All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I have reviewed the revised manuscript and confirm that the authors have satisfactorily addressed all of the reviewers’ comments. In my opinion, the manuscript is ready for publication.
No comment
Comment addressed.
No comment
All comments addressed.
I have read the feedback from each of the reviewers and recommend that you revise your manuscript in line with their comments and the PeerJ editorial criteria: https://peerj.com/about/editorial-criteria/.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Reporting seems ok.
Design not explicitly stated
Findings well presented
Line 89-93: What makes your CPD module unique? I think you need to provide more context on the current state of the literature regarding trainings, what authors have learned from them, and the exact gaps this study aims to fill. I see you provide details about the learning module in the methods, but a better context in the introduction would strengthen what has been provided about the program.
You did not explicitly state the study design. It looks like it could be implied that it is a pre-posttest quasi experimental study. Kindly indicate the design.
Line 188-193: I think this is good, but refrain from the choppy sentences.
Your discussion is not detailed and focuses only on two parts of the results. From line 244-249, you state that your findings align with previous research, and that is not very informative. What are some future implications. You need to expand your discussion.
The background is only skewed towards the context and doesn’t provide an interaction with literature from other contexts.
There is no information provided about sample size, participant characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or recruitment process, which limits reproducibility and understanding of generalizability.
The description of thematic analysis lacks detail about the coding process, the number of coders, inter-rater reliability, or the use of qualitative software. Furthermore, qualitative data is presented in the abstract but not in the document.
Participant characteristics are crucial; furthermore, they also include the inclusion and exclusion criteria
The criteria for choosing between paired t-tests and Wilcoxon tests are not specified.
There is no information provided about sample size, participant characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or recruitment process, which limits reproducibility and understanding of generalizability.
The total number of respondent need to be provided, and each number needs to be identified across each of the respondents
The discussion would benefit from development and further discussion on findings and intersections between concepts.
A clear depiction of whether piloting was done, validated, or adapted from existing tools raises questions about reliability and validity.
Kindly extend the discussion to support the interconnecting concepts within your study. Further develop these ideas to ensure a robust discussion.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.