Focusing on the Place Model for Optometrists
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewers’ comments:
Focussing on The Place Model for Optometrists
Synopsis:
The Place Model used in teaching profession was applied to the Optometric profession. A survey of 101 undergraduates Optometrist, 87% placed qualified Optometrists in the Professionals area while the remaining 13% in the De-Professionalised area on the Place Model. The Place Model can be used to ensure that optometry maintains highly skilled and caring professionals that provide high quality eyecare for the public.
Strengths and weaknesses
The article is original and includes a very interesting and relevant area of investigation. It was well-written, clearly presented and an enjoyable article to read.
However increasing the numbers involved in the study to 200 could increase the significance of the survey. It would be my preference for the authors to obtain consent separately on a different form rather than accepting assumed consent following the completion of the survey (Unfortunately Appendix 1 was not visible to me).
Revisions advised:
Line 30: Rewrite “ I am asking the journal is we need a diagram of the model in each paper.”
Line 253: Please change to …we maintain highly skilled and caring professionals that provide high quality eyecare for the public.”
References:
Line 256:
1. Clarke L. Mapping teacher status……the Place Model. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 2018;39(1):69-83.
Please remove DOI: number
Line 259:
2. ParkinsDJ, Benwell MJ, Edgar DF, Evans BJW. The relationship between unwarranted variation in optometric referrals and time since qualification. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2018;38(5):550-561.
Please remove doi number
Line 268:
4. Howell-Duffy C, Scally AJ, Elliot DB. Spectacle Prescribing II: Practitioner experience is linked to the likelihood of suggesting a partial prescription.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011;31:155-167.
Please remove doi number
Line 273:
6. Poostchi, AM, Wilde C, Dineen RA, Gruener AM. Spike in neuroimaging requests following the conviction of the optometrist Honey Rose. Eye 2018;32:489-490.
Line 278:
8. Reddy PA, Congdon N, Mackenzie G, Gogate P, Wen Q, Jan C, Clarke M, Kassalow J, Gudwin E, O’Neill C, Jin L, Bassett K, Cherwek DH, Ali R. Effect of providing near glasses on productivity among rural Indian tea workers with Presbyopia (PROSPER): a randomised trial. The Lancet. Global Health 2018;6(9):e1019-e1027.
Line 284:
Change to Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2018; 38(4): 422-431
Please remove doi number
Line 285:
Barrett C, Loughman J. Expanding the traditional role of optometry: Current practice patterns and attitudes to enhanced glaucoma services in Ireland. J Optom 2018;11(4):252-261.
Please remove doi number
Line 288:
11. Friedson E. Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2001.
If possible place edition number before Cambridge. Keep the references format consistent
Line 289:
Please change first part of
12. Robinson D, Edwards M, Cokett J, Hey L. Optometrists’ Futures 2018. A survey……
The references need to be consistent and revised. The format suggested is one example to use.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Many thanks for your helpful comments which have significantly improved the manuscript.
Please find below the details of how your recommendations have been addressed (in blue).
Focussing on The Place Model for Optometrists
Synopsis:
The Place Model used in teaching profession was applied to the Optometric profession. A survey of 101 undergraduates Optometrist, 87% placed qualified Optometrists in the Professionals area while the remaining 13% in the De-Professionalised area on the Place Model. The Place Model can be used to ensure that optometry maintains highly skilled and caring professionals that provide high quality eyecare for the public.
Strengths and weaknesses
The article is original and includes a very interesting and relevant area of investigation. It was well-written, clearly presented and an enjoyable article to read.
However increasing the numbers involved in the study to 200 could increase the significance of the survey. The authors agree that a larger sample would be preferable, however, it is not possible to increase the numbers beyond our available cohort of students. All of our undergraduate Optometry students completed the survey. We agree that we may consider expanding the study in future studies by incorporating students from other institutions and qualified Optometrists.
It would be my preference for the authors to obtain consent separately on a different form rather than accepting assumed consent following the completion of the survey (Unfortunately Appendix 1 was not visible to me).
It is standard practice for Ulster University Ethics Committee to approve obtaining consent for surveys by providing the participant with a description of the purpose of the study and assuming consent on completion of the survey. We will certainly consider this approach for future work within this area.
Revisions advised:
Line 30: Rewrite “ I am asking the journal is we need a diagram of the model in each paper.”
Removed – apologies, this should not have been in the manuscript.
Line 253: Please change to …we maintain highly skilled and caring professionals that provide high quality eyecare for the public.” Amended as suggested.
References:
Reviewer 1 has made suggestions to the format of the referencing which is inconsistent with the journal style and guidelines. Therefore some suggestions have been included in the new version of the manuscript however, the referencing style has been maintained in accordance with the journal instructions.
Line 256:
1. Clarke L. Mapping teacher status……the Place Model. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 2018;39(1):69-83.
Please remove DOI: number Amended
Line 259:
2. ParkinsDJ, Benwell MJ, Edgar DF, Evans BJW. The relationship between unwarranted variation in optometric referrals and time since qualification. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2018;38(5):550-561.
Please remove doi number Amended
Line 268:
4. Howell-Duffy C, Scally AJ, Elliot DB. Spectacle Prescribing II: Practitioner experience is linked to the likelihood of suggesting a partial prescription.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011;31:155-167.
Please remove doi number Removed
Line 273:
6. Poostchi, AM, Wilde C, Dineen RA, Gruener AM. Spike in neuroimaging requests following the conviction of the optometrist Honey Rose. Eye 2018;32:489-490.
Line 278:
8. Reddy PA, Congdon N, Mackenzie G, Gogate P, Wen Q, Jan C, Clarke M, Kassalow J, Gudwin E, O’Neill C, Jin L, Bassett K, Cherwek DH, Ali R. Effect of providing near glasses on productivity among rural Indian tea workers with Presbyopia (PROSPER): a randomised trial. The Lancet. Global Health 2018;6(9):e1019-e1027.
Line 284:
Change to Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2018; 38(4): 422-431
Please remove doi number Removed
Line 285:
Barrett C, Loughman J. Expanding the traditional role of optometry: Current practice patterns and attitudes to enhanced glaucoma services in Ireland. J Optom 2018;11(4):252-261.
Please remove doi number Removed
Line 288:
11. Friedson E. Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2001.
If possible place edition number before Cambridge. Amended Keep the references format consistent
Line 289:
Please change first part of
12. Robinson D, Edwards M, Cokett J, Hey L. Optometrists’ Futures 2018. A survey……
The references need to be consistent and revised. The format suggested is one example to use.
Reviewer 2 Report
- Page 1, line 30: Should the last sentence be included here?
- Page 1, line 39 – this should be examining rather than testing.
- Page 1 last paragraph – the students also have observed assessments during the course of their pre-registration year.
- Page 2, first paragraph – what study is being referred to in lines 48-52. The statements are not referenced.
- Page 2, line 66 – it would be good to state what type of tests pre-screening might include though this might be post-screening too and should perhaps be highlighted.
- Page 3 line 106, this should read Optometrists in the UK…., this statement should be referenced appropriately.
- It would have been to good to see what Appendix 1 consisted off. I did not have access to this. Was it the survey sheet completed by students.
- Results – were there any comments for precarious optometrists and No Optometrists?
- The discussion is far too short. What are the implications of these findings? The Association of Optometrists Workforce Survey has not been referenced in the discussion. How do the findings of these differ from that conducted by the College of Optometrists a number of years ago and what implications do these have for the future of our profession? How does the work on the Foresight report fit into this? It would have been good to bring the recent Education Strategic Review done by the General Optical Council and discuss what the impact of this is likely to be on the future of the profession. If the place model classifies the place of teachers in respect of esteem and learning journey, how does fit into what the finding of this research hold for the future of the profession.
- The text in the conclusion ought to be part of the discussion really.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
The authors would like to thank Reviewer 2 for their helpful comments which have significantly improved the manuscript.
Please find below the details of how the recommendations have been addressed (in blue).
Page 1, line 30: Should the last sentence be included here?
Apologies – this should have been removed prior to submission.
Page 1, line 39 – this should be examining rather than testing. Amended
Page 1 last paragraph – the students also have observed assessments during the course of their pre-registration year. This has been included.
- Page 2, first paragraph – what study is being referred to in lines 48-52. The statements are not referenced. This has been clarified.
- Page 2, line 66 – it would be good to state what type of tests pre-screening might include though this might be post-screening too and should perhaps be highlighted. This has been amended to include examples of tests that may be delegated during pre or post screening.
- Page 3 line 106, this should read Optometrists in the UK…., this statement should be referenced appropriately. Amended.
- It would have been to good to see what Appendix 1 consisted off. I did not have access to this. Was it the survey sheet completed by students. This has been included at the end of the manuscript.
- Results – were there any comments for precarious optometrists and No Optometrists? No – this has been added to the manuscript for clarification.
- The discussion is far too short. What are the implications of these findings? The Association of Optometrists Workforce Survey has not been referenced in the discussion. This has been referenced on line 254 (Reference 12). How do the findings of these differ from that conducted by the College of Optometrists a number of years ago and what implications do these have for the future of our profession? How does the work on the Foresight report fit into this? It would have been good to bring the recent Education Strategic Review done by the General Optical Council and discuss what the impact of this is likely to be on the future of the profession. If the place model classifies the place of teachers in respect of esteem and learning journey, how does fit into what the finding of this research hold for the future of the profession. The discussion has been amended with reference to the above suggestions.
- The text in the conclusion ought to be part of the discussion really. The authors agree and this has been amended accordingly.
