Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

There were some grammatical issues with the paper – I have commented on the article itself in this regard.

The paper needs some work in the following areas:
1. ‘Objectives: To assess the reach of pre-recorded learning material on the current understanding of pain.’
Issue: Looking at the methods and results the following seem to be objectives of the paper:
• Identified important pain concepts that were missing in the curriculum.
• Revised method of teaching – video-recorded lectures.
• Assessed effectiveness, acceptance of lecture series and attitude of towards new method of learning experience – Google form.
Suggestion: Relook the objective of this paper and what you would like to report on, ask yourself who is my take away message for?

2. Participants
Issue: It is not always clear who participated in the study. I share some examples.
a) In the introduction, the authors mention “According to the Indian Association of Physiotherapists (IAP), there are 223 recognized institutions that offer undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) in physiotherapy, under various private and government universities (Physiotherapyindia.org. 2016)”
b) Then, in Phase 2 of the Methods section, 469 colleges are mentioned.
c) In phase 3 (Method section) two institutions of Southern India are mentioned
d) In the Results section the authors mention that five institutions responded.

Suggestion: Clearly state who participated and how many participated.

3. Results
Issue:
a) It is not clear what questions were asked in the google form to determine/understand ‘effectiveness and acceptance of the lecture series’, I assume these were sent to the students?
b) The authors do not clearly report on ‘effectiveness and acceptance of the lecture series’. They only report on how many participants said ‘yes’ but there is no report on findings – whether the lecture series was effective/acceptance? It is also difficult to understand how the authors measured ‘effectiveness’.
Suggestion:
a) Include some sort of understanding of the form used and what the responses were for the reader to understand the picture of the results.
b) Report on the findings of the Google form more vigorously to give the reader an understanding of the ‘acceptance and effectiveness of the lecture series’.

4. Analysis
Issue:
a) The analysis is only reported for the decision of pain topics included.

Suggestion:
a) Include an analysis of the Google survey as well.

5. Discussion
Issue:
a) The discussion needs to demonstrate more interpretation of the findings in relation to what is already known about the topic. Currently, the authors do not relate their own findings to what has previously been done.

Suggestion:
a) Clearly outline and describe your own findings.
b) Rework the discussion to include more integration of what is known about the results.

6. Practical Implications
Issue:
a) The practical implications seem to be disconnected from the objectives highlighted in the study and the results.
Suggestion:
b) Align the practical implications with the objectives and the results of the study.

7. Title
Issue:
a) The title doesn’t align with what the authors set out to do or achieved?
Suggestion:
a) Revise title once the authors have decided who they are aiming the article at and what they want to share?

[jetpack-related-posts]