Occupational Health Physiotherapy (OHP) Practice: A Comparison between Japan and Australia.

Physical therapy research Pub Date : 2021-07-30 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1298/ptr.R0014
Rose Boucaut, Takuo Nomura, Kenichiro Takano, Reiko Hiroshima, Fuminari Asada, Satoshi Okahara, Beatriz Sanz-Bustillo-Aguirre
{"title":"Occupational Health Physiotherapy (OHP) Practice: A Comparison between Japan and Australia.","authors":"Rose Boucaut, Takuo Nomura, Kenichiro Takano, Reiko Hiroshima, Fuminari Asada, Satoshi Okahara, Beatriz Sanz-Bustillo-Aguirre","doi":"10.1298/ptr.R0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to adapt a pre-existing cross-country comparison (CCC) model to Occupational Health Physiotherapy (OHP) practice as a basis for locating and examining contextual factors that may influence OHP practice in Japan and Australia.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A secondary analysis was conducted of existing publicly-available data on OHP and related influential factors, following the five components of the CCC model: work-related legislation; labor market characteristics; culture; physiotherapy practice norms; and organization of OHP practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Legislation in both countries promotes safe work and rehabilitation of work injured/ill workers. 2019 unemployment was lower in Japan with higher employment protection than Australia. Both countries have an ageing workforce and rising retirement age. Cultural differences relate to higher long-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance in Japan. Australia has higher individualism and physiotherapists are autonomous practitioners with direct access, which differs from Japan. Both countries have a national OHP subgroup, to date only Australia has OHP professional practice standards.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study is the first to compare OHP practice in Japan and Australia. Contextual similarities and differences observed may underpin OHP practitioner role and its enhancement in work-related musculoskeletal disorder prevention and management strategies, the return-to-work process, and development of this physiotherapy discipline nationally.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adapting the CCC model to OHP practice enabled a structured exploration of resources and data, from which to extract and compare contextual factors that may shape OHP practice in Japan and Australia. This in turn may provide a useful springboard for further discussion about OHP practice internationally.</p>","PeriodicalId":74445,"journal":{"name":"Physical therapy research","volume":"24 2","pages":"98-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8419592/pdf/ptr-24-02-0098.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical therapy research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1298/ptr.R0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to adapt a pre-existing cross-country comparison (CCC) model to Occupational Health Physiotherapy (OHP) practice as a basis for locating and examining contextual factors that may influence OHP practice in Japan and Australia.

Method: A secondary analysis was conducted of existing publicly-available data on OHP and related influential factors, following the five components of the CCC model: work-related legislation; labor market characteristics; culture; physiotherapy practice norms; and organization of OHP practice.

Results: Legislation in both countries promotes safe work and rehabilitation of work injured/ill workers. 2019 unemployment was lower in Japan with higher employment protection than Australia. Both countries have an ageing workforce and rising retirement age. Cultural differences relate to higher long-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance in Japan. Australia has higher individualism and physiotherapists are autonomous practitioners with direct access, which differs from Japan. Both countries have a national OHP subgroup, to date only Australia has OHP professional practice standards.

Discussion: This study is the first to compare OHP practice in Japan and Australia. Contextual similarities and differences observed may underpin OHP practitioner role and its enhancement in work-related musculoskeletal disorder prevention and management strategies, the return-to-work process, and development of this physiotherapy discipline nationally.

Conclusion: Adapting the CCC model to OHP practice enabled a structured exploration of resources and data, from which to extract and compare contextual factors that may shape OHP practice in Japan and Australia. This in turn may provide a useful springboard for further discussion about OHP practice internationally.

Abstract Image

职业健康物理治疗(OHP)实践:日本与澳大利亚的比较。
研究目的本研究旨在将已有的跨国比较(CCC)模型应用于职业健康物理治疗(OHP)实践,并以此为基础查找和研究可能影响日本和澳大利亚职业健康物理治疗实践的背景因素:方法:根据 CCC 模型的五个组成部分:与工作相关的立法、劳动力市场特征、文化、物理治疗实践规范和 OHP 实践组织,对现有公开的 OHP 数据和相关影响因素进行了二次分析:结果:两国的立法都促进了安全工作和工伤/患病工人的康复。日本的 2019 年失业率较低,就业保护高于澳大利亚。两国的劳动力都在老龄化,退休年龄也在提高。文化差异与日本较高的长期取向和避免不确定性有关。澳大利亚的个人主义较强,物理治疗师是可直接接触的自主从业者,这一点与日本不同。这两个国家都有一个全国性的开放式物理治疗师分组,但迄今为止只有澳大利亚制定了开放式物理治疗师专业实践标准:本研究首次比较了日本和澳大利亚的 OHP 实践。讨论:本研究首次比较了日本和澳大利亚的开放式物理治疗实践,所观察到的环境异同可能是开放式物理治疗从业者角色的基础,也可能是其在与工作相关的肌肉骨骼疾病预防和管理策略、重返工作岗位过程以及全国物理治疗学科发展中的强化作用:将 CCC 模型应用于 OHP 实践,能够对资源和数据进行有条理的探索,并从中提取和比较可能影响日本和澳大利亚 OHP 实践的背景因素。这反过来又为进一步讨论国际上的 OHP 实践提供了一个有用的跳板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信