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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) is a widely applied and valid tool used to measure workload.
“The NASA–Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) is a widely applied and valid tool used to measure workload,29,30,31,32,33,34 including the following 6 dimensions:”
From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cites
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
Engineering Psychology and Human Performance
Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S. P., & Parasuraman, R. (2015) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315665177 · Cited by 5,017
Hancock, P. A., & Meshkati, N. (1988) · Cited by 954
Hospital mortality in relation to staff workload: a 4-year study in an adult intensive-care unit
Tarnow-Mordi, W., Hau, C., Warden, A., & Shearer, A. J. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02478-8 · Cited by 734
Engineering Psychology and Human Performance
Wickens, C. D., Helton, W. S., Hollands, J. G., & Banbury, S. P. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003177616 · Cited by 686
Doctors' perceptions of the links between stress and lowered clinical care
Firth‐Cozens, J., & Greenhalgh, J. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00227-4 · Cited by 498
Hurkmans, C., Cuijpers, J. P., Lagerwaard, F. J., Widder, J., van der Heide, U. A., Schuring, D., & Senan, S. (2009) · Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1186/1748-717x-4-1 · Cited by 287
Measuring Subjective Workload: When Is One Scale Better Than Many?
Hendy, K. C., Hamilton, K. M., & Landry, L. N. (1993) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872089303500401 · Cited by 187
Quality assurance in radiotherapy: evaluation of errors and incidents recorded over a 10 year period
Yeung, T. K., Bortolotto, K., Cosby, S., Hoar, M., & Lederer, E. (2004) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2004.12.003 · Cited by 161
Sehlen, S., Vordermark, D., Schäfer, C., Herschbach, P., Bayerl, A., Pigorsch, S. U., Rittweger, J., Dormin, C., Bölling, T., Wypior, H.-J., et al. (2009) · Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1186/1748-717x-4-6 · Cited by 159
The challenge of maximizing safety in radiation oncology
Marks, L. B., Jackson, M., Xie, L., Chang, S., Burkhardt, K. D., Mazur, L. M., Jones, E. L., Saponaro, P., LaChapelle, D., Baynes, D. C., et al. (2011) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2010.10.001 · Cited by 94
Self-citationThe Impact of Advanced Technologies on Treatment Deviations in Radiation Treatment Delivery
Marks, L. B., Light, K., Hubbs, J. L., Georgas, D. L., Jones, E. L., Wright, M. C., Willett, C. G., & Yin, F.-F. (2007) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.017 · Cited by 80
Self-citationHow Safe Is Safe? Risk in Radiotherapy
Ford, E. C., & Terezakis, S. A. (2010) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.047 · Cited by 59
Risk analysis in radiation treatment: Application of a new taxonomic structure
Ekaette, E., Lee, R. C., Cooke, D. L., Kelly, K.-L., & Dunscombe, P. (2006) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.004 · Cited by 50
Lee, K. K., Kerns, K., & Bone, R. S. (2001) · Cited by 38
QA in Radiation Therapy: The RPC Perspective
Ibbott, G. S. (2010) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/250/1/012001 · Cited by 28
Comparison of Workload Measures on Computer—Generated Primary Flight Displays
Nataupsky, M., & Abbott, T. S. (1987) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193128703100515 · Cited by 27
Byun, S. N., & Choi, S. N. (2002) · Journal of Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers · Cited by 7
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Galy, É., Paxion, J., & Berthelon, C. (2017) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.1369583 · Cited by 194
“One study, for instance, looked at the impact of workload components on radiotherapy incidents (Mazur et al. 2012), while another used these components to assess flight deck design (Zheng et al.”
BackgroundTubbs‐Cooley, H. L., Mara, C. A., Carle, A. C., & Gürses, A. P. (2018) · Intensive and Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2018.01.004 · Cited by 165
Ford, E., Conroy, L., Dong, L., Santos, L. E. F. D. L., Greener, A. W., Kim, G. G., Johnson, J. L., Johnson, P. B., Mechalakos, J., Napolitano, B. N., et al. (2020) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.14030 · Cited by 152
Mazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Moore, C., & Marks, L. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1709 · Cited by 127
Self-citationCognitive Load and Stress in Simulation
Bong, C. L., Fraser, K. L., & Oriot, D. (2016) · Comprehensive healthcare simulation · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24187-6_1 · Cited by 96
Mazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Hoyle, L., Jones, E. L., & Marks, L. B. (2013) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2013.01.001 · Cited by 84
Self-citationThe Evolving Role of the Radiologist: The Vancouver Workload Utilization Evaluation Study
Dhanoa, D., Dhesi, T. S., Burton, K. R., Nicolaou, S., & Liang, T. I.-H. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.04.001 · Cited by 72
“ists, inclusive of nonimage-interpretation tasks, has ever been prospectively characterized or quantified in he literature [6-10].”
BackgroundRelating physician’s workload with errors during radiation therapy planning
Mazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Hoyle, L., Jones, E. L., Chera, B. S., & Marks, L. B. (2013) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2013.05.010 · Cited by 68
“5) was higher than the physical demand (16[16]:0) in 27/27, higher than the performance (69[19]:2.”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Effects of Cognitive Load on Engagement in a Virtual Reality Learning Environment
Bueno-Vesga, J. A., Xu, X., & He, H. (2021) · IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) · doi:10.1109/vr50410.2021.00090 · Cited by 72
“As discussed in section 2.4, we measured cognitive load using three selected dimensions of the NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a survey developed by Hart [18] using an approach previously suggested and used by other authors [15, 26, 30, 38, 46].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialImplant time and process efficiency for CT-guided high-dose-rate brachytherapy for cervical cancer
Mayadev, J., Qi, L., Lentz, S., Benedict, S., Courquin, J., Dieterich, S., Mathai, M. G., Stern, R. L., & Valicenti, R. K. (2014) · Brachytherapy · doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2014.01.004 · Cited by 54
Work engagement in cancer care: The power of co-worker and supervisor support
Poulsen, M. G., Khan, A., Poulsen, E. E., Khan, S. R., & Poulsen, A. A. (2015) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2015.09.003 · Cited by 66
Mazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Moore, C., Comitz, E., Yu, F., Falchook, A. D., Eblan, M. J., Hoyle, L. M., Tracton, G., Chera, B. S., et al. (2016) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw016 · Cited by 45
Self-citationImproving Teamwork: Evaluating Workload of Surgical Team During Robot-assisted Surgery
Cavuoto, L. A., Hussein, A. A., Vasan, V., Ahmed, Y., Durrani, A., Khan, S. B. O., Cole, A., Wang, D. D., Kozlowski, J. D., Ahmad, B., et al. (2017) · Urology · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.05.012 · Cited by 38
Calculation of mental load from e-learning student with NASA TLX and SOFI method
Febiyani, A., Febriani, A., & Ma’sum, J. (2021) · Jurnal Sistem dan Manajemen Industri · doi:10.30656/jsmi.v5i1.2789 · Cited by 36
“Some of which were found in research [5], [9]–[14].”
BackgroundResultChera, B. S., Mazur, L. M., Jackson, M., Taylor, K., Mosaly, P. R., Chang, S., Deschesne, K. M., LaChapelle, D., Hoyle, L., Saponaro, P., et al. (2013) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2013.05.007 · Cited by 33
Self-citationStrategies to develop student support mechanisms in medical radiation sciences clinical education
Chamunyonga, C., Singh, A., Gunn, T., & Edwards, C. R. (2020) · Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2020.08.004 · Cited by 32
Standardizing dose prescriptions: An ASTRO white paper
Evans, S. B., Fraass, B. A., Berner, P. A., Collins, K. S., Nurushev, T. S., O’Neill, M. J., Zeng, J., & Marks, L. B. (2016) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2016.08.007 · Cited by 32
Self-citationThe Measurement of Physical Workload and Mental Workload Level of Medical Personnel
Restuputri, D. P., Pangesti, A. K., & Garside, A. K. (2019) · Jurnal Teknik Industri · doi:10.22219/jtiumm.vol20.no1.34-44 · Cited by 30
Simulation Training in Neuroangiography—Validation and Effectiveness
Kreiser, K., Ströber, L., Gehling, K. G., Schneider, F., Kohlbecher, S., Schulz, C. M., Zimmer, C., & Kirschke, J. S. (2020) · Clinical Neuroradiology · doi:10.1007/s00062-020-00902-5 · Cited by 29
Halkett, G. K. B., McKay, J., Hegney, D. G., Breen, L. J., Berg, M. N., Ebert, M. A., Davis, M., & Kearvell, R. (2016) · European Journal of Cancer Care · doi:10.1111/ecc.12511 · Cited by 29
Lund, S. B., Yan, M., D’Angelo, J. D., Wang, T., Hallbeck, M. S., Heller, S. F., & Zielinski, M. D. (2021) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.10.020 · Cited by 26
Poulsen, M. G., Poulsen, A. A., Baumann, K. C., McQuitty, S., & Sharpley, C. F. (2014) · Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences · doi:10.1002/jmrs.87 · Cited by 25
“categorised stressors in the clinical radiation oncology environment.(9) These include: 1 Technical stressors such as computer software or hardware malfunctions; 2 Environmental stressors such as noise; 3 Teamwork stressors caused by delays in information exchange such as waiting for someone to sign off on a plan; 4 T…”
BackgroundNorasi, H., Tetteh, E., Law, K. E., Ponnala, S., Hallbeck, M. S., & Tollefson, M. K. (2022) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103826 · Cited by 23
Assessment of workload effect on nursing occupational accidents in hospitals of Kashan, Iran
Sarsangi, V., Salehiniya, H., Hannani, M., Marzaleh, M. A., Abadi, Y. S., Honarjoo, F., Sanei-Dehkordi, A., & Derakhshanjazari, M. (2017) · Biomedical Research and Therapy · doi:10.15419/bmrat.v4i08.226 · Cited by 22
“(2012) reported that there is a significant correlation between radiotherapy accidents and mental workload score (Mazur et al., 2012).”
BackgroundGaly, É. (2017) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2017.1381777 · Cited by 22
Abbott, E., Thompson, W. S., Pandian, T. K., Zendejas, B., Farley, D. R., & Cook, D. A. (2017) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001924 · Cited by 24
Schneider, F., Martin, J., Schneider, G. H., & Schulz, C. M. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202215 · Cited by 22
Johnson, J. K., Ford, E., Yu, J. B., Buckey, C., Fogh, S. E., & Evans, S. B. (2019) · Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/acm2.12675 · Cited by 21
Couto, J. G., McFadden, S. L., McClure, P., Bezzina, P., & Hughes, C. (2019) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2019.06.004 · Cited by 19
Mosaly, P. R., Mazur, L. M., Jones, E. L., Hoyle, L., Zagar, T. M., Chera, B. S., & Marks, L. B. (2013) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2013.02.007 · Cited by 18
Self-citationMichaud, A. L., Benedict, S., Montemayor, E., Hunt, J. P., Wright, C. L., Mathai, M. G., & Mayadev, J. (2016) · Brachytherapy · doi:10.1016/j.brachy.2016.06.001 · Cited by 17
“Furthermore, workload level and other stressors have been implicated as sources of error in radiation oncology (9).”
BackgroundHuman-centric predictive model of task difficulty for human-in-the-loop control tasks
Wang, Z., & Fey, A. M. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195053 · Cited by 16
Gender Differences in Work–Life Integration Among Medical Physicists
Paradis, K. C., Ryan, K. A., Schmid, S., Moran, J. M., Laucis, A. M., Chapman, C. H., Bott-Kothari, T., Prisciandaro, J. I., Simiele, S. J., Balter, J. M., et al. (2021) · Advances in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2021.100724 · Cited by 14
“Mazur et al found that medical physicists reported quantitatively high workloads and mental demand levels in comparison with other radiation oncology professionals.(10) Medical physicists also express an uncertainty in how or even if to seek out and receive wellness-related support.”
ResultA qualitative investigation of resilience and well‐being among medical physics residents
Paradis, K. C., Ryan, K. A., Schmid, S., Moran, J. M., Laucis, A., Chapman, C. H., Bott-Kothari, T., Prisciandaro, J. I., Simiele, S. J., Balter, J. M., et al. (2022) · Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/acm2.13554 · Cited by 13
A Review of Cognitive Support Systems in the Operating Room
Zhang, Z. S., Wu, Y. Y., & Zheng, B. (2023) · Surgical Innovation · doi:10.1177/15533506231218962 · Cited by 13
“The mental strain caused by MIS and excessive signals present in the working environment of the surgeon may lead to cognitive overload, which causes surgeon performance to decrease 5 ; this induces surgical errors while also extending operational time.”
BackgroundMazur, L. M., Adams, R., Mosaly, P. R., Stiegler, M. P., Nuamah, J. K., Adapa, K., Chera, B. S., & Marks, L. B. (2020) · Advances in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2020.09.008 · Cited by 13
Self-citationDepartmental Workload and Physician Errors in Radiation Oncology
Tariq, M. B., Meier, T., Suh, J. H., Reddy, C. A., Godley, A. R., Kittel, J., Hugebeck, B., Kolar, M., Barrett, P., & Chao, S. T. (2016) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000278 · Cited by 13
“Finally, they and others have identified that time pressures are increasing on everyone, and hassled workers are more prone to error.(8) In our study, we investigate the physician layer of the workflow.”
BackgroundAssessing mental demand in consecutive interpreting: Insights from an fNIRS study
Yan, H. J., Zhang, Y., Feng, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Lee, Y., Chen, M., Shi, Z., Liang, Y., Hei, Y., et al. (2024) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104132 · Cited by 11
Mazur, L. M., Marks, L. B., McLeod, R., Karwowski, W., Mosaly, P. R., Tracton, G. S., Adams, R., Hoyle, L., Das, S. K., & Chera, B. S. (2018) · Advances in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2018.01.002 · Cited by 11
“Thus, a safety-mindful mindset offers the opportunity to operate proactively (eg, something seems wrong here, this seems too perfect to be true) as opposed to reactively (eg, I assumed it was correct, I forgot to communicate), mitigated by using validated cognitive quality assurance (QA) routines and improvement behav…”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationMazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Tracton, G., Stiegler, M. P., Adams, R. D., Chera, B. S., & Marks, L. B. (2017) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2017.02.005 · Cited by 10
Self-citationLi, D., Hu, Y., Chen, H., Zhu, X., Wu, X., Li, J., Zhang, Z., & Liu, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.779262 · Cited by 10
“with radiation oncology professionals including physicians in America (range: 40–52) (26), and in a study conducted by Weigl et al.”
BackgroundMethodLi, D., Hu, Y., Liu, S., Lu, C., Li, J., Zhou, J., Zhang, Y., & Lu, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.854772 · Cited by 9
“However, internationally, there is lack of consensus on what should be considered as a threshold value for a high or excessive workload (47, 48); and current studies tend to identify individuals with high workload among the evaluated physicians by using single workload indicators (49) through the quartiles (50), or th…”
BackgroundEstablished advanced practice roles in radiation therapy: A scoping review
Lawlor, S., & Leech, M. (2024) · Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1111/1754-9485.13634 · Cited by 9
Developing and assessing electronic checklists for safety mindfulness, workload, and performance
Tracton, G. S., Mazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Marks, L. B., & Das, S. K. (2018) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2018.05.001 · Cited by 9
Self-citationWorkload measurement of batik workers at UKM batik jumputan Yogyakarta using RULA and NASA-TLX
Widiastuti, R., Nurhayati, E., Wardani, D. P., & Sutanta, E. (2020) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1456/1/012032 · Cited by 9
Workers’ whole day workload and next day cognitive performance
Hernandez, R., Jin, H., Pyatak, E. A., Roll, S. C., & Schneider, S. (2023) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-023-04400-y · Cited by 8
The burden of burnout: Understanding its prevalence and organizational drivers in medical physics
Schofield, D., Chevalier, C. L., Court, L. E., Harmsen, W. S., & Turner, A. (2025) · Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/acm2.70121 · Cited by 6
“12 In one study investigating the need for social support among medical physicists, 32.8% of 1,001 respondents self-reported experiencing frequent or constant burnout.”
InfluentialMental Workload Assessment and Its Effects on Middle and Senior Managers in Manufacturing Companies
Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Z-Flores, E., Morales, L.-C., & García-Alcaráz, J. L. (2019) · Advances in psychology, mental health, and behavioral studies (APMHBS) book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1052-0.ch006 · Cited by 6
Graph‐based risk assessment and error detection in radiation therapy
Munbodh, R., Bowles, J., & Zaveri, H. P. (2020) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.14666 · Cited by 6
Mazur, L. M., Campbell, A., Comitz, E., Planting, D., Lowen, S. B., Mosaly, P. R., Belger, A., Chera, B. S., & Marks, L. B. (2017) · Le travail humain · doi:10.3917/th.801.0113 · Cited by 6
Self-citationMosaly, P. R., Adams, R., Tracton, G. S., Dooley, J., Adapa, K., Nuamah, J. K., Marks, L. B., & Mazur, L. M. (2020) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2020.07.002 · Cited by 6
Self-citationNarayanan, A., Khashram, M., & Fisher, J. P. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-02202-9 · Cited by 5
Effects of mental workload on manufacturing systems employees: A mediation causal model
Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., García-Alcaráz, J. L., Arredondo-Soto, K. C., Hernández-Escobedo, G., & Baez-Lopez, Y. A. (2023) · Work · doi:10.3233/wor-220148 · Cited by 5
“It has been more popular as a subjective veri-fied workload assessment scale used in various fields, including transportation, cognitive psychology, human-computer interaction, janitors [78–80], nuclear energy, transportation, healthcare, and manufacturing [76, 77, 81–85].”
Aguiar, Y. P. C., Vieira, M. D. F. Q., Galy, É., & Santoni, C. (2014) · International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence · doi:10.4018/ijaci.2014070103 · Cited by 5
Hudson, M. F., O’Rourke, M. A., Blackhurst, D. W., Caldwell, J., & Horner, R. D. (2019) · Journal of Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/jop.19.00132 · Cited by 5
Manyam, B. V., Yu, N., Meier, T., Suh, J. H., & Chao, S. T. (2018) · Applied Radiation Oncology · doi:10.37549/aro1175 · Cited by 5
Ota, S., Yasui, K., Ogata, T., Mori, Y., Nishio, T., Tohyama, N., Okamoto, H., Kurooka, M., Shimomura, K., Kojima, T., et al. (2024) · Journal of Radiation Research · doi:10.1093/jrr/rrae092 · Cited by 4
“In addition, it has been observed that the majority of incidents are associ-atedwiththetreatmentplanningphase,whichconsistentlyrecordsthe highest average TLX scores among RT tasks [23].”
Kwong, E. C., Liu, C. C., Adapa, K., Vizer, L. M., Anderson, B., McHugh, D., Pawlicki, T. A., Miften, M. M., Sawant, A. R., Charguia, N., et al. (2025) · Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/acm2.70122 · Cited by 4
“1 This may suggest that many of these factors impacting well-being are prevalent among medical physicists longitudinally, and that they are perhaps somewhat inherent to the job (potentially suggesting that improvement efforts may be challenging).”
Self-citationLi, D., Hu, Y., Liu, S., Lu, C., Zhang, Y., Zhou, J., Li, J., & Zhang, Z. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.847613 · Cited by 4
“Some studies addressed the assessment of physician workload at task level (named task-level workload in the rest of the paper) in emergency department (16), internal medicine (28), clinical radiation oncology (36, 37), and general practice (38).”
BackgroundAdapa, K., Pillai, M., Das, S. K., Mosaly, P. R., & Mazur, L. M. (2022) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti220191 · Cited by 4
Self-citationJiang, M., Tu, X., Xiao, W., Tang, J., Li, Q., Sun, D., & Dao-xiong, W. (2021) · Science Progress · doi:10.1177/00368504211036129 · Cited by 4
“The NASA-TLX questionnaires have been extensively used in evaluating workload experienced by radiation therapists.(20,26,27) The output of the NASA-TLX questionnaires is scored from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating the lower perceived workload.”
MethodPassive tracking of linac clinical flow using radiofrequency identification technology
Harry, T., Taylor, M. R. G., Fletcher, R., Mundt, A. J., & Pawlicki, T. A. (2013) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2013.03.005 · Cited by 4
30 Years of Radiotherapy Service in Southern Thailand: Workload vs Resources
Phungrassami, T., Funsian, A., & Sriplung, H. (2013) · Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.12.7743 · Cited by 3
“At least 7 medical physicists were needed for treatment planning, dosimetry and verification; the workload which was recently reported to be highest among radiotherapy personnel (Mazur et al., 2012).”
BackgroundTime Setting of Stretching to Improve Response speed of Transportation Drivers in Malang City
Hutabarat, J. (2017) · Cited by 3
Unified risk analysis in radiation therapy
Lohmann, D., Shariff, M., Schubert, P., Sauer, T., Fietkau, R., & Bert, C. (2022) · Zeitschrift für Medizinische Physik · doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2022.08.006 · Cited by 2
“This is reasonable, since most errors occur during treatment planning [27] and physicists have a high workload in the entire therapy process [28].”
BackgroundMazur, L. M., Adams, R., Mosaly, P. R., Nuamah, J. K., Adapa, K., & Marks, L. B. (2020) · Practical Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2020.08.005 · Cited by 2
Self-citationAdapa, K., Mosaly, P. R., Yu, F., Moore, C., Das, S. K., & Mazur, L. M. (2021) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181321651285 · Cited by 2
Self-citationBaehr, A., Grohmann, M., Guberina, M., Schulze, K., Lange, T., Nestle, U., Ernst, P., & DEGRO Working Group for Patient Safety (2023) · Strahlentherapie und Onkologie · doi:10.1007/s00066-023-02148-9 · Cited by 2
“Nevertheless, the processes of RO are exposed to increasing patient numbers per treatment unit as well as permanent stressors and disruptions [25, 26], making them prone to errors that restrict the effectivity of the systems [27, 28].”
BackgroundSharpley, C. F., Poulson, A., Baumann, K. C., & Poulson, M. (2015) · Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy · doi:10.12740/app/41762 · Cited by 2
“strong pain leading to delays in a scheduled procedure) were the highest sources of stress for RTs [7].”
Background太田, 誠., & Yoshioka, I. S. Y. (2015) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Radiation Therapy · doi:10.4172/2155-9619.1000243 · Cited by 2
Workload Analysis using NASA-TLX and SWAT METHODS in Shop Floor Company X
umam, M., Harpito, H., Lestari, F., Rizki, M., Nazaruddin, N., anwardi, A., & Nofirza, N. (2023) · International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM) · doi:10.46254/ap03.20220788 · Cited by 2
Petragallo, R., Luximon, D. C., Neylon, J., Bardach, N. S., Ritter, T. A., & Lamb, J. M. (2024) · Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/acm2.14313 · Cited by 2
“Currently, physicists are under ever increasing time pressures, 36,37 which means that more and greater complexity chart checks are being done with less resources.”
BackgroundThe impact of COVID‐19 workflow changes on radiation oncology incident reporting
Volpini, M. E., Lekx‐Toniolo, K., Mahon, R., & Buckley, L. A. (2022) · Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/acm2.13742 · Cited by 1
A novel S/N ratio-based measure of Z-number and its application in NASA-TLX
Das, S., Maiti, J., & Garg, A. (2026) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2026.115258 · Cited by 1
Mosaly, P. R., Mazur, L. M., & Marks, L. B. (2016) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41947-3_4 · Cited by 1
Self-citationPatient Safety and Quality Improvement
(2015) · Otolaryngology · doi:10.1177/0194599815593310g · Cited by 1
Probst, H., Hutton, D., Collins, M., & Adams, R. (2014) · Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice · doi:10.1017/s1460396914000120
“Workload measures should include measures of radiotherapy technique complexity(10) or task load, based on mental and physical demands.(9)”
BackgroundSelf-citationPatient Safety and Quality: Management for the Radiation Oncologist
Alite, F., & Solanki, A. A. (2017) · doi:10.1002/9781119341154.ch8
Decoding attentional load in visual perception: a signal processing approach
Palmer, L. (2017) · UCL Discovery (University College London)
Dosimetrist Workload Management Framework for Radiation Therapy Pre-treatment Operations
Ranisau, J. (2019) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Mental Workload Assessment and Its Effects on Middle and Senior Managers in Manufacturing Companies
Realyvásquez-Vargas, A., Z-Flores, E., Morales, L.-C., & García-Alcaráz, J. L. (2021) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-2405-6.ch068
Aguiar, Y. P. C., Vieira, M. D. F. Q., Galy, É., & Santoni, C. (2019) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8356-1.ch016
Patient Safety and Quality Improvement
Pawlicki, F. T., Scanderbeg, D. J., & Starkschall, F. G. (2016) · doi:10.1002/9781118575338.ch20
Lund, S. B., Woerster, M., Wilkins, P., Cook, D. A., Morrey, C. M., Laack, T. A., Pankratz, V. S., & Morrey, M. E. (2025) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-025-10465-0
Vasilevskis, E. E., Kim, J., Wichman, C., Horner, R. D., Campbell, J. R., Geary, C. R., Birge, J., Hetland, B. D., Blanchard, A., Circo, K., et al. (2025) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-025-09331-6
McConnell, K., Valladares, M. A., Gutiérrez, A. N., Luther, N., Fellows, Z. T., LeGrand, L. A., Chuong, M. D., Mehta, M. P., & Wroe, A. J. (2025) · Advances in Radiation Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2025.101895
“18 A study by Mazur et al 10 used the NASA Task Load Index 19 to quantify workload among radiation oncology team members and found that physicists had the highest average workload scores (ranging from 51 to 62.6) followed closely by dosimetry (ranging from 47.8 to 52).”
InfluentialBurmeister, J. W., Biswal, N. C., Harms, J. M., Paxton, A. B., & Boggula, R. (2026) · Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/acm2.70475
Roche, M., Robbins, D., Goodhand, S., & Evans, J. (2026) · Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care · doi:10.1016/j.tacc.2026.101653
Ergonomics and Surgeon Well-Being in Minimally Invasive Surgery
Cerier, E. J., & Shao, J. M. (2026) · Surgical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.suc.2026.02.016
Jani, S. S., Murray, M., Kramer, D., Thawani, N., Diaz, A., & Sorensen, S. (2026) · BMJ Open Quality · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003903
Arai, K., Tanaka, S., Hoshino, T., Xiao, Y., Lee, W., Takahashi, Y., Kadoya, N., Katsuta, Y., & Jingu, K. (2026) · Journal of Radiation Research · doi:10.1093/jrr/rrag078
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