Involving people with lived experience in physiotherapy education – Research report three: Developing equal partnerships

Article under review

This article is currently under peer review and has not yet been accepted for publication. While it may still be referenced at this web address, please bear in mind that amendments to the article may occur as a result of the review process.

Reviews

Please provide a review in the form of a summary that addresses the following main themes. Note that the purpose of the review process at OpenPhysio is not to act as a gatekeeper to knowledge but to help the author present the best possible version of their ideas. Your comments below may not necessarily be used to accept or reject the article but should rather aim to identify areas where the author/s can improve their work.

1. Complete, coherent, and well-organized presentation:

The report was easy to follow and well presented.

2. Sufficient explanation of the significance of the problem:

The problem is clear and significance of the case reports themselves are highlighted as well.

3. Clear demonstration of the relevance to the field (beyond the case presented):

Link to current physiotherapy education is clear.

4. Original contribution to the topic of physiotherapy education:

Original report.

5. Compelling presentation of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate):

Arnstein’s ladder of involvement and Tew et al ladder of involvement framework included.

6. Establishment of a relationship between the problem and other relevant literature:

Literature to support and guide the process identified is included in the discussion.

7. Appropriate research design and method:

N/A

8. Accurate and useful interpretation:

Discussion is well written- it draws on literature to highlight and support the findings from the report. One aspect is missing from the discussion and I have mentioned it under the “discussion and conclusion” section.

9. Sound argument and analysis:

Discussion and conclusion highlights most of the important aspects from the report.

10. Effective conclusion about the implications for physiotherapy education, research, and/or practice:

Including the specific conditions from Habermas and Fraser would lead to effective translation from the report to physiotherapy education.

If, in addition to the points above, you could provide more detailed comments and feedback below, that would also be appreciated.

Abstract

Not included.

Introduction/background

The goal of all three papers has been to challenge the lack of empirical evidence base for involvement in physiotherapy education.

I would add to the sentence by including the fact that these reports highlight the importance and benefits of including people with lived experience in physiotherapy education.

The nature of relationships between educators and people with lived experiences is well documented in literature which explores the involvement of people with lived experience in health and social care education.

This sentence repeats itself. I would remove the “explores” section and add the “in health and social care” to the first part of the sentence, before the word “which”.

Report

The report is very interesting and it highlighted the importance of assessing persons holistically. This report again made me reflect on my own teaching.

Discussion and Conclusion

Specific conditions are required for an interchange to occur due to the different priorities and structures of these two worlds (Habermas 1991, Fraser 1990).

Perhaps you can briefly mention some of the conditions required, according to Habermas and Fraser.

Sophie’s lack of confidence (perhaps trust as well) to report the difference in assessment, should be included in the discussion as well and how the environment should be set up to create an open space where the person with lived experience feels comfortable to share (Louise reflects on this as well).

 

Please provide a review in the form of a summary that addresses the following main themes. Note that the purpose of the review process at OpenPhysio is not to act as a gatekeeper to knowledge but to help the author present the best possible version of their ideas. Your comments below may not necessarily be used to accept or reject the article but should rather aim to identify areas where the author/s can improve their work.

1. Complete, coherent, and well-organized presentation:

Well organized. A few grammatical and punctuation errors are highlighted below.

2. Sufficient explanation of the significance of the problem:

Problem is highlighted and described.

3. Clear demonstration of the relevance to the field (beyond the case presented):

Well demonstrated in the introduction and conclusion.

4. Original contribution to the topic of physiotherapy education:

Original report.

5. Compelling presentation of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate):

Theoretical framework included (Schon’s process).

6. Establishment of a relationship between the problem and other relevant literature:

Highlights the lack of current literature and links results from the report to relevant literature.

7. Appropriate research design and method:

N/A

8. Accurate and useful interpretation:

Discussion and conclusion highlights all the important aspects found in the report.

9. Sound argument and analysis:

Lack of literature identified, importance of including persons with lived experience included with references and as mentioned previously, discussion and conclusion well written.

10. Effective conclusion about the implications for physiotherapy education, research, and/or practice:

Implications for practice included and relevant.

If, in addition to the points above, you could provide more detailed comments and feedback below, that would also be appreciated.

Abstract

Not provided.

Introduction/background

Thomson and Hilton report from both the student (2011) and the service user (2013) perspective of involvement in a physiotherapy programme.

I would use the phrase “on the” instead of “of”.

They identify clear impact on students’ process of ‘becoming’ a physiotherapist (2011:47) and benefits to the service user of participating (2013).

I would replace “of” with “as a result of”

What it does suggest is the absence of a well-developed culture and framework for high quality, evidenced informed public involvement activity in physiotherapy education in the UK which needs to be addressed.

Add comma after “UK”.

We focus on the collaboration between Rachel and Vikram in the design and delivery of a physiotherapy teaching session on abdominal surgery.

I would suggest identifying the persons in brackets, next to their name, for ease of reading, e.g. Vikram (physiotherapy lecturer), etc.

Report

In 2019, I was presented with a great opportunity of teaching abdominal surgery and the importance of Physiotherapy management.

“Physiotherapy” should not be written in capital letters.

I suggested that Rachel focus on one aspect of her history. We agreed that she would share and present one surgical condition with a focus on the care received in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and in the ward along with the role of Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) and Physiotherapy.

I would remove the capital letters here as well.

 

Overall, the report was interesting to read and sparked my interest in incorporating persons with lived experience into my lectures. In addition, it forced me to reflect on my current preparation for lectures.

Discussion and Conclusion

All the important aspects from the report are captured well in this section.

Please provide a review in the form of a summary that addresses the following main themes. Note that the purpose of the review process at OpenPhysio is not to act as a gatekeeper to knowledge but to help the author present the best possible version of their ideas. Your comments below may not necessarily be used to accept or reject the article but should rather aim to identify areas where the author/s can improve their work.

  1. Complete, coherent, and well-organised presentation: The report is well-written, well-organised, and coherent.
  2. Sufficient explanation of the significance of the problem: The problem is clearly described.
  3. Clear demonstration of the relevance to the field: The relevance to other health professions educators is apparent.
  4. Original contribution to the topic of physiotherapy education: The findings are not original in the empirical sense of the word, but they help establish a foundation of evidence and recommendations for educational practice that make a useful contribution to the literature.
  5. Compelling presentation of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate): The rationale behind decisions and explanations of the findings are supported with theory.
  6. Establishment of a relationship between the problem and other relevant literature: There is a clear link between the problem, the literature presented, and the description of practice.
  7. Appropriate research design and method: N/A
  8. Accurate and useful interpretation: The findings are appropriately interpreted.
  9. Sound argument and analysis: The argument is well-presented.
  10. Effective conclusion about the implications for physiotherapy education, research, and/or practice: The conclusions for practice are sound, based on the findings, and address the original problem.

Abstract

No abstract provided.

Introduction

> The goal of all three papers

Suggest change ‘papers’ to ‘reports’ for clarity.

> this case study has been co-designed and co-authored

Suggest change ‘case study’ to ‘report’.

> Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of involvement and Tew et al. (2004) ladder of involvement framework, for example, seek to differentiate between different types and levels of involvement with meaningful involvement only being achieved when power is delegated

I had to read this sentence a couple of times to understand it. Perhaps it could be edited for clarity.

> In this case study

Change ‘case study’ to ‘report’.

Methods

N/A

Report

> I am looking at utilizing my mobility equipment to the best of my ability to get away from pain but also increase my ability to support myself. In the supported living unit, if I was unable to safely travel to university independently, I would be unable to go, as the unit I was living in did not have the staff in place to take me. If I wasn’t as independent and mobile as I am, the unit would not have worked for me, so it was important to be mobile.

This section could be edited for clarity, as there is some repetition that can be removed.

> This suggests that the students viewed this assessment from a more three-dimensional

What are the three dimensions? Or do you mean multi-dimensional? Either way, you could provide examples of what these dimensions are.

Discussion and conclusion

> In this paper, and throughout this series of case studies

Suggest changing to “In this report, and throughout this series…”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.