GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION (GESI) AWARENESS TRAINING FOR REHABILITATION PROFESSIONALS: THE PRACTICAL SOLUTION OF ONLINE LEARNING

A.L. Ager¹, L. Thumba², R. Morgan², R. Lowe¹

¹Physiopedia, London, United Kingdom, ²Johns Hopkins University, Department of International Health, Baltimore, United States

Background: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) is not a new concept but is often intimidating to students and clinicians. GESI training is not regularly taught in rehabilitation programs nor the subject of continuing professional development for clinicians. Research has shown that clinicians do not feel adequately trained to be GESI responsive. Considering that GESI advocacy promotes the elimination of existing barriers to the access of rehabilitative care (World Vision, 2020), and that World Physiotherapy openly champions for inclusion and diversity for equitable healthcare for all (World Physiotherapy, 2019), there is a global need for a GESI responsive rehabilitation workforce. At this time, there is a discrepancy between the practical need for GESI training and what is taught to students and clinicians. To meet this need, Physiopedia Plus, the online learning platform for Physiopedia, has published two GESI-related courses for all rehabilitation professionals globally.

Purpose: To map the engagement levels of the two online courses; notably Introduction to GESI, published on 10 June 2022 (Course 1) and ii) Introduction to Affirming Care for Gender and Sexual Minorities (Course 2).

Methods: Engagement data from the courses have been analysed according to rehabilitation profession and country of the participants, according to the World Bank economic country classification (low [LIC], lower-middle [LMIC], upper-middle [UMIC], and high-income countries [HIC]). Preliminary engagement data includes the number of participants who started the course and those who completed the course, during the two-month period following course publication. Thematic analysis of engagement data and testimonials will be presented.

Results: Course 1 (published 10 June 2022) had 114 participants start the course, and 71 (62.3%) complete the course. Forty-nine percent are physiotherapists, 1.6% occupation therapists, 4.4% students, 0.9% myotherapists, 0.9% personal trainers and 0.9% self-identified patients. By country classification, 2.6% were from LIC, 67.5% from LMIC, 7.0% from UMIC and 19.2% from HIC.
Course 2 (published 28 July 2022) had 33 participants start the course, and 17 (51.5 %) complete the course. Physiotherapists made up 84.8% of the participants, 9% occupation therapists and 6% physiotherapy technicians. By country classification, 3% were from LIC, 21.2% from LMIC, 6% from UMIC and 69.7% from HIC.

Conclusions: The majority of participants from both courses are physiotherapists. A large percentage of the participants from the first course are from LMICs, whereas they are from HIC for the second course. This suggests a need for GESI training around the world, and that needs are potentially different by country classification and local realities.

Implications: There is an increasing demand for students and clinicians to be more adaptable, specifically being more gender-sensitive and socially inclusive to facilitate access to, availability of, and use of, rehabilitation services for all persons with rehabilitation needs. This starts with access to education, such as online courses, for all rehabilitation professionals. Understanding gender inequalities and barriers to inclusion are prerequisites for the development and implementation of rehabilitation policies, programming and effective response to the needs of a diverse population in rehabilitative care.

Funding acknowledgements: Funded by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through ReLAB-HS.

Keywords:
Education
Continuing Professional Development
GESI

Topics:
Education: continuing professional development
Globalisation: health systems, policies & strategies
Education: methods of teaching & learning

Did this work require ethics approval? No

Reason: No ethical approval was sought for this project. This study does not require ethical approval as the qualitative information presented is freely available in the public domain and does not involve the direct evaluation of people, animals or biological tissues.