A radiation workforce of sufficient size and capacity is necessary to meet our nation’s current and future needs for energy production, health care, and other vital areas. Over the long term, workforce shortages have the potential to compromise our nation’s capabilities in these strategic sectors and, if sustained, would result in degradation of economic competitiveness and national security. In 2015,a multidisciplinary team began reviewing a selection of professional radiation workforces in the United States with the goal of developing a resource that would contain information of relevance to employers, policy makers, educational institutions, students contemplating radiation-related careers, and the public. This approach was taken because ionizing radiation is used for a wide array of applications, and these frequently involve multidisciplinary teams. Indeed, the various radiation disciplines comprise a synergistic ecosystem,with many interdependencies,and this motivated us to review disciplines individually, as well as in the context of the larger multidisciplinary ecosystem. The team members were drawn from those professions that are chiefly responsible for the radiation protection of workers, patients, and the public: health physics, medical physics, medicine (including diagnostic radiology, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine, and radiation oncology), nuclear engineering, radiation biology, and radiochemistry and nuclear chemistry. Due to practical considerations, this selection was limited; nonetheless, the authors emphasize the importance of other worker cohorts, including technologists who work in medical radiation therapy and imaging, and radiation epidemiologists and ecologists, who draw on the basic sciences of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and biology and play a significant role in radiation protection. It is hoped that these and other groups will be considered in future works. The methods used to prepare this review included surveying relevant information on each workforce,using data from the literature and other resources, such as information from professional societies. All data were evaluated by teams of subject matter experts, comprised of leaders in each of the respective professions. However, it must be emphasized that some of the professions have few to no means of surveilling their

Medical physics is an applied science, with subspecialties in radiation therapy, imaging, nuclear medical physics, and medical health physics (radiation protection). Examples of applications heavily dependent on medical physics expertise include the delivery of external-beam radiotherapy and radioactive-seed therapy, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and radiation protection of patients, staff, and the general public within the medical environment. In addition, medical physicists play important roles in the discovery, research and development, and translation of new technologies to clinical practice. Predicting the workforce needs for medical physics is challenging because of limited data availability, unpredictable resource allocation processes, and other factors. In-line with other radiation professions considered in special issue, the domestic medical physics workforce is experiencing a wave of retirements of baby boomers and a chronic decline in support for programs that educate and/or train replacement workers.

, medicine, nuclear engineering, radiation biology, and radiation and nuclear chemistry. Chapters 2 through 7 of this special issue review the characteristics of each profession and its workforce, as well as recommending actions to ensure their future adequacy to meet the nation’s needs.

Purpose: The education and training landscape has been profoundly reshaped by the ABR 2012/2014 initiative and the MedPhys Match. This work quantifies these changes and summarizes available reports, surveys, and statistics on education and training. Methods: We evaluate data from CAMPEP-accredited program websites, annual CAMPEP graduate and residency program reports, and surveys on the MedPhys Match and Professional Doctorate degree (DMP). Results: From 2009-2015, the number of graduates from CAMPEP-accredited graduate programs rose from 210 to 332, while CAMPEP-accredited residency positions rose from 60 to 134. We estimate that approximately 60% of graduates of CAMPEP-accredited graduate programs intend to enter clinical practice, however, only 36% of graduates were successful in acquiring a residency position in 2015. The maximum residency placement percentage for a graduate program is 70%, while the median for all programs is only 22%. Overall residency placement percentage for CAMPEP-accredited program graduates from 2011 2015 was approximately 38% and 25% for those with a PhD and MS, respectively. The disparity between the number of clinically oriented graduates and available residency positions is perceived as a significant problem by over 70% of MedPhys Match participants responding to a post-match survey. Approximately 32% of these respondents indicated that prior knowledge of this situation would have changed their decision to pursue graduate education in medical physics. Conclusion: These data reveal a substantial disparity between the number of residency training positions and graduate students interested in these positions, and a substantial variability in residency placement percentage across graduate programs. Comprehensive data regarding current and projected supply and demand within the medical physics workforce are needed for perspective on these numbers. While the long-term effects of changes in the education and training infrastructure are still unclear, available survey data suggest that these changes could negatively affect potential entrants to the profession.