METHODS: A structured questionnaire was mailed in 2008, 2011 and 2014 to senior medical physicists representing 23 countries. The questionnaire covers 7 themes: education and training including certification; staffing; typical tasks; professional organisations; resources; research and teaching; job satisfaction.
RESULTS: Across all surveys the response rate was >85% with the replies representing practice affecting more than half of the world's population. The expectation of ROMP qualifications (MSc and between 1 and 3years of clinical experience) has not changed much over the years. However, compared to 2008, the number of medical physicists in many countries has doubled. Formal professional certification is only available in a small number of countries. The number of experienced ROMPs is small in particular in low and middle income countries. The increase in staff numbers from 2008 to 2014 is matched by a similar increase in the number of treatment units which is accompanied by an increase in treatment complexity. Many ROMPs are required to work overtime and not many find time for research. Resource availability has only improved marginally and ROMPs still feel generally overworked, but professional recognition, while varying widely, appears to be improving slowly.
CONCLUSION: While number of physicists and complexity of treatment techniques and technologies have increased significantly, ROMP practice remains essentially unchanged over the last 6years in the Asia Pacific Region.
METHODS: Thirteen medical oncologists and five radiation oncologists currently practising in Australia participated in this study. Data collection involved individual semi-structured interviews via telephone. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.
RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: (1) beliefs about the impact of priming on cancer survivors' perceived cognitive function, (2) perceptions of who is more likely to raise concerns of cognitive change, (3) uncertainty of how to best manage CRCC, and (4) the perceived role of oncologists in the management of CRCC.
CONCLUSIONS: CRCC and its impact on the cancer survivor's journey have been under-addressed by oncology specialists, and they are uncertain of potential management strategies. With cancer survival rates increasing, there is a need for specific interventions and management guidelines addressing CRCC and their effects on cancer survivors. Future exploration should focus on the survivor as central to their care and holistic approaches to CRCC management involving all members of the multidisciplinary team.