Image: Getty Images
March 1, 2026 — A new study from the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute found that practice turnover (i.e., leaving one’s job in one organization to join another) among radiologists increased 61% between 2013 and 2022. The study also found that turnover rates differed by gender, practice location, academic status, workload, and years of practice. The study, published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology, was based on 39,439 radiologists covering 280,692 practice years between 2013 and 2022.
“The unadjusted attrition rate increased 61%, but after adjusting for differences in radiologist and practice characteristics, likelihood that a radiologist would change jobs in a given year were about twice as high during the 2020-2022 period than in 2013,” said Eric Christensen, PhD, Research Director at the Neiman Institute and senior author of the study. “This doubling over a short time period is remarkable.”
The study found that turnover odds were 6% higher for female versus males, 12% higher for radiologists in metropolitan versus non-metropolitan areas and 9% lower for academic versus non-academic radiologists.
“The effects of gender, practice location, and academic status are co-mingled. Academic practice was associated with lower turnover, despite the fact that academic practices are disproportionately female and in metropolitan locations—two factors predicting higher turnover,” said Jay Parikh, MD, Professor, Division of Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and lead author of the study. “Our results provide a compelling foundation to explore how practice setting may differentially affect turnover for men and women.”
“With the current radiologist workforce shortage and reports of unsustainably high workloads, a primary objective of the study was to examine the relationship between workload and turnover because increased workload is associated with burnout,” stated Dr. Christensen. “We found that the turnover rate decreased as radiologist workload increased up to a point, after which further increases in workload were associated with increased turnover.”
“It may be that, at lower workload levels, a radiologist’s job satisfaction increases as workload increases making the job more engaging and financially rewarding. However, there are limits — consistent with the concept of a tipping point—where the disadvantages of additional work outweigh the benefits,” said Jay Parikh.
Across the entire study, this tipping point, where the turnover rate is minimized, occurred at 12,940 work relative value units (wRVUs).
“We found that this tipping point was about one-third lower for academic radiologists versus non-academic radiologists (8,820 vs 13,380 wRVUs)” said Dr. Christensen. “Our results do not inform why this difference exists, but perhaps increasing clinical demands that crowd out teaching and research may reduce the appeal of academic practice.”
As radiology practices continue to navigate workforce shortages, evolving clinical demands, and growing concerns about burnout, these findings highlight the importance of understanding the factors that influence radiologists’ decisions to change jobs. By identifying how workload, practice setting, and individual characteristics contribute to turnover, this study provides actionable insights for health systems aiming to strengthen retention and support a stable radiology workforce.
March 17, 2026 
