Journal Article Critique #2

Journal Article Critique #2

By Tamara Beck

October 12, 2009

 

Title of Journal Article:  Nuclear Medicine Technologist in the U.S:  Findings from a 2005 Survey

 

Title of Journal:  Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology

 

Volume:  34    Number:  4     Date:  December, 2006           Page Numbers:  244-249

 

Publishing organization:  The Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist Section

 

            This article was chosen to review the findings of a survey conducted among U.S. nuclear medicine technologists, like myself, and to aid in the review of literature for my research project.  The information provided and obtained will benefit my career significantly since I am an educator and it recommends that my profession should enhance the knowledge base and skill sets required for nuclear medicine technologist to perform fusion imaging.

            This article was written as a report to summarize the findings from a survey.  The survey was conducted by the Center for Health Workforce Studies under contract with the Society of Nuclear Medicine in 2005 and given to practicing nuclear medicine technologist.  The survey consisted of a questionnaire that addressed the following topics:  demographics, education, certification and licensure, primary and secondary employment, work in different imaging modalities, salaries, future plans, job satisfaction, the NMT job market, perception of employer preferences, changes in the workforce, and likes and dislikes about their profession.  It gives information regarding the reason behind the survey, how the survey was conducted, the summary of the results, and provided recommendations for improvement.

            I only found one unfamiliar topic within this article, the Center for Health Workforce Studies.  I did not know it even existed.  It was “established in 1996 to collect, analyze and present data about health care workers…” (p.244).  The information gained from their studies help many aspects of the profession under study.

            Topics covered in this article are quantitative research method, non-experimental design, randomization, sample, and surveys.

            I would rate this article as excellent overall and as a teaching tool for students, teachers and patients.  The results from the survey are beneficial to all three categories.

            This article was well written and easy to read.  The strength of this article is its informative nature.  I did not find any weakness.

            Since this was a summary report article there were no references.  However it did mention that the full report was available online.