Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum in Health Professions Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sharing this manuscript with me for review. This is important work in the field of rehabilitation sciences. It is important to understand the experiences of our graduate students who identify as minorities. The authors introduction was thorough and justification was well presented. I appreciated the variety of ways in which minoritized identities were included in the study as well. Considering different professional programs that are majority white allows for greater generalization as well.

My main question is related to the coding methodology. I did not follow the entire process as it was provided in section 2.4. I think greater detail regarding this aspect should be included since this is the primary focus of the study.

I appreciate the 'meaningful units'/quotes that helped with the codes and themes. However, a table with all the codes and the themes that resulted from these codes would be helpful along with numbers of codes that fit within each theme. For example for section 3.4, the authors indicated 11 codes; what about for other sections? This will help the leader understand how often (or strong) different themes and sub-themes occurred in the data. 

Thanks

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong and thoughtfully constructed manuscript that makes an important contribution to understanding the hidden curriculum in rehabilitation education through the lens of students from minoritized backgrounds. The research is situated within a robust theoretical framework (e.g., social learning theory, minority stress theory), and the findings are compelling, clearly presented, and appropriately contextualized.

Weaknesses/Limitations:

1. Sample Representation: The study is predominantly representative of White-majority programs in the U.S. and may not generalize well to programs with more diverse faculty or student bodies.
2. Subjectivity in Interpretation: Despite efforts to enhance trustworthiness, qualitative data remains interpretive and potentially influenced by researcher bias.
3. Limited Cross-Program Comparison: While shared themes were identified, more explicit discussion on nuanced differences across PT, OT, and SLP fields could enhance the depth.
4. Institutional Constraints: The redaction of affiliations and identities may slightly limit contextual evaluation of the authors' positionalities and influence on the analysis.
5. The bibliography does not follow the instuctions https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions#references

Suggestions for Improvement:

While the themes are well-supported, further elaboration on differences (if any) between PT, OT, and SLP programs could enhance the specificity and nuance of the findings.

Consider expanding the discussion around potential interventions or curricular reforms, drawing from examples in medicine or other health professions that have addressed similar hidden curriculum challenges.

Acknowledge in more detail how future research could explore hidden curricula in programs with more racially or culturally diverse faculty and students to assess cultural variability.

Overall, the article is well-written, timely, and informative, with minor refinements needed for even stronger impact.

There is a plethora of language errors. Below is an indicative list

 Line 9 “examined the hidden curriculum in rehabilitation graduate programs – speech-language pathology, oc- cupational therapy, physical therapy –”(Fix line breaks and replace spaced hyphens with proper em dashes.)

Line 19 “these tensions became daunting for students to manage, and they often did so without guidance. (Improve clarity and academic tone.)

Line 33–34 “implicit, unspoken expectations for how students should behave, what they should be- lieve, and what values they should hold”(Hyphenation error in “believe”.)

Line 58 “may be seen as deficient, incapable, or uninterested when their behavior does not align with programmatic norms”(“Perceived” is more precise; “disengaged” more common in academic usage.)

Line 137 “Participants were monetarily compen- sated for participating in the interview.”(Fix line break.)

Line 154 “students were not recruited from the SLP program at the researchers’ university.”(Improve clarity.)

Line 171 “participants whose identities fell in multiple cat- egories were counted in each.”(Fix hyphen and use “into” for precision.)

Line 368 “not following the rules like you feel like you're reinforcing a stereotype”(Improve grammar and flow.)

Line 495 “that’s like your selling point”(Improve formality for academic writing.)

Line 583–585“a linear orientation of time that delays gratification, emphasizes planning for the future, and views time as a com- modity”(Fix hyphenation of “commodity”.)

Line 668 “If programs are constantly either confirming or refuting students’ expectations…”(“Continually” is smoother and more formal than “constantly either.”)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is a plethora of language errors. Below is an indicative list

 Line 9 “examined the hidden curriculum in rehabilitation graduate programs – speech-language pathology, oc- cupational therapy, physical therapy –”(Fix line breaks and replace spaced hyphens with proper em dashes.)

Line 19 “these tensions became daunting for students to manage, and they often did so without guidance. (Improve clarity and academic tone.)

Line 33–34 “implicit, unspoken expectations for how students should behave, what they should be- lieve, and what values they should hold”(Hyphenation error in “believe”.)

Line 58 “may be seen as deficient, incapable, or uninterested when their behavior does not align with programmatic norms”(“Perceived” is more precise; “disengaged” more common in academic usage.)

Line 137 “Participants were monetarily compen- sated for participating in the interview.”(Fix line break.)

Line 154 “students were not recruited from the SLP program at the researchers’ university.”(Improve clarity.)

Line 171 “participants whose identities fell in multiple cat- egories were counted in each.”(Fix hyphen and use “into” for precision.)

Line 368 “not following the rules like you feel like you're reinforcing a stereotype”(Improve grammar and flow.)

Line 495 “that’s like your selling point”(Improve formality for academic writing.)

Line 583–585“a linear orientation of time that delays gratification, emphasizes planning for the future, and views time as a com- modity”(Fix hyphenation of “commodity”.)

Line 668 “If programs are constantly either confirming or refuting students’ expectations…”(“Continually” is smoother and more formal than “constantly either.”)

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The feedback I have provided has been taken into account and the current manuscript is significantly improved.