Involving people with lived experience in physiotherapy education – Research report one: Reflecting together to enhance teaching outcomes

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.


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.

General comments

  1. Complete, coherent, and well-organized presentation: The report is well-written and well-organised.
  2. Sufficient explanation of the significance of the problem: The problem is identified early on in the report.
  3. Clear demonstration of the relevance to the field: The relevance for practice and professional education is made clear.
  4. Original contribution to the topic of physiotherapy education: The report contributes to establishing a foundation and norm of sharing educational practice that would benefit health professions educators.
  5. Compelling presentation of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate): The authors draw on appropriate theory (Schon’s work on reflection in, and on, practice) to support the decisions made in the programme.
  6. Establishment of a relationship between the problem and other relevant literature: The connection between the problem statement and literature is clear.
  7. Appropriate research design and method: N/A
  8. Accurate and useful interpretation: Clear and logical interpretation of the findings.
  9. Sound argument and analysis: N/A
  10. Effective conclusion about the implications for physiotherapy education, research, and/or practice: The implications for practice are clear, concise, and provide useful suggestions for health professions educators.

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


Not provided


> introduced an education and training standard requiring service user and carer involvement in all approved programmes

Should you explain what an ‘approved programme’ is?

> a scoping literature search on the involvement of people with lived experience in physiotherapy education and training returned only two results

To be fair, this only means that programmes aren’t publishing their collaborations. The way that this is written (i.e. “despite this”) seems to imply that this collaboration isn’t happening. I see you note this in a couple of sentences, but maybe clarify here as well.

> They identify clear impact

Sugest you change ‘impact’ to ‘impacts’. Same for the next sentence.


I was thoroughly engaged with the transcript that follows. However, I wonder if it would help to signpost the upcoming structure to the reader, especially since these reports don’t follow the expected outline of a typical publication.

Discussion and conclusion

I found this section to be clear and concise.

Leave a Reply

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