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: I thought that the report as a whole is well-structured. However, the section that includes the transcripts from each participant could be structured more effectively. I have commented on this below.

2. Sufficient explanation of the significance of the problem: The problem is clearly stated.

3. Clear demonstration of the relevance to the field: The relevance to practice and professional educators is clear.

4. Original contribution to the topic of physiotherapy education: The report forms part of a foundation in support of the idea that a true person-centred education programme should include input from all stakeholders.

5. Compelling presentation of the problem within a theoretical framework: Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning is appropriate in this context.

6. Establishment of a relationship between the problem and other relevant literature: The use of evidence to support decisions is appropriate.

7. Appropriate research design and method: N/A

8. Accurate and useful interpretation: The interpretation of participant transcripts is accurate and useful.

9. Sound argument and analysis: N/A

10. Effective conclusion about the implications for physiotherapy education, research, and/or practice: The conclusion is appropriate and based on the content of the report.

If, in addition to the points above, you could provide more detailed comments and feedback below, that would also be appreciated.

Abstract

No abstract provided.

Introduction

> case study

Change to ‘report’.

> Many published papers focusing on the involvement of people with lived experience in health and social care education focus on people sharing their stories.

I’m a little confused. In the previous paragraph you say that there are only 2 publications. But here you say there are many. Please clarify.

Report

I thought that this section was less-structured than the same section in the first report. I felt like that report was clear and concise, and I always knew where I was and where we were going. But this section felt like it went on for too long, and it wasn’t always clear what the participants were talking about. In other words, this part of the report feels less focused, particularly when read alongside the first report. What is the one message that you’re trying to convey in this report?

> a unit

Is a ‘unit’ the same as a ‘module’? Would all readers know what this is?

> dragon’s den

Previously formatted with capitals. Ensure consistent spelling throughout.

> Tom, Emma and Katey’s accounts illustrate the different perspectives from which we can view the same topic and the need to harness this in enabling students to develop their professional practice

I think that a possible reason for the sense of fragmentation in the report section, is that this transcript presents multiple perspectives on the same topic. I wonder if this could be more clearly signposted, either at the end of the introduction, or throughout the transcript section. I feel like there needs to be a narrative thread that carries the reader carefully through the multiple perspectives.

Discussion and conclusion

I think that a possible reason for the sense of fragmentation in the report section, is that this transcript presents multiple perspectives on the same topic. I wonder if this could be more clearly signposted, either at the end of the introduction, or throughout the transcript section. I feel like there needs to be a narrative thread that carries the reader carefully through the multiple perspectives.

> In the third and final paper of this series (Buckley, Fazakarley and Hughes 2022), we explore the development of equal partnerships and how when both the academic and the person with lived experience have genuine influence and control over the direction of a learning activity, all involved can benefit.

I think it’s better to wrap up the second report without trying to bridge it to the third. Each report should stand on it’s own. It’s fine to have a short piece in the introduction, noting that each piece is a part of a series, but after that, each report should be independent of the others.

[jetpack-related-posts]