To what extent is telehealth reported to be incorporated into undergraduate and postgraduate allied health curricula: A scoping review

Kay Yan Hui; Claudia Haines; Sophie Bammann; Matthew Hallandal; Nathan Langone; Ciara Williams; Maureen McEvoy

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256425

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 10, 2020
30 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Pathiyil Ravi Shankar, Editor PONE-D-20-35411 To what extent is telehealth reported to be incorporated into undergraduate and postgraduate allied health curricula: A scoping review PLOS ONE Dear Dr. McEvoy, 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. The manuscript is interesting and the review process is comprehensive and well described. The only major limitation is the rapid changes in telehealth and in online medical and health professions education brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors can include more recent studies conducted in this area as suggested by the reviewers. They can try to expand the search duration till 30th April 2021. This will provide a contemporary picture about this important area in medical and health professions education. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 2021 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: http://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, Pathiyil Ravi Shankar Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Provided earlier 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 [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Yes 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: Yes 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: While the paper is a well written article on a useful topic, the period chosen for the scoping review has become outdated because of the digital disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It may be appropriately revised with references to newer publications like: 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7301824/ 2. https://journals.healio.com/doi/10.3928/01484834-20200921-06 3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1555415520307261 Reviewer #2: Kindly check the sentence in lines 39 and 40 for correctness. The current review is performed methodically and reported well, considering that there are no concerns about dual publication and the study is conducted with sound research ethics in place. ****** 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: Yes: Suptendra Nath Sarbadhikari Reviewer #2: Yes:** Dr Gayatri Ravulaparthi [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.0256425.r001
Revision 1
28 Jul 2021 Author Response The information presented here has also been included in the rebuttal letter in the uploaded files. Editor’s comment: The manuscript is interesting and the review process is comprehensive and well described. The only major limitation is the rapid changes in telehealth and in online medical and health professions education brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors can include more recent studies conducted in this area as suggested by the reviewers. They can try to expand the search duration till 30th April 2021. This will provide a contemporary picture about this important area in medical and health professions education. Authors’ response Thank you for your comments and recommendations. The systematic search has been updated as suggested with the search duration expanded to April 30th 2021. As a result two further studies published in 2020 have been included. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Authors’ response Thank you ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes Authors’ response Thank you ________________________________________ 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Authors’ response Thank you ________________________________________ 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Authors’ response Thank you ________________________________________ 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: While the paper is a well written article on a useful topic, the period chosen for the scoping review has become outdated because of the digital disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It may be appropriately revised with references to newer publications like: 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7301824/ 2. https://journals.healio.com/doi/10.3928/01484834-20200921-06 3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1555415520307261 Authors’ response Thank you for the comment. In response, the scoping review has been updated to cover the period to April 30th, 2021. Thank you also for the suggested additional articles. Of these, No 2 by Rutledge et al was also found in the updated search and met the inclusion criteria, and has been inclusion in the scoping review. 24. Rutledge C, Hawkins EJ, Bordelon M, Gustin TS. Telehealth Education: An Interprofessional Online Immersion Experience in Response to COVID-19. J Nurs Educ. 2020 Oct 1;59(10):570-576. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20200921-06. PMID: 33002163. The other two suggested articles did not meet the eligibility criteria. No 1 was not the design for inclusion and No 3 in nurse practitioners was not in the allied health population group to be included in this review. Reviewer #2: Kindly check the sentence in lines 39 and 40 for correctness. The current review is performed methodically and reported well, considering that there are no concerns about dual publication and the study is conducted with sound research ethics in place. Authors’ response Thank you for the comment. The sentence in lines 39 and 40 have been checked for correctness. Previously the Results section incorporating lines 39 and 40 read: Of the 3595 studies screened, nine met the eligibility criteria. All studies were published after 2012, highlighting the recency of research in this area. Many were Australian studies (44%), and participants were from various allied health professions. Of the included studies, four related to undergraduate programs, three to postgraduate programs and for and two this was not specified. Curricula were delivered through a combination of online and face-to-face delivery, with assessment tasks, where reported, comprising mainly multiple choice and written tests. With the updated results included and re-wording for correctness this now reads: Of the 4484 studies screened, eleven met the eligibility criteria. All studies were published after 2012, highlighting the recency of research in this area. The studies were conducted in four countries (Australia, United Sates of America, United Kingdom, Norway), and participants were from various allied health professions. Of the included studies, four related to undergraduate programs, four to postgraduate programs and for the remaining three, this was not specified. Curricula were delivered through a combination of online and face-to-face delivery, with assessment tasks, where reported, comprising mainly multiple choice and written tests. ________________________________________ 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: Yes: Suptendra Nath Sarbadhikari Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Gayatri Ravulaparthi Additional changes to the manuscript In line with the updating of the review, with the search duration expanded to April 30th 2021, there were two additional studies included in the review. This has resulted in minor changes eg reference numbers have been changed in response to these additional studies and data relating to these two studies have included in Tables. There have also been appropriate changes throughout in the Abstract, body of the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections (red track changes), to account for the additional studies and to consider the changes in this topic area in the period since the original manuscript was submitted. Authors’comment Thank you to the reviewers for your contribution to this review process. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter 270721.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256425.r002
9 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Pathiyil Ravi Shankar, Editor To what extent is telehealth reported to be incorporated into undergraduate and postgraduate allied health curricula: A scoping review PONE-D-20-35411R1 Dear Dr. McEvoy, 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, Pathiyil Ravi Shankar Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 #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 #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 #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: Yes:** Gayatri Ravulaparthi https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256425.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Pathiyil Ravi Shankar, Editor PONE-D-20-35411R1 To what extent is telehealth reported to be incorporated into undergraduate and postgraduate allied health curricula: A scoping review Dear Dr. McEvoy: 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. Pathiyil Ravi Shankar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256425.r004

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 .