Review Reports - Interprofessional Supervision in Health Professions Education: Narrative Synthesis of Current Evidence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject is very relevant and this work fulfills a gap of literature. The research was well designed and founded. The tables are useful for the text comprehension but it has to be adequate to the journal format. Check it!Tables are the problem. The supplementary file presents tables bigger than the paper 'corpus', even the presentation is aligned with the narrative synthesis method and shows the analysis process. To try to condense every studies data, creates large columns and several lines and it will be hard to publish in the journal layout.
I suggest to authors to present a resume version of tables in the paper and embed a link for the complete data in a repository.

Author Response

Comments:

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that the original table, while aligned with narrative synthesis principles and analytic transparency, exceeds what is practical for the journal layout. We have therefore revised Table 1 to a condensed summary version highlighting key study characteristics relevant to the synthesis. The full extraction table, detailing curriculum components, supervision structures, and targeted competencies, has been moved to Supplementary Table 1 to maintain transparency while improving readability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The narrative review examines interprofessional supervsion in health profession education with the popay et al., approach

The inclusion of 28 studies with diverse methodologies and international representation (from six countries) provides breadth, and the coverage of seven professional groups (medicine, social work, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, nursing, psychology, and pharmacy) reflects the multidisciplinary nature of interprofessional supervision.

some limitation was considered for correction

Absence of specific inclusion and exclusion and exclusion of criteria for the selection of research used
The results section is well-structured and thematically coherent. Its main weaknesses lie in limited quantification, weak integration of quality appraisal,
Tables only cited but not included in the attached files.
Addressing these issues would increase the credibility, transparency, and practical value of the review’s conclusions

Author Response

Comment 1: Absence of specific inclusion and exclusion and exclusion of criteria for the selection of research used

Response 1: Thank you. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were added to the manuscript.

Comment 2: The results section is well-structured and thematically coherent. Its main weaknesses lie in limited quantification, weak integration of quality appraisal,

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this feedback. In response, we have integrated study quality considerations within the Results narrative to contextualize the strength of evidence, consistent with narrative synthesis principles.

Comment 3: Tables only cited but not included in the attached files.

Response 3: Tables are uploaded separately.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is a narrative review exploring interprofessional supervision in the context of interprofessional learning. This is a relevant topic and will be interesting to the readership of the journal. The manuscript is well written, the research seems sound (but see below) and the Discussion contains concrete lessons learned as well as implications for future research and practice.

The review is clear, comprehensive and relevant to the field. I am not aware of any other review that explores particularly this concept. This leads me to a small criticism: the definition that the authors provide is very general, not specific to the field of health professions. As a reader, I do not understand what boundaries have been used: which health professions, settings, educational levels, etc. have been included and which not?

The manuscript also lacks clarity on the search strategies and selection methods have been used to arrive at the selected set of 28 articles. Which search terms, which databases, which time period? What were inclusion and exclusion criteria? Which steps were taken in the selection process? Similarly, it is not clear exactly how data were extracted and who was involved in which step(s) of the process. These are essential parts of the Methods section that are missing.

The authors focus on three primary domains: (1) supervision models and their characteristics, (2) outcomes and evidence of effectiveness, and (3) implementation factors, including facilitators and barriers. While I agree that these domains are relevant and interesting, I would like to know why these three domains? And not, for example, others that could also have been interesting, e.g. what are advantages and disadvantages of interprofessional supervision?

I would also like to know why the authors felt it was important to judge the quality of the selected studies, and how they have used these ratings in the data extraction and/or description of results.

The result section is very short. If in any way possible, I would like to urge the authors to make space to extend these a little. The results are extremely interesting but often not easy to understand without a little explanation or an example. E.g.: “Clinical practice-based models offered the most immersive integration of supervision with patient care, but the intensity and resource requirements of such designs may limit scalability”. As a reader, I would like to know more about this ‘integration’ and also about the ‘resource requirements’, but I would have to look up the reference to understand what is meant or in which context this particular study was done. One or two additional sentences would be very helpful and would make the manuscript much more interesting.

The conclusions are sound and interesting, but there is some overlap here. Maybe removing this, gives more space for the Results Section.

Author Response

Comments 1: This manuscript is a narrative review exploring interprofessional supervision in the context of interprofessional learning. This is a relevant topic and will be interesting to the readership of the journal. The manuscript is well written, the research seems sound (but see below) and the Discussion contains concrete lessons learned as well as implications for future research and practice.

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting the need to clarify the scope and boundaries of the definition. We have revised the Introduction to explicitly state the health professions, settings, and educational levels included in this review, as well as key exclusions. This clarification is to help readers better situate the review within health professions education and practice-based supervision contexts.

Comments 2: The manuscript also lacks clarity on the search strategies and selection methods have been used to arrive at the selected set of 28 articles. Which search terms, which databases, which time period? What were inclusion and exclusion criteria? Which steps were taken in the selection process? Similarly, it is not clear exactly how data were extracted and who was involved in which step(s) of the process. These are essential parts of the Methods section that are missing.

Response 2: Please refer to the methods section. We added the info: search terms, databases, the time period for studies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and details for data extraction.

Comments 3: The authors focus on three primary domains: (1) supervision models and their characteristics, (2) outcomes and evidence of effectiveness, and (3) implementation factors, including facilitators and barriers. While I agree that these domains are relevant and interesting, I would like to know why these three domains? And not, for example, others that could also have been interesting, e.g. what are advantages and disadvantages of interprofessional supervision?

Response 3: Thank you for asking us to clarify the rationale for the three domains. We have clarified in the manuscript that these domains were selected to align with narrative synthesis approaches and to address three core questions relevant to health professions education: the nature of interprofessional supervision models, their outcomes, and the factors influencing implementation. We also clarify that advantages and disadvantages of interprofessional supervision are analytically incorporated within the outcomes and implementation domains.

Comments 4: I would also like to know why the authors felt it was important to judge the quality of the selected studies, and how they have used these ratings in the data extraction and/or description of results.

Response 4: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have clarified both the rationale for assessing the quality of these studies and how the quality ratings were used in the review. Aligned with the narrative synthesis guidance, quality appraisal was done to enhance transparency and support the interpretation of results. In the revision, we added that quality assessments were used during data extraction and synthesis to contextualise findings, and guide interpretation of results.

Comments 5: The result section is very short. If in any way possible, I would like to urge the authors to make space to extend these a little. The results are extremely interesting but often not easy to understand without a little explanation or an example. E.g.: “Clinical practice-based models offered the most immersive integration of supervision with patient care, but the intensity and resource requirements of such designs may limit scalability”. As a reader, I would like to know more about this ‘integration’ and also about the ‘resource requirements’, but I would have to look up the reference to understand what is meant or in which context this particular study was done. One or two additional sentences would be very helpful and would make the manuscript much more interesting.

Response 5: We agree with the reviewer and have selectively expanded the Results section by adding brief explanatory sentences and concrete examples drawn directly from the included studies. These additions clarify how key supervision models were implemented in practice without shifting the Results toward discussion.

Comments 6: The conclusions are sound and interesting, but there is some overlap here. Maybe removing this, gives more space for the Results Section.

Response 6: We agree and have condensed the content in the Conclusions, reallocating space to modestly expand the Results section as suggested.