The paper provides information about the experiences of students who have been exposed to different international physiotherapy education systems
Please see my reviewer comments below:
Add a reference at the end of the first sentence. The last sentence of the first paragraph is lengthy divide into 2 sentences to improve the flow.
To link paragraphs 2 and 3 firstly state that Asian students have challenges before highlighting the challenges experienced by the students.
When was the data collected?
As part of the inclusion criteria you mention that the students have previously been exposed? Did you consider length of time of exposure?
Include the type of sampling applied.
Add details about how the participants were accessed, specific location of data collection, who collected the data, how long were the interviews.
As part of the findings would it be possible to add information about the participants or would this affect anonymity.
It is not clear what the “past experiences and future dreams” were that was included as part of theme 2.
As part of theme 2, it is also stated that “this was a more Western style of learning…” it’s is not clear what is being referred to here, what was a more Western style of learning.
In theme 3, clearly state what the obstacles and opportunities were.
As part of theme 3 also indicate who experienced the “additional stress”
In the first paragraph the authors refer to “differences in pedagogical approaches…“. This aspect was not clear in the findings.
It is not clear how the second paragraph in the discussion is linked to the study.
In paragraph 3 of the discussion, where you refer to a “student centred-approach..” link to the supportive role that was part of the findings.
In paragraph 4 of the findings discuss the specific challenges that were highlighted in the findings by the participants and not clinical training in general.
The conclusion of the study should be more aligned with the aim of the study.
[jetpack-related-posts]
Responses to Reviewer 2 (Anthea Rhoda)
Thank you very much for this review that helped us revise this article in order to improve the quality of the article and make the argument stronger. We revised the following points according to the feedback:
Introduction: We added a reference at the end of the first sentence (Marginsoon 2004) and shortened the last sentence of the first paragraph. In order to link paragraphs 2 and 3 we added an explanatory sentence at the beginning of paragraph 3.
Methods: The data was collected in late 2015 and access to participants, length of interviews, etc. were described with more detail under “data collection and analysis”. We did not consider exposure time as an inclusion criterion (question from reviewer). The type of sampling as well as information about participants as suggested by the reviewer was added under “study context and participants”.
Findings: It was not clear to the reviewer what the themes of “past experiences and future dreams” and “more Western style of learning…” consisted of as part of theme 2. This paragraph was elaborated with more detail to provide additional information. Furthermore, theme 3 needed more detailed explanation, and we added an additional paragraph and elaborated on some of the interpretations.
Discussion: For the reviewer, it was not clear how the second paragraph in the discussion was linked to the study. We provided more contextual background to readers on why participants with overseas exposure were different and hence face these challenges. Another comment concerned the paragraph 3 of the discussion, where we referred to a “student centred-approach..” We rewrote this paragraph and further elaborated on these points. According to the feedback of the reviewer, the paragraph 4 of the findings discussed the specific challenges highlighted by the participants and not clinical training in general. We added a separate paragraph in this section to explain that most challenges came from clinical education. Last, but not least, we modified the conclusion of the study to show more alignment with the aim of the study.
We would like to thank both reviewers for their comments and constructive feedback.