Thank you for the invitation to review. Given that many of our graduates end up in the private sector, it seems logical that physiotherapy training programs should include this setting within undergraduate curricula. What concerns me though is the obvious perception that it is acceptable to allow students to learn and ‘practice’ on patients within the public health care domain, but that it is not alright to do so in the private sector. Bar the possible financial constraints on the private practices, the multiple benefits for all stakeholders are seldom further investigated.
Given my statement above, it was disappointing to find that this study has not really added to the current body of knowledge/evidence concerning the challenges of having undergraduate PT students train in private practice. The study suggests that it aimed to find ‘solutions’ yet still excessively focuses on existing barriers. The study concluded that change is necessary – but then does not elaborate on this.
A further concern is the very small sample size given that Germany has 36 or more training institutions for physiotherapy. How were these participants identified and recruited? Similarly only two practitioners working in private were invited to participate, one of whom works in both sectors – did this not lead to bias? It is unlikely that their responses are similar to the rest of the population and this study therefore lacks generalisability.
Do you have ethical clearance and or was the proposal externally reviewed?
In general the manuscript is too long, and although the transparency concerning the qualitative methods you have used, are unnecessary and has lead to a lot of repetition. To the reader this then becomes boring.
My recommendations for improving this manuscript are thus:
- consider changing the title – you have not developed a framework nor any model/s for cooperation to facilitate the inclusion of the private sector into the undergraduate (UG) clinical training program and as my co-reviewer pointed out, the local setting and challenges vary significantly between countries and perhaps elaborating on the German context will add value.
- ‘Tighten up’ the methodology as well as the results sections and try to keep your focus on the information/data that can assist in ‘bridging the gap’ or rather fostering cooperation between the schools and the private sector
- Why did you select heads of schools and not the undergraduate program coordinator or clinical training coordinators? And why share their qualifications, funding model etc. – this seems irrelevant to the topic and makes them identifiable.
- What measures did you put in place to ensure trustworthiness?
- ‘contentual’ learning – do you not mean contextual learning?
- Discussion – begin with what the major findings were and then proceed to discussing each one. Again – keep focused on what is needed to foster better cooperation and propose how this could be done in line with recommendations from the literature e.g. remuneration seems a key consideration – what about proposing other models for remuneration? Continuous professional development, a university accredited practice etc.
- What are this study’s limitations? Discuss the implications of the purposive sampling and small sample size? Any suggestions for further research?
- Practical implications – this section I would rewrite to summarise clearly the issues and some of the ‘solutions’ to the issues