{"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.