What the survey found
A team led by Tina Shiang, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, distributed a voluntary, anonymous 38-question electronic survey to Society of Skeletal Radiology members in 2024. It drew 274 responses from attending radiologists and 40 from trainees (residents and fellows) — a 30% response rate. The results, published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology on October 5, 2026, focused on hybrid and work-from-home (HYB-WFH) practice models and what they mean for training the next generation of radiologists.
The topline finding is stark: 93% of trainees supported hybrid or work-from-home practice models, and zero — not a small minority, none — said they preferred working fully in-person. Trainees also reported widespread hands-on exposure to virtual readouts, meaning this isn't an abstract preference about a model they've only heard of. It's a preference formed by people who have already worked both ways.
That number matters precisely because of who's answering. Trainees are the workforce practices will be recruiting, onboarding, and trying to retain for the next three decades. A generation with a 0% in-person preference is not a scheduling quirk to accommodate at the margins — it's the baseline expectation a hiring practice now has to meet.
Support for flexibility is outrunning preparation for it
The survey's more uncomfortable finding sits underneath the headline number. Trainees were actually more likely than attendings to say they'd received formal preparation for remote practice — 68% of trainees versus 37% of attendings (a statistically significant gap, p=0.0005). But when asked whether they actually felt prepared for hybrid or remote work, trainees trailed attendings: 61% of trainees felt prepared versus 83% of attendings (p=0.002). 23% of trainees said they wanted additional education on remote workflows.
Put the two findings together and the picture is a workforce that wants the flexible model more than it currently feels equipped to perform in it. The study's authors concluded that familiarity with remote workflows, virtual communication, and remote collaboration are becoming practical competencies for contemporary radiology practice — not optional extras — and that training programs need to build them in deliberately, including structured remote-readout instruction and intentional relationship-building with faculty, rather than assuming trainees will absorb them by osmosis.
It's not just a trainee phenomenon
The same 2024 Society of Skeletal Radiology dataset also produced a companion analysis of the broader musculoskeletal radiology workforce, published separately in Skeletal Radiology. Across all 314 respondents, hybrid was the most desired model (84%), ahead of fully remote (13%) and in-person (4%). Already, 89% work in practices that support some form of hybrid or remote arrangement.
The retention stakes showed up directly: 59% of respondents said they were considering changing jobs within five years, and among reasons cited, workload (66%) and compensation (54%) led, but hybrid/work-from-home availability (39%) was close behind — ahead of many traditional job-satisfaction drivers. Preference for flexible arrangements tracked with where people lived and how far they commuted, not with age, gender, or career stage, meaning this isn't a generational phase radiologists age out of once they're established.
Why "just offer hybrid" isn't a free decision for practices
Practice leaders reading these numbers face an obvious temptation: say yes to hybrid and work-from-home, and the hiring and retention problem solves itself. In reality, flexibility is constrained by something more mundane than willingness — read-volume coverage. A reading room built around a fixed number of radiologists physically present for a fixed number of hours can only let a portion of that staff work remotely or off-peak before routine-read turnaround starts to slip, referrers notice, and after-hours and overflow gaps reopen.
That's the operational knot practices actually have to untie, and it comes down to three linked constraints:
Coverage is a headcount problem before it's a scheduling problem
Offering more trainees and junior radiologists a hybrid schedule only works if the reading room still covers the same volume at the same turnaround — which usually means the practice needs more bodies, not just more flexible ones.
Hiring harder for a model candidates already expect is a losing trade
With 0% of trainees preferring fully in-person work, practices that hold the line on in-person-only schedules are narrowing their own candidate pool at the exact moment the specialty is short-staffed.
The lever that actually frees up headcount is routine-read volume
If AI reporting reliably absorbs a meaningful share of routine, high-volume studies, fewer in-house radiologist-hours are needed to hold coverage and turnaround steady — which is what creates the room to say yes to hybrid and remote schedules without adding staff the practice can't find or afford.
Where xAID fits
This is the operational version of what the survey data is telling practices: trainee-generation demand for hybrid and remote work is now a baseline hiring constraint, not a perk to negotiate case by case. AI CT reporting is built to absorb the routine-read volume that otherwise ties up in-house hours — xAID's foundation-model system produces a structured, comprehensive draft report, xAID's in-house radiologist reviews every preliminary, and the report reaches the client ready-to-sign. The fewer in-house hours a practice has to spend getting through routine volume, the more room it has to let its radiologists — trainees included — actually work the hybrid and remote schedules they say they want.
Frequently asked questions
What did the JACR survey find about radiology trainees and work from home?
A survey of 274 attending radiologists and 40 trainees in musculoskeletal radiology, published in the Journal of the American College of Radiology in October 2026, found that 93% of trainees supported hybrid or work-from-home practice models, and zero trainees said they preferred a fully in-person model.
Are radiology trainees prepared for hybrid and remote work?
Not as well as attendings report being. The same survey found 68% of trainees said they received formal preparation for remote practice versus 37% of attendings, yet only 61% of trainees felt prepared for hybrid or remote work compared with 83% of attendings, and 23% of trainees wanted additional education on remote workflows.
Is hybrid/work-from-home demand limited to radiology trainees?
No. A companion survey of the broader musculoskeletal radiology workforce, published in Skeletal Radiology, found hybrid was the most desired model overall (84%), with 89% already working in practices that support hybrid or remote arrangements, and 59% of respondents considering a job change within five years — with hybrid/work-from-home availability cited as a factor by 39%.
How can practices offer hybrid and remote work without hurting coverage or turnaround time?
The constraint on hybrid/remote staffing is usually read-volume coverage, not geography. AI reporting that drafts structured, comprehensive reports for the routine case volume reduces how many in-house radiologist-hours are needed to hold turnaround steady, which gives practices more room to offer the flexible schedules trainees are asking for without adding headcount.
Source: Shiang T, Thai E, Smith SE, Chang CY. "Educational Impact of Hybrid and Remote Work: Attending and Trainee Perspectives on Preparing the Next Generation of Radiologists," Journal of the American College of Radiology (Oct. 5, 2026), doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2026.09.030; companion analysis "Survey of the musculoskeletal radiology workforce: hybrid and remote (work from home) practice models," Skeletal Radiology (May 2026), doi.org/10.1007/s00256-026-05252-w. Figures are rounded as reported.