to continue to grow, the growth rate is already showing signs of slowing. Thus, at present there is a large imbalance between the output of degree programs and the admissions of residency programs, and this will likely persist for some years. The imbalance has garnered attention and, indeed, controversy regarding if and how to regulate admissions to reduce it (Bayouth et al. 2011). It is the author’s opinion that relevant indicators to modulate admission are cancer incidence and workforce attrition, and that current production rates of graduate programs should not necessarily govern residency admissions or vice versa. Past production and admission rates are historical in nature and are unreliable indicators of future demand for medical physics work.
Future attrition warrants further discussion because it is expected to accelerate as the cohort of baby boomers retires. According to Mills et al. (2010), the rate of retirement between 2010 and 2020 is approximately triple that between 1990 and 2000. Parenthetically, it is noteworthy that older workers may add some elasticity to supply; e.g., by delaying retirement or by consulting after retirement. The survey data from Chen et al. (2015) suggest that the workforce at large has very little excess capacity or elasticity: 94% of medical physicists work full-time, 4% part time, only 1% as locum tenens, and only 1% were not working at the time of the survey but were looking for work.
The supply and capabilities of workers are tied to the status of training programs, and they are closely coupled with federal support for higher education and research. In particular, the number, size, and capacity of graduate education programs depend to varying degrees on federal funding. Nationally, funding for both higher education (AAAS 2015) and research are in decline (Britt 2015). Research funding for radiation oncology and medical physics are underrepresented (Jagsi and Wilson 2013; Steinberg et al. 2013). These data suggest that the current supply of new graduates could shrink even further in the future. Ensuring adequate capacity of medical physics education and training programs seems likely to depend on the allocation of sufficient resources from state and federal sources.
All things considered, it appears that the greatest future risk is an undersupply of medical physicists (and other critical radiation specialists) that could lead to healthcare that is inadequate in supply, quality, or safety. If new medical physicists are produced in excess of clinical needs, they will likely find employment in nonclinical positions or in other disciplines and industries.
It may be fairly said that workforce issues are complex and the future of the workforce is uncertain. The workforce topic has received considerable attention in the literature, historical and current data are available, and various models are available that are of relevance to the workforce. Many governing factors are reasonably well known with small uncertainties; e.g., cancer incidence and the approximate capacities of training programs. However, clearly, imponderables abound, such as the impact of healthcare (economic) reform, use of radiation in medicine, efficiency of medical physics procedures, and the shape of the looming wave of retirements. For these reasons, trends in supply and demand are difficult to predict more than a few years in the future. Thus, at the present time, it is not known if the medical physics workforce will be adequate in several years’ time.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE WORKFORCE
To ensure the adequacy of the medical physics workforce, the following broad actions are recommended.
- Professional societies should continue to surveil, analyze, and report data regarding the status of the medical physics workforce. Additionally, they should monitor recent or possible future changes in policy, law, regulations, and standards of relevance. The results of these activities should be interpreted, taking into account known and unknown factors that may influence the adequacy of the workforce. The findings should be disseminated and discussed openly. Longitudinal study will be essential.
- Based on the available data, model projections, and other factors, consensus recommendations should be developed and disseminated. They should be accompanied by an assessment of the impact of implementation of the actions as well as the potential consequences of inaction. The impact assessment should include public health and economic analyses.
- Professional organizations and regulatory agencies should assess the need for revised or new policies and regulations to ensure the adequacy of the future workforce. The policies might include political, economic, and administrative approaches. If policy actions are required, the well-established principles of policy cycle should be applied.
- At present, it appears that the profession should apply established risk management principles to mitigate the risk that workforce shortages cause future societal needs to go unmet. Because of protracted training times to produce medical physicists and the unknown timing of the looming wave of retirements, it is possible that shortages could appear before mitigating strategies take full effect. Therefore, the profession should be prepared to implement established crisis-management principles if necessary. Both will require substantial planning.
The recommendations above complement those from the recent statement by the NCRP (2015). NCRP recommendations are broader, pertain to all of the radiation professions, yet are applicable to the profession of medical physics. Additional discussion and recommendations of relevance were reported by Coleman et al. (2003) and Dynlacht et al. (2015).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Medical physics is a well-defined, established, and mature profession. There is an expansive body of literature about the present-day workforce, and its present status is known in detail and with certainty. At present, the size of the domestic medical workforce as a whole appears in balance with the nation’s needs. On closer inspection, however, there are substantial problems, such as the severe national shortage of residency training positions, as evidenced by a large pool of graduates of medical physics programs who are unable to enter a residency program.
The profession and its workforce are undergoing rapid changes driven by advances in science and medicine, healthcare reform, and by increasing emphasis on professional aspects of medical physics. In addition, there are long-term trends involving the increasing age and size of the population and increasing numbers of incident cancers, suggesting the possible need for an expansion of the medical physics workforce. Current models and projections are highly uncertain and cannot reliably predict if the workforce will be adequate by year 2021 and beyond. A major obstacle to increasing the supply of medical physicists is the length of time required for education and training. For these reasons, vigilant surveillance and long-range planning are essential. Recommendations to mitigate against the risks of future workforce inadequacies include the collection and analysis of additional data, dissemination and discussion of findings, policy assessments, and risk management and crisis management activities as appropriate.
Amercian Academy of Arts and Sciences. Restoring the foundation: the vital role of research in preserving the american dream. Cambridge, MA: AAAS; 2014.
Amercian Academy of Arts and Sciences. Public research universities: understanding the financial model, a publication of The Lincoln Project: excellence and access in public higher education. Cambridge, MA: AAAS; 2015.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Essentials and guidelines for hospital-based medical physics residency training programs. College Park, MD: AAPM; Report No. 90; 2006.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Academic program recommendations for graduate degrees in medical physics. College Park, MD: AAPM; Report No. 197; 2009.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The essential medical physics didactic elements for physicists entering the profession through an alternative pathway: a recommendation from the AAPM working group on the revision of reports 44 & 79. College Park, MD: AAPM; Report No. 197S; 2011.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Essentials and guidelines for clinical medical physics residency training programs, report from the work group on periodic review of medical physics residency training. College Park, MD: AAPM; Report No. 249; 2013.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Professional survey report, calendar year 2015. College Park, MD: AAPM; 2016a.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Medical physicist. Definition of a qualified medical physicist [online]. 2016b. Available at www.aapm.org/medical_physicist/fields.asp
. Accessed 9 August 2016.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Medical physics residency application program (MP-RAP). Welcome [online]. 2016c. Available at www.aapm.org/mprap/
. Accessed 9 August 2016.
American Board of Radiology. ABR medical physics examination application CAMPEP requirements. Tucson, AZ: ABR; 2014.
American Board of Radiology. Annual report 2013–2014. Tucson, AZ: ABR; 2015.
American Society for Radiation Oncology. Safety is no accident: a framework for quality radiation oncology and care. Arlington, VA: ASTRO; 2012.
Battista JJ, Clark BG, Patterson MS, Beaulieu L, Sharpe MB, Schreiner LJ, MacPherson MS, Van Dyk J. Medical physics staffing for radiation oncology: a decade of experience in Ontario, Canada. J Appl Clin Med Phys 13:3704; 2012.
Bayouth JE, Burmeister JW, Orton CG. Point/counterpoint. Medical physics graduate programs should adjust enrollment to achieve equilibrium between graduates and residents. Med Phys 38:ii–iv; 2011.
Britt R. Universities report continuing decline in federal R&D funding in FY 2014. Arlington, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation; InfoBrief NSF 16‐302; 2015.
Chen E, Arnone A, Sillanpaa JK, Yu Y, Mills MD. A special report of current state of the medical physicist workforce—results of the 2012 ASTRO comprehensive workforce study. J Appl Clin Med Phys 16:5232; 2015.
Clark B. CAMPEP graduate program report. AAPM 56th annual meeting and exhibition. College Park, MD: AAPM; 2014.
Clark B. CAMPEP graduate program report. College Park, MD: Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs; 2015.
Coleman CN, Stone HB, Alexander GA, Barcellos-Hoff MH, Bedford JS, Bristow RG, Dynlacht JR, Fuks Z, Gorelic LS, Hill RP, Joiner MC, Liu FF, McBride WH, McKenna WG, Powell SN, Robbins ME, Rockwell S, Schiff PB, Shaw EG, Siemann DW, Travis EL, Wallner PE, Wong RS, Zeman EM. Education and training for radiation scientists: radiation research program and American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, May 12–14, 2003. Radiat Res 160:729–737; 2003.
Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs. Guidelines for accreditation of graduate educational programs in medical physics. College Park, MD: CAMPEP; 2013.
Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs. Standards for accreditation of graduate educational programs in medical physics. College Park, MD: CAMPEP; 2015.
Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs. CAMPEP accredited certificate programs in medical physics. College Park, MD: CAMPEP; 2016. Available at www.campep.org/campeplstcert.asp
. Accessed 9 August 2016.
Delaney G, Jacob S, Featherstone C, Barton M. The role of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: estimating optimal utilization from a review of evidence-based clinical guidelines. Cancer 104:1129–1137; 2005.
Dynlacht JR, Zeman EM, Held KD, Deye J, Vikram B, Joiner MC. Education and training needs in the radiation sciences: problems and potential solutions. Radiat Res 184:449–455; 2015.
Health Physics Society. Health physics education reference book. Health Physics Society Academic Education Committee. McLean, VA: HPS; 2010.
Health Physics Society. Human capital crisis in radiation safety. Position statement of the Health Physics Society. McLean, VA: HPS; PS015‐3; 2013.
Ibbott GS, Frey GD. Focus on medical physics: medical physics and ABR certification. BEAM 6; 2016.
Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics. Fast facts: teacher trends. Washington, DC: IES/NCES; 2016. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28
. Accessed 9 August 2016.
International Atomic Energy Agency. Radiation protection
and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards. Vienna: IAEA; 2014.
International Organization for Medical Physics. Organization. Athens, Greece: IOMP; 2016. Available at www.iomp.org/?q=content/organisation
. Accessed 9 August 2016.
Jagsi R, Wilson LD. Research funding for radiation oncology: an unfortunately small sliver of an inadequate pie. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86:216–217; 2013.
Lievens Y, Defourny N, Coffey M, Borras JM, Dunscombe P, Slotman B, Malicki J, Bogusz M, Gasparotto C, Grau C, Kokobobo A, Sedlmayer F, Slobina E, Coucke P, Gabrovski R, Vosmik M, Eriksen JG, Jaal J, Dejean C, Polgar C, Johannsson J, Cunningham M, Atkocius V, Back C, Pirotta M, Karadjinovic V, Levernes S, Maciejewski B, Trigo ML, Šegedin B, Palacios A, Pastoors B, Beardmore C, Erridge S, Smyth G, Soler RC. Radiotherapy staffing in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey. Radiother Oncol 112:178–186; 2014.
McAdams MT, Kerwin JJ, Olivo V, Goksel HA. National assessment of the occupational safety and health workforce. Rockville, MD: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 200‐2000‐08017, Task Order 18; 2011.
Mills MD. Analysis and practical use: the Abt study of medical physicist work values for radiation oncology physics services—round ii. J Am Coll Radiol JACR 2:782–789; 2005.
Mills MD. The meaning of the MS degree in medical physics, part 3. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15(3); 2014.
Mills MD, Thornewill J, Esterhay RJ. Future trends in the supply and demand for radiation oncology physicists. J Appl Clin Med Phys 11:3005; 2010.
National Academies/National Research Council. Successful K‐12 STEM education: identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: NA/NRC; 2011.
National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements. Where are the radiation professionals (WARP)? Bethesda, MD: NCRP; Statement No. 12; 2015.
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Health physics enrollments and degrees survey, 2014 data. Oak Ridge, TN: ORISE; Report No. 75; 2015.
Pold J, Mulvey P. Physics doctorates. One year after degree: data from the follow-up survey of degree recipients from the classes of 2013 and 2014. Focus On: January; 2016.
Silverstein E, Burmeister J, Fullerton G. SDAMPP student guide to a medical physics career. Alexandria, VA: Society of Directors of Academic Medical Physics Programs; 2016.
Steinberg M, McBride WH, Vlashi E, Pajonk F. National Institutes of Health funding in radiation oncology: a snapshot. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86:234–240; 2013.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Federal workforce: recent trends in federal civilian employment and compensation. Washington, DC: GAO; GAO‐14‐215; 2014.
van der Merwe D, Palm S, van der Putten WJ. Staffing requirements in radiation medicine. In: World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering May 26–31, 2012, Beijing, China. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2268–2271; 2013.
Weir HK, Thompson TD, Soman A, Moller B, Leadbetter S. The past, present, and future of cancer incidence in the United States: 1975 through 2020. Cancer 121:1827–1837; 2015.
†Personal communication, R. Birgeneau. 2016.