NEW GUIDELINES FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH CONTENT IN PROFESSIONAL PHYSICAL THERAPIST EDUCATION

Anderson K.¹, Boissonnault J.², Dockter M.³, Nelson P.⁴, Figuers C.⁵

¹University of Minnesota, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Minneapolis, United States, ²George Washington University, Department of Physical Therapy and Health Care Sciences, Washington, DC, United States, ³University of Mary, Physical Therapy, Bismarck, United States, ⁴University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Belton, United States, ⁵Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States

Background: Accreditation requirements for physical therapist (PT) education in the United States (US) require curricula be based on current evidence and practice, but do not contain elements specific to women's health (WH). Often, WH instructors are clinicians/adjunct-faculty with expertise in this area, but limited skill in curricular development. A need existed for resources to assist PT programs in addressing this important component of PT practice.

Purpose: The Section on Women's Health (SoWH) of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) created the first guideline for WH content in PT education in 2005. An update and revision was initiated in 2011, and made available to faculty and US program directors in 2014. In the interval between the two guidelines, significant changes occurred in US PT education and specialization, making reassessment important. In particular, instruction in pelvic floor muscle examination has remained a topic of discussion.

Methods: Two surveys were conducted; one sent to academicians and one to clinicians, with a goal of collecting data on content currently being taught, content each group believed should be included in PT professional education, and level of expected competence (familiar, proficient, or mastery). Specific questions related to pelvic floor muscle examination were included in each survey, including queries about teaching strategies (via verbal instruction with pictures, video or live demonstration, or student performance in an elective or required course).

Results: A 51% response rate was obtained from academic programs, and a 17% response from clinicians. The updated guideline structure was considerably different from the 2005 Guidelines; it was based on a systems format and included foundational and clinical science information. A 70% respondent agreement criterion that content was “within the scope of WH practice for entry into the PT profession” was utilized to determine item inclusion into the final 2014 guideline. The content of the 2014 Guideline was very similar to the 2005 version, except for the addition of specific new topic areas such as chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic pain, and gall bladder dysfunction related to pregnancy. There was strong agreement that physical examination of pelvic floor muscles should be taught in post-professional coursework, not in PT educational programs. Amongst those in disagreement, clinicians favored an elective course format including psychomotor skill practice and assessment, while academicians favored verbal instruction and diagrams without demonstration or laboratory practice.

Conclusion(s): The updated guideline provides useful WH content recommendations for PT professional education. Updates every 10 years are recommended. Further work to provide teaching strategies and learning objectives are suggested.

Implications: These recommendations may be useful for other countries when developing and providing WH content in PT professional education. The Guidelines can be accessed via the SoWH website: www.womenshealthapta.org.

Funding acknowledgements: none

Topic: Education

Ethics approval: Approved by the Eastern Washington University Institutional Review Board.

All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.