Survey explores career choice and clinical placement effects in nuclear medicine among undergraduates, highlighting students' need for more education.
The career aspirations of undergraduate radiography students have previously been surveyed but there is little in the literature exploring nuclear medicine as a career specialism. This study aimed to explore the relationship between clinical placement and career choice within third and fourth year diagnostic radiography undergraduates in Scotland. University ethical approval was obtained; gatekeepers were appointed from each university and distributed the survey. The online survey was conducted consisting of 22 questions including 4 open ended. Descriptive results were summarised using tables and graphs, whilst inferential statistics were collated using R. The survey response rate was 30.3 % (n = 64/211). Students were predominantly female (89 %). The preferred modality for specialising was general radiography (weighted average = 98.99) whilst nuclear medicine was the least favored career choice (weighted average = 18.69). Clinical placement was the most influential factor in career planning for radiography students, and students expressed a desire to learn more about nuclear medicine. There was a statistical difference in length of time spent in nuclear medicine between the three universities (p = .021). The study helped to establish the link between career planning and clinical placement. Students were more likely to choose a modality based on a positive clinical experience. Notably students spent the least amount of clinical time within NM and also favour this modality the least for their future career. Students have demonstrated a need to learn more about the modality and experience it within a clinical placement setting. It is recommended that the radiography curriculum is modified to incorporate learning objectives with a minimum of one week within NM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oludipe et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: