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.
Please note the remarks of one of the reviewers and make suggested revisions to the abstract while in production. Thank you.
The manuscript improved, still, please add absolute numbers in the abstract (results).
The manuscript improved, in particular, the research question is more focused now and relvant information has been added.
The manuscript improved.
Authors have made the necessary changes and manuscript is suitable for publication now.
Authors have made the necessary changes and manuscript is suitable for publication now.
Authors have made the necessary changes and manuscript is suitable for publication now.
Thank you very much for your submission. Reviewers indicated substantial revisions are needed before a decision on publication is made. Please consider and respond to all reviewer suggestions. Thank you.
Generally well written but there are a number of grammatical errors (eg ln 82 has/have), spelling errors (eg ln 82 retierement), poor word choice (ln 58 “shortness” rather than “shortage”) and problems with punctuation (eg ln 254 quote marks). Introduction and background are relevant. Table layout could be improved eg for Table 1: include “n” (with % in brackets); is it necessary to include both %Yes and %No when total are always 100%? Suggest that Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 are combined into a single table.
Experimental design is adequate and well described. Include “n” for number of GPs invited to take part (ln 118), and number that attended informative meeting (ln 131). Normal terminology is “slightly agree” and “slightly not agree” instead of “rather agree” and “rather not agree”.
I do not have the expertise to comment on the appropriateness of the statistical tests chosen. The questionnaire that has been developed addresses a clearly identified need, and appears to yield valid results.
No additional comments
The manuscript is written in a clear language with few minor weaknesses (see below) but should be improved in details. In introduction, statements should be proved with (current literature) references consequently.
-----
- Please add absolute numbers where % is stated.
- Line 61: sentence "Furthermore….) is hard to understand. Please rewrite with less commas.
-Line 55/59: reference missing
- Line 64.66: please correct: three months in ambulant care (not only General practice).
- please check spelling in references (line 581, capital letters)
- please check tables and add legends
- in table 1 age is missing. Please add absolute numbers and missing values
- in table 1: practice size can not be correlated with single/group. Please change into "practice form"
- table 1: please add information about the difference practice assitant/practice nurse
- please add the questionnaire as a table, or define the items in table 2. These Information is crucial and should not be reserved to supplements.
- table 2: is this right with 28 items? why not 24?
The research question (line 111-114) should be focussed and adapted to the abstract (construct and test a questionnaire) and the title. Which is the main question - "to develop a questionnaire" (abstract, title) or "to figure out motivation) (line 111) -??
The rationale should then focus more on the research question. Information on known motivational factors for teaching for physiscians and General Practitioners should be added, with literature references. In Line 99-104 I miss the context, and expect factors on teaching motivation and why a questionnaire for GPs is needed in addition to the existing instruments (add further information after line 105, maybe from the discussion line 442 ff)
Some other information shows less context to the research question (line 84-86, 92-96) and is expendable.
The Methods section needs more details, and more focus on the research question. Please check the whole section for any potential relevant information, i.e.:
- line 117: From which source did you get the contacts? Were all GPs invited, or all practices?
- line 120: what is meant by work perspective?
- line 131: how many took part?
- line 149-153: please explain further, please cite which literature is meant
- missing data: how did you handle missing data?
Further Instruments: What is the context of this questionnaires ? Are they important for the development of the questionnaire?
Development of questionnaires:
-Please provide information on the items: which items derived from the literature and from the discussion rounds?
- Please provide more information why you added qualification of non medical staff.
Results:
- Line 211: Please start with numbers of GPs invited and number of participants
- please show data on "missing data"
Discussion:
-please re-write the first paragraph stating the relevant results corresponding to the research question.
-Please add findings from the literature on your statements line 397-402. Are these results known before?
- In total, the discussion should focus more on relevant findings regarding the research questions (based on existing literature) .
- line 404 following: please be more careful with the interpretation, in particular since data are based on motivation. I miss the reflection of the a gap between motivation, participation in training programs and educating students in reality.
- line 415 ff: the context to the research question is not fully clear. If staff education might play a role, please explain before why you take this into consideration, and how staff education works in Germany. In the discussion section please stay focused - is line 417 -422 really important, and why?
limitations:
- development of the questionnaire is based on a GP population in a rural area with shortness of physicians. For further research, the questionnaire should be validated with a population of urban GPs. Are there any known results from other authors?
Novelty is assessed in line 456 - since PeerJ explicitely wants to avoid statements on impact and novelty, this seems expendable.
Please limit the conclusions to research questions and results, and avoid speculative statements (line 466, be careful of the motivation - reality-gap)
With developing a motivation questionnaire for General Practitioners, you treat a relevant theme on a solide methodological base, and present results in a clearly written manuscript.
However, quite a number of more or less major/minor neglects (see above) impair the scientific presentation substantially.
Please revise the whole manuscript intensively. Beyond the quoted examples, rationales and details (references, numbers) should be supplemented, and the whole text and all tables should be checked carefully regarding completeness and comprehensibility.
Good literature review and description of findings apart from abstract. Results and conclusion section needs re-writing. E.g., authors mention "Correlations with the MBI were in the expected directions" without providing any detail in results section and then mention factors in the conclusion which were not mentioned in results.
It is suggested to highlight the salient takeaway from the study in the abstract and conclusion be based on the described results in the abstract.
Research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful and within the scope of journal. Methods have been described in detail. However, readers would want to know more about the factors affecting motivation so as to see if anything can be done to enhance this. Detailed analysis with discussion of the factors need to be added so that research can help in improving the motivation levels in the long term.
Conclusions of the article are well stated and supported by data, however, same is not true of the abstract conclusion which would need to be improved as stated above.
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.