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.
- Complete, coherent, and well-organised presentation: The report is well-written, well-organised, and coherent.
- Sufficient explanation of the significance of the problem: The problem is clearly described.
- Clear demonstration of the relevance to the field: The relevance to other health professions educators is apparent.
- 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.
- Compelling presentation of the problem within a theoretical framework (where appropriate): The rationale behind decisions and explanations of the findings are supported with theory.
- 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.
- Appropriate research design and method: N/A
- Accurate and useful interpretation: The findings are appropriately interpreted.
- Sound argument and analysis: The argument is well-presented.
- 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.
No abstract provided.
> 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’.
> 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…”[jetpack-related-posts]
One Reply to “Peer review (Michael Rowe) – Involving people with lived experience in physiotherapy education – Research report three: Developing equal partnerships”
Thank you for your helpful and constructive comments. These helped us to see where more clarity and detail was required. We have made all the amendments you suggested and can see that the report now reads much better. Thank you.