{"title":"Analysis of the institutional free market in accredited medical physics graduate programs","authors":"Brian W. Pogue, Alexander P. Niver","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Medical Physics education is largely delivered through accredited programs where admission numbers and funding for students are controlled by the individual institutions providing the educational programs. Public data from these accredited graduate programs, along with funding data, can be used to analyze institutionally driven trends in the market for providing this education. Temporal trends from 2017 to 2023 show robust growth in MS graduates, increasing at an average of 17.7 per year, as compared to steady but modest growth in PhDs, increasing by 3.6 per year. The current ratio is 2:1 in MS:PhD for total annual graduates in North America. Trends in funding show self-funding of MS students is a dominant pathway in domestic programs, with this being less dominant in international programs. Those programs dominated by accredited MS education have their largest fraction of faculty in radiation oncology departments, whereas those dominated by PhD education have their largest fraction of faculty in radiology departments. Overall, NIH funding in the space of radiation diagnostics and therapeutics has been largely static over this timeframe, but with a notable recent rise in NCI funding in the last 5 years. This can be contrasted to a substantial 5X–6X rise in NIH funding for engineering research programs during this same period, with significant increases in trainee funding there. Taken as a whole, this survey shows that growth in the field of medical physics education is dominated by MS graduates, presumably servicing the expanded growth needs for well-trained clinical physicists. However, the research infrastructure that supports PhD training in medical physics seems likely to be growing modestly and has missed the growth trend of NIH funding to non-accredited programs such as biomedical engineering.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70164","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70164","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Medical Physics education is largely delivered through accredited programs where admission numbers and funding for students are controlled by the individual institutions providing the educational programs. Public data from these accredited graduate programs, along with funding data, can be used to analyze institutionally driven trends in the market for providing this education. Temporal trends from 2017 to 2023 show robust growth in MS graduates, increasing at an average of 17.7 per year, as compared to steady but modest growth in PhDs, increasing by 3.6 per year. The current ratio is 2:1 in MS:PhD for total annual graduates in North America. Trends in funding show self-funding of MS students is a dominant pathway in domestic programs, with this being less dominant in international programs. Those programs dominated by accredited MS education have their largest fraction of faculty in radiation oncology departments, whereas those dominated by PhD education have their largest fraction of faculty in radiology departments. Overall, NIH funding in the space of radiation diagnostics and therapeutics has been largely static over this timeframe, but with a notable recent rise in NCI funding in the last 5 years. This can be contrasted to a substantial 5X–6X rise in NIH funding for engineering research programs during this same period, with significant increases in trainee funding there. Taken as a whole, this survey shows that growth in the field of medical physics education is dominated by MS graduates, presumably servicing the expanded growth needs for well-trained clinical physicists. However, the research infrastructure that supports PhD training in medical physics seems likely to be growing modestly and has missed the growth trend of NIH funding to non-accredited programs such as biomedical engineering.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic