Observational analysis shows 50,000 nuclear medicine procedures in 2024, indicating a need for workforce improvement and research growth.
Purpose: Nuclear medicine is an integral part of medical practice in Jordan. This special article reports on the current infrastructure, human resources, training and research pertaining to nuclear medicine in Jordan. Patients and Methods: A questionnaire was sent to every nuclear medicine service in Jordan inquiring about the numbers and types of available imaging devices, staffing, and types of conducted procedures/scans in 2024. In addition, all nuclear medicine-related publications between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2024 with at least one nuclear medicine co-author from Jordan were extracted from Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, and Elsevier. Results: Jordan, a low-middle-income country of 11.7 million inhabitants, has 17 nuclear medicine departments (1.45 per million) with 14 SPECT, 6 SPECT-CT, and 13 PET/CT scanners. In 2024, nearly 50,000 procedures/scans were performed, dominated by oncology (46.3%) and bone scans (22.3%). Theranostics accounted for 4%, mainly comprised of 131 I and 177 Lu therapies. Staff includes 31 physicians, 59 technicians, 35 physicists, and 6 radiopharmacists, but resources are unevenly distributed. Training programs include 5 nuclear medicine residencies, 1 fellowship, 1 radiopharmacy residency, 1 and 2 undergraduate and postgraduate medical physics degrees, respectively. Research output has grown drastically since 2020, often in collaboration with international institutions. Conclusion: Jordan has an advanced nuclear medicine infrastructure through public investment, government regulations, international collaboration and education. However, it still faces challenges in expanding services, workforce shortages, strengthening research and equitable access. When these challenges are tackled, Jordan can serve as a compelling model for improving the nuclear medicine specialty in developing countries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kasasbeh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: