Participatory peer research exploring the experience of learning during Covid-19 for allied health and healthcare science students

Jean Daly Lynn; Lucia Ramsey; Joanne Marley; Johanna Rohde; Toni-Marie McGuigan; Adam Reaney; Brenda O’Neill; Andrea Jones; Danny Kerr; Ciara Hughes; Sonyia McFadden

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276180

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 31, 2022
1 May 2022 Decision Letter - Gwo-Jen Hwang, Editor PONE-D-22-09516Qualitative participatory peer research exploring the educational impact of Covid-19 on Allied Health and Healthcare Science StudentsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Daly-Lynn, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Gwo-Jen Hwang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: "This work was supported by the Council for Allied Health Professionals Research (CAPHR) and The Centre for Health and Rehabilitation Technologies (CHArT). " We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This work was supported by the Council for Allied Health Professionals Research (CAPHR) and The Centre for Health and Rehabilitation Technologies (CHArT). Both funds provided small amounts of money directly to the project team, CAPHR provided funds for interview transcription and CHArT provided funds for two peer researchers to engage in analysis. CAPHR: https://cahpr.csp.org.uk CHArT:" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://www.ulster.ac.uk/research/topic/nursing-and-health/chart" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, The study tried to use the DEPICT Framework to Analysis the interview result is good, yet, suggest authors address more related interview guidelines, coding book, coding analysis method, for instance, how to get the Themes and sub-themes by table 2, the section unclear. On page 7, "…we aimed to recruit 10 participants to each session….” But the Results section shows that “Twenty-three participants participated in six focus groups ranging from 2 to 5 participants….” So what are the actual samples? -On page 7, Although the authors presented the “Table 1: Data Analysis using the DEPICT Framework,” what’s the detailed codebook related Themes and sub-themes also unclear, so how to mentation the result is contributed. -On page 7, “The focus groups were conducted using the platform Blackboard Collaborate Ultra” the platform should address how to recruit different professional field participants to join the platform. - Data analysis section, “The data analysis was undertaken in two separate parts with two different teams. All transcripts were coded by one person and reviewed by two people.” For more contributions, please add Coder reliability and validity. -up to the topic is “Qualitative participatory peer research exploring the educational impact of Covid-19 on Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students” however the study related to educational activities on Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students is unclear, so the topic may need modification. Thank you. Reviewer #2: The study has attempted to examine the impact of Covid-19 on health science students. This study was carried out using qualitative research methodologies. The instrument used in doing research was an online focus group. The focus group was facilitated by the peer researchers, so it is called qualitative peer research. It starts with the literature outlining the impacts of Covid-19 in overall sectors of life including education. The aim of the research is to explore the experience of allied health and healthcare students. The method adopted here was participatory action research (PAR) with online focus group facilitation. The findings of the study cover health and education-related issues. This study is appropriate to assemble the information regarding the impact of Covid-19 on health sector students. However, I have some remarks on the paper. 1.Title is too long and everything is included in the title: Qualitative participatory peer research…… I think, Participatory peer research exploring the educational….. is appropriate. 2.In the Abstract, some claiming sentences are written at the beginning of the abstract without any evidence and appropriate support. How could you say the global pandemic had an impact on teaching and learning activities in health and health care students? 3.On page 2, line 17, it is written that the knowledge generated from this project was co-production using an online format, including the dissemination. What does it mean? 4.In the introduction section, different previously done researches are mentioned. But, a single paragraph gives multiple ideas, which is not good in academic writing. In the introduction, a discussion about allied health students is missing. This could be new for non-health sector readers. 5.In the methods section, it is mentioned that participatory action research (PAR) was adopted in the research. But, this study does not carry any essence of PAR. Participatory action research requires participants to build and keep evidential records of practice, theory, and reflection and to provide a reasoned justification to others for their work. Doing this requires authentic participation and is collaborative, establishing self-critical, non-hierarchical communities and partnerships. It is also a recursive and systematic process of learning, with planning, action, analysis, and reflection leading to further planning, action, analysis, and reflection. Only, the peer research would be appropriate but it is not action research. The methods section also misses why peer research was used. 6.Ethical issues in doing the qualitative peer research are missing. How these issues were handled? 7.Conclusion of the study does not hold the essence of the overall result and discussion. At last, this paper could be made publishable after the rigorous work in the methods section. Does it actually a PAR? Does it complete all the processes of PAR? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276180.r001
Revision 1
14 Jul 2022 Author Response Thank you for the opportunity to enhance this manuscript. A response to the reviewers has been included in this resubmission with each comment addressed. We believe the manuscript is formatted according to style requirements Funding Statement: This work was supported by the Council for Allied Health Professionals Research (CAPHR) and The Centre for Health and Rehabilitation Technologies (CHArT). Both funds provided small amounts of money directly to the project team, CAPHR provided funds for interview transcription and CHArT provided funds for two peer researchers to engage in analysis. CAPHR: https://cahpr.csp.org.uk CHArT:https://www.ulster.ac.uk/research/topic/nursing-and-health/chart Any funding related information was removed from the manuscript. Data availability Data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical restrictions on sharing sensitive data. Data are available from the Ulster University Institutional Data Access (pure-support@ulster.ac.uk) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. This can be obtained through this link: https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/datasets/qualitative-participatory-peer-research-exploring-the-educational Reviewer 1 comment Response to reviewer The study tried to use the DEPICT Framework to Analysis the interview result is good, yet, suggest authors address more related interview guidelines, coding book, coding analysis method, for instance, how to get the Themes and sub-themes by table 2, the section unclear. Thank you for highlighting that the data analysis section was unclear. This section has been revised to take into consideration the core principles of thematic analysis that was used within the DEPICT framework. It is great to have to opportunity to expand on this and make it clearer. For transparency, this approach was guided by the work of Braun and Clark (multiple publications although the reference below would be helpful to refer to for clarity). I am not completely sure what this reviewer is asking for as I believe we have experience of different qualitative approaches. I have attempted to generate more clarity in the development of codes into themes through the Mural images (Figure 1 and 2). Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37–47. On page 7, "…we aimed to recruit 10 participants to each session….” But the Results section shows that “Twenty-three participants participated in six focus groups ranging from 2 to 5 participants….” So what are the actual samples? This statement has been removed for clarity. The sample is 23 participants. -On page 7, Although the authors presented the “Table 1: Data Analysis using the DEPICT Framework,” what’s the detailed codebook related Themes and sub-themes also unclear, so how to mentation the result is contributed. To provide clarity around the themes and codes Figure 1 is a screenshot of early codes in a subset of the data. Figure 2 presents the final themes and sub-themes through the Mural platform. -On page 7, “The focus groups were conducted using the platform Blackboard Collaborate Ultra” the platform should address how to recruit different professional field participants to join the platform. I am unsure what this reviewer is asking for. If I have not addressed it properly, I am happy to with more clarity. The following was added: ‘The focus groups were conducted using Blackboard Collaborate Ultra, that is part of the University Blackboard Learn platform. All students regularly use this platform to participate in teaching and learning.’ - Data analysis section, “The data analysis was undertaken in two separate parts with two different teams. All transcripts were coded by one person and reviewed by two people.” For more contributions, please add Coder reliability and validity. Further clarity on the data analysis was expanded upon and approaches used to support the trustworthiness and credibility of the data was described. Rigor was achieved through reflexive journaling, peer researcher review, regular meetings, and deep discussion. Participatory data analysis uses the subjective interpretation of the data by people with lived experience. Through discussion and reflection of this experience richer data collection, discussion and interpretation could but achieved. I am not sure if the reviewer is looking for inter-rater reliability. This was not in line with our approach. This does not support the rich multiple coder approach taken in the study. See this paper for supporting evidence. Sweeney, Angela, Kathryn E. Greenwood, Sally Williams, Til Wykes, and Diana S. Rose. "Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: the case for multiple coding." Health Expectations 16, no. 4 (2013): e89-e99. -up to the topic is “Qualitative participatory peer research exploring the educational impact of Covid-19 on Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students” however the study related to educational activities on Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students is unclear, so the topic may need modification. The manuscript refers to the process (peer researchers) and outcome (experience of covid). It is difficult to unpick the two as peer researchers explored the impact Covid had on their peers, and they are all allied health and healthcare science students. I hope that the revisions within the manuscript help to clarify and mesh the process and outcome into a seamless thread throughout the paper. Reviewer 2 comment 1.Title is too long and everything is included in the title: Qualitative participatory peer research…… I think, Participatory peer research exploring the educational….. is appropriate. Thank you for this recommendation. The word Qualitative has been removed from the title in line with this recommendation. 2.In the Abstract, some claiming sentences are written at the beginning of the abstract without any evidence and appropriate support. How could you say the global pandemic had an impact on teaching and learning activities in health and health care students? This sentence was changed to say that the teaching and learning has altered for students, as all campus-based teaching and learning activities did during the pandemic. As it is not common practice to use citations in an abstract, I hope this is an appropriate change in line with your recommendation. 3.On page 2, line 17, it is written that the knowledge generated from this project was co-production using an online format, including the dissemination. What does it mean? In line with the revision made to the conclusion this sentence was removed. 4.In the introduction section, different previously done researches are mentioned. But, a single paragraph gives multiple ideas, which is not good in academic writing. In the introduction, a discussion about allied health students is missing. This could be new for non-health sector readers The introduction section has been revised and I hope this makes it easier to read with single ideas presented per paragraph. An introduction to allied health professions and healthcare science students was also added. 5.In the methods section, it is mentioned that participatory action research (PAR) was adopted in the research. But, this study does not carry any essence of PAR. Participatory action research requires participants to build and keep evidential records of practice, theory, and reflection and to provide a reasoned justification to others for their work. Doing this requires authentic participation and is collaborative, establishing self-critical, non-hierarchical communities and partnerships. It is also a recursive and systematic process of learning, with planning, action, analysis, and reflection leading to further planning, action, analysis, and reflection. Only, the peer research would be appropriate but it is not action research. The methods section also misses why peer research was used. I think the reviewer highlights an important point. Thank you for this thoughtful reflection. The research was participatory however doesn’t quite meet the threshold for ‘action’ as you rightly state. It was not an iterative approach in the evidence gathering although it was iterative in skill development. Participatory approach is presented and explored. An extensive description of the peer researcher approach and underpinning rational was added to the methods section. 6.Ethical issues in doing the qualitative peer research are missing. How these issues were handled?Emphasis was also placed on the ethical challenges. 7.Conclusion of the study does not hold the essence of the overall result and discussion. A review of the manuscript was undertaken, and a revised conclusion is now presented. At last, this paper could be made publishable after the rigorous work in the methods section. Does it actually a PAR? Does it complete all the processes of PAR? The revision focused on creating a robust methods section, highlighting participatory research and the partnership approach taken within the study. The revision also enhanced the data analysis approach and rigor adopted. Thank you for the opportunity to enhance this manuscript. Please do not hesitate to contact me for further reflection or recommendations. Kind regards Jean Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276180.r002
5 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Gwo-Jen Hwang, Editor PONE-D-22-09516R1Participatory peer research exploring the educational impact of Covid-19 on Allied Health and Healthcare Science StudentsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Daly-Lynn, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-emailutm_source=authorlettersutm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Gwo-Jen Hwang Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear authors, Thank you for your efforts, they are still some issues; please address them, 1. Due to the title being “Participatory pee 1 r research exploring the educational impact of Covid-19 on Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students” the platform should address how to recruit different professional field participants to join the platform. Please clarify how to ensure different professional field participants’ baseline, although the authors stated that “All students regularly use this platform to participate in teaching and learning.’” 2. Data analysis section, “The data analysis was undertaken in two separate parts with two different teams. All transcripts were coded by one person and reviewed by two people.” In addition, on page 11, the study presented that “…through data collection and analysis supported the rigorous analytic approach with multiple partners…” please add multiple partners’(coder) reliability and validity. 3. up to the topic is “Qualitative participatory peer research exploring the educational impact of Covid-19 on Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students” however, the study related to educational activities on students is unclear, so suggest authors address the study’s educational activities, such as the online class via research activities process, detailed research content, and task. They are unclear. Thank you. Reviewer #2: The authors have revised their manuscript as recommended in the first draft. However, I have a remark regarding the role of peer researchers in the process of study. The role of peer researchers is seen only in data collection procedures then how could you say they were peer researchers? The rest of all is fine and the manuscript can be published. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276180.r003
Revision 2
14 Sep 2022 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you for the opportunity to enhance and revise this manuscript. The following letter outlines the authors response to reviewer’s comments. Reviewer 1 comment Response to reviewer 1. Due to the title being “Participatory pee 1 r research exploring the educational impact of Covid-19 on Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students” the platform should address how to recruit different professional field participants to join the platform. Please clarify how to ensure different professional field participants’ baseline, although the authors stated that “All students regularly use this platform to participate in teaching and learning.’” The line in relation to this question was identified on Pg. 9 line 12-13. I believe this query is around the use of the Blackboard Collaborate Ultra platform. Clarifying text has been added line 11 and line 15 to highlight the online meeting room could be accessed by any participant with a meeting link. The entire sample, which is any registered student from the different professional’s fields, would have equal access to participation given that they use Blackboard for their teaching and learning at the University. In addition, the weblink gives access to the meeting room. The participants were recruited from programmes registered within the school of health sciences and therefore had equal opportunity to participate in a focus group. 2. Data analysis section, “The data analysis was undertaken in two separate parts with two different teams. All transcripts were coded by one person and reviewed by two people.” In addition, on page 11, the study presented that “…through data collection and analysis supported the rigorous analytic approach with multiple partners…” please add multiple partners’(coder) reliability and validity. Participatory data analysis uses the subjective interpretation of the data by people with lived experience. Through discussion and reflection of this experience richer data collection, discussion and interpretation could be achieved. Coder reliability and validity was not used as part of this approach and therefore cannot be provided in this manuscript. Coding reliability approaches measure the level of agreement between coders (Guest et al., 2012). The participatory approach uses the DEPICT framework to harness the meaning and understanding of the data by multiple (peer) researchers to create depth not to measure the level of agreement. Pg. 10 line 10-17 seeks to address the reason for the coding book as a scaffolding to support collaborative data analysis. The sentence Pg. 11 line 17-19 stated ‘the consistency of one researcher (JDL) through data collection and analysis supported the rigorous analytic approach with multiple partners.’ A singular researcher enabled consistency and ensured shared meaning across the two teams analysing the data. 3. up to the topic is “Qualitative participatory peer research exploring the educational impact of Covid-19 on Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students” however, the study related to educational activities on students is unclear, so suggest authors address the study’s educational activities, such as the online class via research activities process, detailed research content, and task. They are unclear. Thank you. Thank you for this comment. I have changed the title slightly as a response. This study aims to capture the experiences students had as they navigated the pandemic on their journey to becoming allied health professionals and healthcare scientists. The ‘educational impact’ was misleading as a qualitative piece of work. Reviewer 2 comment Response to reviewer The authors have revised their manuscript as recommended in the first draft. However, I have a remark regarding the role of peer researchers in the process of study. The role of peer researchers is seen only in data collection procedures then how could you say they were peer researchers? The rest of all is fine and the manuscript can be published. Thank you for the recommendation to publish this manuscript. Just to highlight the peer researcher role was throughout the lifespan of the project. Pg. 6 line 4-5 sets this out briefly. In addition to collecting the data, peer researchers reviewed the research protocol and ethical documentation, co-designed the topic guide, analysed the data and have supported various different dissemination strands in the project. Thank you for the opportunity to enhance this manuscript. Please do not hesitate to contact me for further reflection or recommendations. Kind regards Jean Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276180.r004
2 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Anand Nayyar, Editor Participatory peer research exploring the experience of learning during Covid-19 for Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students PONE-D-22-09516R2 Dear Dr. Daly-Lynn, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Anand Nayyar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The Manuscript stands Accepted with no further revisions. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: the revised manuscript "Participatory peer research exploring the experience of learning during Covid-19 for Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students " is much better, I have no other new issue. Thank you. Reviewer #2: Dear Editor and Authors I re-read your manuscript and I found it is now in publishable form. My query on the last review was about the role of peer researchers. Authors have responded specifically in the manuscript. I recommend finalizing the manuscript according to the given format and correct grammatical errors if exist. Thank you. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276180.r005
Formally Accepted
5 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Anand Nayyar, Editor PONE-D-22-09516R2 Participatory peer research exploring the experience of learning during Covid-19 for Allied Health and Healthcare Science Students Dear Dr. Daly-Lynn: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Anand Nayyar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276180.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .