Perceptions of Interprofessional Identity Formation in Recent Doctor of Physical Therapy Graduates: A Phenomenological Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This well-written manuscript presents a timely phenomenological study of recent DPT graduates and their progress toward developing dual identity as both a physical therapist and a member of the interprofessional healthcare team. The study is firmly grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks of social identity theory (SIT), interprofessional socialization framework (IPS), and intergroup contact theory (ICT). The researchers applied these frameworks in an innovative way involving DPT students with experiences from participating in interprofessional education (IPE) activities. 

Methods are clearly explained. The findings and discussion are centered around themes that emerged from analysis of the collected data. The themes are presented with supporting data both in text and with effective visual representations. 

The references appear to be thorough and timely with appropriate seminal sources. Applying the incorporated theories to physical therapy provides an innovative and real-world perspective that can serve as a platform for future studies involving additional disciplines and institutions. 

While the article is written and formatted very well, I offer the following suggestions for minor corrections:

Lines 314-319: Should be in italics for consistency. 

Line 783: The sentence includes an errant "y" or missing letters for a complete word. 

Line 839: Reference #1 includes an invalid link to a local file. Replace with a link to the resource on the Internet. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper which pulls together theory with empirical research to nicely demonstrate the links.  It is well written and presentation with diagrams e.g. figure 1 to summarise the conceptual model is good.  Ethics institutional approval is clearly stated.

I do not have any major issues with the paper but hope the following points may be helpful.

Line 29 and 32-35:  Citations are needed to substantiate the points made about slow uptake of ICP/IPE and the high cost care statement.

Line 60:  A note to explain why you are focusing on DPT graduates only would be beneficial given all you say above and espouse about IPE/P.

Something is also needed to explain the context for an international reader.  I was left confused about the level of the students professionally (not academically) e.g. post graduate students with prior PT undergraduate or other undergraduate preparation or direct entry (from high school to DPT).  Also the setting is "North East" of USA I assume? (line 95).

Lines 97 and 102:  First it states 3 professions and then "five or six"; this is a little confusing

Line 111:  What was the sampling frame - it sounds more like a convenience sample than purposive sample when the recruitment methods are discussed.

Line 125-130:  A little more explanation on the role/ background of the two researchers who "discussed emerging themes" and some discussion to draw out how you ensured trustworthiness would be helpful.

Table 2 and 3:  I am unsure of the need for the long quotes in Tables 2 and 3 given the verbatim quotes in the narrative are already given.

From Lines 711:  Some aspects of the discussion especially recommendations do not appear to relate to the study themes and are more general views on IPE e.g. simulation and tele-practice.

Lines 745-766:  The limitations section does not include potential limitations of the method e.g. zoom, potential researcher bias from the PI having main researcher role in data collection and analysis.

Line 783: Typo - "y"

I hope this is helpful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading this manuscript. I think you integrated highly relevant theories into your work. I do have a few comments about the manuscript. 

I wonder about the use of phenomenology as your methodology. What made this a phenomenological study?  There are no references indicating the approach you followed for a phenomenological study. The interview questions and your analysis could be used for a qualitative descriptive study, which I think is perfectly fine. From what is written in the methods and results, I'm unclear why this is considered a phenomenological study. 

page 2, lines 61-63: 'Knowledge generated from this study will inform health professions educators designing curricula to ensure that health professions students can function on interprofessional teams.' - when I read your discussion/conclusion it isn't clear to me how the knowledge generated from this study can help inform pre-licensure health professional educators. This needs to be more explicit. Also, there is a lot of discussion about continuing education in IPC once learners graduate, so I'm unclear how this relates to pre-licensure health professional educators. I think it's an important point, but it doesn't align with your earlier statement in the introduction. 

Limitations: You mention the generalizability of the results (the lack of generalizability) to other contexts and professions. Generalizability, as you have described it in the manuscript, is a validity issue with quantitative research and not qualitative research. See this reference for further explanation and guidance:  Maxwell JA. A Realist Approach for Qualitative Research. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2012.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the revisions you made to your manuscript. The level of detail you added around the methods and analysis was important to include. I think this is excellent work - congratulations!