Yes / Research is critical to evidence‐based practice, and the rapid developments in technology provide opportunities to innovate and improve practice. Little is known about the research profile of the medical radiation science (MRS) profession in Australia and New Zealand (NZ). This study provides a baseline of their doctoral activity. A cross‐sectional survey of MRS professionals in Australia and NZ holding a doctorate or undertaking doctoral studies, was performed using an online tool (Bristol Online Survey®, Bristol, UK). A chain‐referral sampling technique was adopted for data collection. An email invitation with a link to the survey was generated and distributed through email and social media. The survey contained questions related to participant demographics, doctoral status, qualification route, funding and employment. There were 63 responses to the survey comprising 50.8% diagnostic radiographers (DRs; n = 32), 23.8% radiation therapists (RTs; n = 15), with the remaining 25.4% (n = 16) equally split between sonographers and nuclear medicine technologists (NMTs). A total of 40 (63.5%) of respondents had completed their doctoral qualification. In NZ, only DRs held a doctoral award constituting 0.3% of DRs and 0.2% of the total registered MRS population. In Australia, there was a greater proportion of doctoral NMTs (n = 8/1098; 0.7%) than RTs (n = 15/2394; 0.6%) and DRs (n = 27/12,001; 0.2%). Similar to other countries, findings show a very small percentage of doctoral MRS professionals in Australia and NZ. Strategies to engage and support individuals in research, up to and beyond doctoral study, need to be embedded in practice.

A good work environment is important for the individual, for industry and for society. The work environment research has, predominantly, targeted identification of problems and the measurement of the size of these problems. Innovations to reduce the incidence of musculoskeletal disorder, MSD, have been introduced in different branches of industry, but with limited success. Few of the ergonomic innovations developed for the building and construction industry have reached a sufficient level of adoption. Ergonomic innovations in the health care sector are of an incremental character and seem to have similar problems of adoption as the ones in the building and construction industry. Three examples of ergonomic innovation are examined in the thesis: a glue spreader for floor layers a four-wheel walker with a lifting device a sonographer’s scanning support device The studies show that an ergonomic innovation is not adopted for prevention of occupational injury unless the innovation also has other relative advantages apart from the ergonomic ones. For the group who already has sustained an injury, it is enough that the ergonomic problems are solved, while the other, symptom-free group, requires other advantages in order to adopt the innovation; increased production economy seems to be the most prominent potential advantage. / <p>QC 20150114</p>