Dementia Rehabilitation Training for General Practitioners and Practice Nurses: Does It Make a Difference?
, Grant Russell 3, Terry P. Haines 2,4, Keith D. Hill 1,2, Claire M. C. O’Connor 5,6,7, Natasha Layton 1, Kate Swaffer 8, Marita Long 9, Catherine Devanny 2 and Michele L. Callisaya 2,10
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well written article, and one that will be of interest to many health profession (particularly general practice) educators, and service delivery agencies. I really only had one question, and that is the 'appropriateness' of the four questions asked in Likert-scaled format. My questions appear as a comment on the article alongside paragraph 5 in section 2.4.1
• What is the main question addressed by the research?
The main question is stated in the title and is an important one. The research design, and the conclusions, support the answers to this question
• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.
The topic is very relevant. In many countries, there is a large increase in the numbers of people living longer and, as a consequence, many more people experiencing the development of dementia. General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners, and Practice Nurses, are key to the early diagnosis, and management, particularly from a family and whole-of-system perspective. Such and educational programme is needed. Whilst there are a variety of training opportunities in dementia care, I am not aware of any that have been investigated in this way as to the educational outcome. Having a focus on rehabilitation training is not common, but valuable, as this reflects primary care reality.
• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
See previous bullet point, an absence of such educational outcome evaluation
• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
The only addition to the study design might have been to include pre-screening questions to test possible knowledge and practice gaps - results of this might have informed the design of the educational intervention. I am not suggesting that this is carried out as a requirement for publication.
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Please also explain why this is/is not the case. Each paragraph in the discussion addresses specific findings, addresses possible barriers to practice improvements, and suggest possible practice improvement.
• Are the references appropriate?
They are relevant to the introductory comments, the research design, and the discussion of the findings.
• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Nil
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Manuscript Review: Dementia rehabilitation training for General practitioners and practice nurses: Does it make a difference?
Overall Impression: The manuscript was well-written and easy to follow. The content introduces a pilot “Dementia Rehabilitation Scale” tool and creates additional knowledge concerning support for Dementia education for healthcare providers.
Introduction: Lines 61-66 – you list all allied health provider types first and then begin talking about allied health. Still, you do not indicate what “allied health” is or what disciplines specifically represent allied health.
Section 2.3.2: What number of participants completed the follow-up self-paced training? Were the 4-month survey and focus group conducted after the self-paced training was completed or before?
Section 2.5: Lines 216 -221- you state that qualitative analysis was used to formulate themes and that two of the authors independently did this. What qualitative data analysis method was used? What approach did you take? There are several ways to utilize qualitative data, and this is unclear to the reader, so it would not be easy to replicate this aspect of the research.
Discussion: Line 480 – I did not see a previous definition of the acronym COM-B model of behavioral change.
Discussion: Line 501- I did not see a previous definition of the acronym RACGP
Discussion: Line 547- Did you run any validity and reliability testing on the pilot Dementia Rehabilitation Scale? If so, it would be helpful to include this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
