Next Article in Journal
Characteristics of Individuals in Japan Who Regularly Manage Their Oral Health by Having a Family Dentist: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey
Next Article in Special Issue
Cultural Differences in Patients’ Preferences for Paternalism: Comparing Mexican and American Patients’ Preferences for and Experiences with Physician Paternalism and Patient Autonomy
Previous Article in Journal
Socioeconomic-Related Inequalities in COVID-19 Vulnerability in South Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
“Back into Life—With a Power Wheelchair”: Learning from People with Severe Stroke through a Participatory Photovoice Study in a Metropolitan Area in Germany
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Interprofessional Collaboration in Fall Prevention: Insights from a Qualitative Study

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(17), 10477; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710477
by Isabel Baumann 1,2, Frank Wieber 1,3,*, Thomas Volken 1, Peter Rüesch 1 and Andrea Glässel 1,4
Reviewer 2:
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(17), 10477; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710477
Submission received: 28 June 2022 / Revised: 6 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 23 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Care from Patients' Perspective)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Despite the fact that "its design does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn about the size and causality of the differences and similarities observed", the study concludes (in line with some quotes exposed in the introduction) "that the involved health care providers strongly support interprofessional collaboration in fall prevention". Given that it is a qualitative study with a low number of interviews, which "prevented the qualitative analyzes from reaching a high level of saturation" I suggest a more detailed discussion of potential information biases.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and express their gratitude to all the health care providers who participated in our interviews. In the previous line of discussion, I suggest some comment on the possible relationship, beyond the personal, between the components of the research group and the service providers in the pilot study.

Finally, I would like to know if the time elapsed between the collection of the data/interviews and the presentation of the article could influence the results of the study in some way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.  It is interesting and has merit.  I would like to see a section regarding rigour of the study, although the discussion does comment on issues such as data saturation etc.  Recruitment was not clear, nor was how some potential participants refusing to be interviewed commented on as a limitation/source of bias.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

N

Reviewer 2 Report

Feedback addressed satisfactorily

Back to TopTop