Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper entitled: ‘Digital Confidence, experience and motivation in physiotherapist: A UK-wide survey’
This paper offers valuable insights into the digital literacies, confidence and experiences of physiotherapists and other allied health professionals (AHP’s).
Aim– I am not sure whether the information in brackets is needed as this does not appear to be a comparative study, as the paper is more descriptive in nature (besides the t-test).
Methods: Please expand the methods to state that it is a quantitative study. Was this a cross-sectional design?
The conclusion in the abstract does not fully align with the results showed in both the abstract and in the body of the paper. Just a short succinct conclusion as it (explicitly)relates to digital confidence, experience and motivation of physiotherapists would be sufficient.
The practical implications should include some of the core constructs of the paper (I.e confidence, motivation, digital confidence). It is unclear how learning is linked. If it is about health data analytics, then perhaps this should be made more overt.
Good introduction which demonstrates the niche area and the gap in our understanding and the rationale for this paper. Improving digital skills may facilitate and boost staff competence and focus.
the title of the tool review closed caption “” and a comma
Methodology– there is some information missing in terms of design. Be specific about it being quantitative and also cross-sectional (if that is what you have used). The methods also indicate that a t-test was conducted, you do not discuss this t-test results.
I am not sure whether I have missed something- Under the procedure, it states that survey responses were 143, yet the results response rate indicates 282 responses with 279 complete responses.
The computed scores in Table 1 requires some context as it relates to the instrument. Whilst this is a 5-point Likert Scale, it would be useful to add an Annexure for the instrument used so that one can make some inferences about the items in each of the scales. Reporting of the mean and SD should be written in a more conventional manner.
The link between this study and TOPOL review is insightful in terms f the results and findings, given that this speaks to the clinical skills required in the digital age as it relates to digital literacy, transformation. It is unclear from the explanation of whether these figures are raw scores. Would be useful to indicate this in the table as an (n) as a very minor addition.
The headings of the figures could be changed. Avoid using the direct questions as headings or words such as frequency as these are statistical terms for analysis. Figures 3 (a, b, c and d) follows one another without explanations in between to orientate the reader. Whilst having about 2 tables of the same (eg 3a and 3b) following one another with a summarised explanation as it offers an explanation and comparison of Physiotherapists and other AHP’s for the same scale. The same for Fig’s 4- It is a string of figures and as a reviewer, I kept having to scroll up for the explanation (which may require some more detailed explanation).
‘Kolachalama and Garg (2018) suggest that concerning AI/ML, curricula should aim for literacy, rather than proficiency; focusing on developing conceptual knowledge to assist clinical practice. Physiotherapy education could follow, by embedding technological knowledge relevant to patient care into workforce development strategies.’- I found that this is useful for practical implications as it demonstrates some of the conceptual and requisite knowledge which clinicians may require and therefore would need to be included in a curriculum.
Do not repeat the results in the discussion section- only discuss the findings. This being said, there are some very interesting findings in this study which could potentially have a good impact on the physiotherapy curriculum. It is somewhat clear from the discussion that much work is needed in areas where there is a lack of knowledge with regard to the use of more recent developments in the health sectors, such as machine learning/AI and informatics. Whilst the author offers recommendation in the discussion about these areas, it does require a discussion explicitly about these based on the findings of the study before a recommendation could be offered. the author does this, using the results. I recommend removing the results and having a discussion about it. Then, when one considers the ‘poor knowledge’ scores as it relates to ML and informatics, one would question how this impacts on digital confidence and motivation. Therefore, it may be useful to cross-reference some of your findings by way of your discussion.