Audio file
File
R. Boucaut1,2, B. Sanz-Bustillo Aguirre3,4, A. de Rijk5, N. Wanyonyi6
1University of South Australia, Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, Australia, 2University of South Australia, International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, Adelaide, Australia, 3Ministerio de Defensa de España, Madrid, Spain, 4Universidad San Pablo-CEU, CEU Universities, Madrid, Spain, 5Maastricht University, Department of Social Medicine, Maastricht, Netherlands, 6Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya
Background: Physiotherapists have an established role in occupational health management in multiple countries. These practitioners manage work-related musculoskeletal disorders which are highly prevalent, are linked to work disability, and involve an economic and social burden. The International Federation of Physical Therapists working in Occupational Health and Ergonomics (IFPTOHE) is a World Physiotherapy subgroup. Beyond anecdote, how occupational health physiotherapy (OHP) is practised in the member countries remains yet unknown. Such knowledge could yield differences and similarities providing a basis from which to enhance global practice in this discipline.
Purpose: The present study aimed to unravel cross-country similarities and disparities, using an existing cross-country comparison model to begin to understand how OHP practice is shaped in different countries. A secondary objective was to determine what resources were available to satisfy the requirements of the model.
Methods: The physiotherapy authors collaborated with the social psychologist creator of the model. They determined how the model could be used to systematically compare contextual factors that may influence OHP practice in diverse countries. From different World Physiotherapy regions, Australia, Kenya and Spain, formed a sample of convenience which enabled tapping the authors’ knowledge of OHP practice in these countries.
Existing data, publicly available from governments and authorities, were found in relation to the five model elements. These elements being: labour market characteristics; legislation; culture; norms and values; and professional practice. First data were sourced and entered onto a spreadsheet for independent review by two authors (RB and BS), then findings were compared and considered. Any divergent interpretations were discussed to achieve consensus.
Existing data, publicly available from governments and authorities, were found in relation to the five model elements. These elements being: labour market characteristics; legislation; culture; norms and values; and professional practice. First data were sourced and entered onto a spreadsheet for independent review by two authors (RB and BS), then findings were compared and considered. Any divergent interpretations were discussed to achieve consensus.
Results: 2019 World Bank unemployment rates were: Kenya 2.6%, Australia 5.3%, Spain 14%. Kenya and Spain have national work legislation, in Australia some is national while some is state based. Culturally, Hofstede’s-insights data describe Kenya and Spain as hierarchical societies compared with Australia; Kenya is described as a collectivist society, Australia individualist, with Spain lying between. World values surveys and national physiotherapy ethics codes demonstrate the three countries share societal values about human rights protection and gender equity while professional differences exist regarding multidisciplinary interactions and moral edicts. All three countries are IFPTOHE members with only Australia having a longstanding national OHP subgroup and tailored professional practice standards.
Conclusion(s): The cross-country comparison model enabled a structured approach to considering contextual factors that could influence OHP practice. In an organized manner, the authors gained awareness and an overview of the availability and suitability of publicly-available resource data which are perhaps seldom considered in relation to the context of OHP but likely influence how international OHP practice is conducted.
Implications: Beyond this initial study, the authors anticipate that using the model will enhance discussion between OHP practitioners as they compare and contrast global practices and challenges in OHP. In the future, this may help foster global understanding between IFPTOHE member organisations and enable a strategic focus for the subgroup.
Funding, acknowledgements: This work was not funded
Keywords: Occupational health, Physical therapy, Professional practice
Topic: Occupational health & ergonomics
Did this work require ethics approval? No
Institution: N/A
Committee: N/A
Reason: Publicly available data was used.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
