Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Environmental Sustainability Measures Among Physical Therapists in Healthcare

Abstract

Background: Climate change, global warming, and environmental degradation are major threats to 21st-century health and civilization. Addressing these issues among healthcare workers is vital for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Objectives: This study explored the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of environmental sustainability in healthcare among physical therapists in Saudi Arabia, highlighting the importance of addressing climate change and environmental challenges to support 21st-century health and achieve the SDGs. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Riyadh from 2023 to 2024, involving licensed physical therapists. A 22-item questionnaire was distributed using Google Forms and Qualtrics. Participants were required to be Saudi citizens, licensed by the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS), and to complete the entire questionnaire. Results: Out of 354 physical therapists, 178 were males (50.3%). The most common subspecialty was orthopedics (24.3%), and the most common work setting was government hospitals/clinics (42.1%). Only 29.9% of participants were familiar with environmental sustainability in healthcare, highlighting a significant knowledge gap, and 21.8% were aware of all SDGs. Many agreed that physical therapy professionals should advocate for environmental sustainability (43.2%). Over a third practiced reducing non-biodegradable materials (34.2%). Females had more knowledge about the three Rs of waste management (86.9% vs. 74.7%, P = 0.004). Conclusions: Knowledge of environmental sustainability in healthcare is moderate to poor among physical therapists in Saudi Arabia, highlighting a critical gap in awareness. These findings underscore the need for targeted educational interventions and policy reforms to integrate sustainability into healthcare practices in Saudi Arabia. However, the study’s cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reported data, and focus on a single professional group may limit generalizability and introduce bias, warranting cautious interpretation and further investigation.