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:
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:
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.
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”.
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).
One Reply to “Involving people with lived experience in physiotherapy education – Research report three: Developing equal partnerships”
Thank you for your helpful and constructive comments. We are delighted that the report has enabled you to reflect on your own teaching. This has been our experience too during the process of co-authoring. We agree with all of your suggestions and have added to the discussion in the ways you have suggested. We think that this has strengthened the report and the evidence within it. Thank you.