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:
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:
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.
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.
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.[jetpack-related-posts]
One Reply to “Involving people with lived experience in physiotherapy education – Research report one: Reflecting together to enhance teaching outcomes”
Thank you for your helpful and constructive comments. We had missed these errors during our proof reading process and so appreciate you flagging these. We have made all the amendments you have suggested. Thank you.