Cited by 91Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative Assessment of Workload and Stressors in Clinical Radiation Oncology

Abstract

Purpose Workload level and sources of stressors have been implicated as sources of error in multiple settings. We assessed workload levels and sources of stressors among radiation oncology professionals. Furthermore, we explored the potential association between workload and the frequency of reported radiotherapy incidents by the World Health Organization (WHO). Methods and materials Data collection was aimed at various tasks performed by 21 study participants from different radiation oncology professional subgroups (simulation therapists, radiation therapists, physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians). Workload was assessed using National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task-Load Index (NASA TLX). Sources of stressors were quantified using observational methods and segregated using a standard taxonomy. Comparisons between professional subgroups and tasks were made using analysis of variance ANOVA, multivariate ANOVA, and Duncan test. An association between workload levels (NASA TLX) and the frequency of radiotherapy incidents (WHO incidents) was explored (Pearson correlation test). Results A total of 173 workload assessments were obtained. Overall, simulation therapists had relatively low workloads (NASA TLX range, 30-36), and physicists had relatively high workloads (NASA TLX range, 51-63). NASA TLX scores for physicians, radiation therapists, and dosimetrists ranged from 40-52. There was marked intertask/professional subgroup variation (P<.0001). Mental demand (P<.001), physical demand (P=.001), and effort (P=.006) significantly differed among professional subgroups. Typically, there were 3-5 stressors per cycle of analyzed tasks with the following distribution: interruptions (41.4%), time factors (17%), technical factors (13.6%), teamwork issues (11.6%), patient factors (9.0%), and environmental factors (7.4%). A positive association between workload and frequency of reported radiotherapy incidents by the WHO was found (r = 0.87, P value=.045). Conclusions Workload level and sources of stressors vary among professional subgroups. Understanding the factors that influence these findings can guide adjustments to the workflow procedures, physical layout, and/or communication protocols to enhance safety. Additional evaluations are needed in order to better understand if these findings are systemic.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.063

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Jackson, M., Chang, S. X., Burkhardt, K. D., Adams, R. D., Jones, E. L., Hoyle, L., Xu, J., Rockwell, J., & Marks, L. B.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Corresponding author
Mazur, Lukasz M.
Venue
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
83
Issue
5
Pages
e571-e576
ISSN
0360-3016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2000776865
Cited by
91
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Keywords
workload, occupational stressors, NASA-TLX, radiation therapists, dosimetrists, radiotherapy safety, interruptions, teamwork, mental demand, physical demands, effort
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Humans, North Carolina, Safety, Software, Stress, Psychological, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, United States, Workload, United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Radiation Oncology, Medical Errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review