Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0293170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293170

Patient satisfaction with advanced physiotherapy practice internationally: Protocol for a systematic mixed studies review

Chris Davis 1,2,*, Tim Noblet 1,3, Jai Mistry 1,3, Katie Kowalski 1, Alison Rushton 1
Editor: Maher Abdelraheim Titi4
PMCID: PMC10588830  PMID: 37862302

Abstract

Rationale

Patient satisfaction is a complex construct consisting of human and system attributes. Patient satisfaction can afford insight into patient experience, itself a key component of evaluating healthcare quality. Internationally, advanced physiotherapy practice (APP) extends across clinical fields and is characterised as a higher level of practice with a high degree of autonomy and complex decision making. Patient satisfaction with APP appears positive. While evidence synthesis of patient satisfaction with APP exists, no systematic review has synthesised evidence across clinical fields. Therefore, the objectives of this systematic review are 1) to evaluate patient satisfaction with APP internationally, and 2) to evaluate human and system attributes of patient satisfaction with APP.

Materials and methods

A systematic mixed studies review using a parallel-results convergent synthesis design will be conducted. Searches of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro and grey literature databases will be conducted from inception to 18/7/2023. Studies of APP (World Physiotherapy definition) whereby practitioners a) have advanced clinical and analytical skills that influence service improvement and provide clinical leadership, b) have post-registration masters level specialisation (or equivalence), c) deliver safe, competent care to patients with complex needs and d) may use particular occupational titles; that measure patient satisfaction across all clinical fields and countries will be included. Two reviewers will screen studies, extract data, assess methodological quality of included studies (mixed methods appraisal tool), and contribute to data synthesis. Quantitative data will undergo narrative synthesis (textual descriptions) and qualitative data thematic synthesis (analytical themes). Integration of data syntheses will inform discussion.

Implications

This systematic review will provide insight into patient satisfaction with APP internationally, exploring attributes that influence satisfaction. This will aid design, implementation, or improvement of APP and facilitate the delivery of patient-centred, high-quality healthcare. Lastly, this review will inform future methodologically robust research investigating APP patient satisfaction and experience.

Introduction

Rationale

Patient satisfaction is a complex construct measuring how pleased or happy a patient feels about care they received, evaluated relative to their expectations and needs [1–3]. Patient satisfaction is defined by Hills and Sachs (2007) as “a sense of contentedness, achievement or fulfilment that results from meeting patients’ needs and expectations with respect to specific and general aspects of health care” [4]. Patient satisfaction largely exists within subjective (epistemology) and relativist (ontology) paradigms, allowing patients to share how they felt about their care, perhaps distinct from the quality of care provided. Ng & Luk (2019) suggest patient satisfaction consists of human and system attributes. Human attributes may be attitudinal including practitioners’ courtesy, friendliness, kindness, and approachability, or related to practitioners’ technical competence demonstrated through professional knowledge or adherence to high standards. System attributes may relate to accessibility, hygiene, or comfort of healthcare services, or their efficacy in improving or maintaining a particular health status [5]. These attributes align with findings from a qualitative review by Rossettini et al. (2020) whereby human and professional competence, communication, partnership of care, organisation of care, and physical environment were all identified as influencing factors of patient satisfaction [6]. These patient satisfaction attributes principally map across to relational (human) and functional (system) dimensions of service quality in non-clinical settings. In this context, the relational dimension refers to “customers’ emotional benefits, beyond the core performance, related to the social interaction of customers with employees” and the functional dimension refers to “efficiency with which the service is delivered” [7]. Patient satisfaction is an outcome measure of a patients experience of care [3], mostly captured using surveys or questionnaires, and sometimes incorporated into patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) [8, 9].

Patient experience is a similar but separate construct defined by the Beryl Institute as “the sum of all interactions, shaped by an organisation’s culture, that influence patient perceptions, across the continuum of care” [10] and is considered a more objective (epistemology), descriptive, process indicator reflective of the quality of care received [2, 3]. If patient satisfaction is a measure of what a patient feels should happen in a healthcare setting relative to their expectations, patient experience is a measure of what best-practice standards state should happen in that setting.

Across healthcare, advanced practice is defined as a higher level of practice demonstrating a high degree of autonomy and complex decision making, often underpinned by a post-registration master’s level education or equivalent that encompasses the four pillars of clinical practice, leadership, education, and research [11]. Advanced physiotherapy practice (APP) first emerged in the 1970s and has since organically evolved into over 15 fields of practice, across 14 countries and territories worldwide [12, 13]. This diversity has led to variation in APP scope, titles, competency, capabilities, and educational requirements. For example, although the educational route for advanced clinical practice is typically a post-graduate, masters level qualification, countries like the UK accept both formal-accredited and portfolio-based (equivalence) developmental routes [11]. World Physiotherapy, working officially with the World Health Organisation to represent and further the physiotherapy profession globally [14], recognise APP variation exists (e.g., aforementioned educational routes), but have identified common themes across clinical fields, countries, and contexts [15]. These themes describe APP as a higher level of practice, perhaps associated with certain occupational titles (Table 1), requiring advanced clinical and analytical skills that influence service improvement and provide clinical leadership, resulting in safe and competent delivery of care to patients with complex needs. World Physiotherapy also recognise APP involves cross-pillar working (e.g., research and education) with the potential for advanced physiotherapy practitioners to perform tasks traditionally completed by other healthcare professionals [15]. These tasks may involve making and communicating diagnoses, triaging for surgical opinion, ordering diagnostic imaging, or prescribing and administering of medications [16]. While accepting this inherent breadth and variation, Table 2 conceptualises APP for this systematic review using the Tidier checklist [17].

Table 1. Examples of titles used to describe APP [13].

Title
Advanced physiotherapy practitioner
Consultant physiotherapist
Extended scope practitioner
Specialist physiotherapista
Highly specialist physiotherapista
Advanced (practice) physiotherapist
Manual therapista
Military physician extendera
Senior physiotherapist fellowa
Open in a new tab

a Less common titles used to describe advanced practice physiotherapy by member organisations of World Physiotherapy [13].

Table 2. TIDieR checklist for APP as an intervention.

Item Description
Brief name Advanced physiotherapy practice (APP)
Why? To help meet the global demand placed on healthcare systems from burden of disease, people living longer, people living with higher levels of disability, and people with complex, significant rehabilitation needs [18].
What (materials)? Context specific and may include; educational resources handed to patients, exercise equipment, therapeutic devices, medical equipment for the administration of medications, or pharmaceutical products.
What (procedures)? Context specific and may include; examination/assessmenta, making and communicating diagnoses and prognosesa, intervention/treatmenta, re-examinationa, referral for diagnostic imaging, listing for surgery, referral into secondary or tertiary care, prescribing and/or administering of medications, and dischargea.
Who provided? Highly experienced, autonomous physical therapists with post-registration, master’s level (or equivalent) specialisation in clinical practice, education, leadership and management, and research.
How? Mostly in face-to-face clinical settings, with some APP’s taking place via virtual or telephone-based services.
Where? Context specific and may include; inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital/clinic, patient home, community clinic, primary care, secondary care, tertiary care, within public, private, or third healthcare sectors, and in countries or territories globally with recognised APP.
When and how much? Context specific and may involve a single or multiple appointments depending on the service and patient needs.
Tailoring APP is patient-centred and tailored to individuals based on the service and patient needs.
Modifications N/A
How well (planned) Context specific and pragmatic dependent on the service and patient needs.
How well (actual) Context specific and pragmatic dependent on the service and patient needs.
Open in a new tab

a Physiotherapy procedures that may be included in APP [19].

Research investigating patient satisfaction with APP to-date lacks in-depth analysis, is specific to individual clinical fields (e.g., MSK or emergency department), and is limited to systematic reviews of mostly non-randomized and descriptive studies [20–26]. In these systematic reviews, patient satisfaction of MSK APP is rated highly, or as either equal to or more satisfactory than care provided by medical or orthopaedic surgical practitioners [20, 21, 24, 25]. However, methodological quality varies greatly within the included primary studies, and patient satisfaction is mostly measured using non-standardised or non-validated, locally devised tools. A systematic review investigating adult spinal pain by Lafrance et al. (2021) showed patients were highly satisfied with care provided by advanced physiotherapy practitioners, with some preference for APP over usual medical care. However, included studies were mostly of moderate quality (high = 1; moderate = 14; low = 3) and heterogeneity existed within measurement tools used to capture patient satisfaction (e.g., Likert, VSQ-9, perceived quality of care questionnaire). A theme that emerged from this review was the amount of time advanced physiotherapy practitioners spent with patients. APP consultation times were consistently longer than medical or surgical consultations, perhaps enabling more education and advice to be provided to patients, and in-turn driving satisfaction. Similarly, a systematic review investigating MSK physiotherapy in emergency departments by Matifat et al. (2019) highlighted elements of the clinical encounter where higher levels of patient satisfaction were reported with APP over usual medical care. Although limited to five studies of weak to strong evidence, patients appeared to prefer first aid advice, receiving written information regarding injury, and discharge to be provided by an advanced physiotherapy practitioner, and medications management by a physician. Again, patients appreciated time to ask questions of an advanced physiotherapy practitioner regarding their condition, that may not have been reciprocated during physician led consultations. Interestingly, patient satisfaction did not differ between APP and physician led care at 2 or 6 week follow up. Lastly, a systematic review by Trøstrup et al. (2020) aligned with findings from other reviews, showing patients in an orthopaedic diagnostic setting were highly satisfied with APP assessment, with consistent results from high, moderate, and low risk of bias studies. From this scoping review of the literature, patient satisfaction with APP appears to be high, but is mostly conducted in MSK clinical fields, using quantitative methods, and studies lack methodological quality. Considering that patient satisfaction provides insight into patient experience, itself a key component of evaluating healthcare quality, and that no focussed mixed studies synthesis of patient satisfaction with APP across clinical fields exists, further investigation is warranted.

Objectives

  1. To evaluate patient satisfaction with APP internationally.

  2. To evaluate human and system attributes of patient satisfaction with APP.

Materials and methods

This protocol has been reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) [27, 28] and is registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42023443612).

Researcher positionality

All authors hold physiotherapy qualifications and mostly work at Advanced or Consultant level of practice. The first author is a UK-based physiotherapist with 16 years of clinical experience, 12 of which specialising in musculoskeletal outpatients. They hold an MSc in Sport and Exercise Medicine and are currently studying towards a PhD in Physical Therapy. The author group are based in the UK and Canada, with strong links to the USA and Australia. Academic experience varies within the group from PhD student to professorship in Physical Therapy, with experience in systematic mixed studies review methodology.

Design

A systematic mixed studies review will be conducted using a parallel-results convergent design as described by Hong et al. (2017). In this design, qualitative and quantitative patient satisfaction data will be analysed separately and brought together during the interpretation of results in the discussion. Part one will address the first objective and will comprise of quantitative data from surveys, questionnaires, PROMs, and PREMs. Part two will address the second objective and will comprise of qualitative data from textual descriptions and interviews. A systematic mixed studies review is appropriate for this study as mixed evidence allows comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena (patient satisfaction), and because the objectives are not measuring effectiveness [29].

Eligibility criteria

The study eligibility criteria (Table 3) were informed by the PICOS framework [30].

Table 3. Eligibility criteria.

Participants Patients of APP services from countries, territories or jurisdictions with recognised APP roles who are able to give informed consent. Studies of parent or carer satisfaction of APP services on behalf of a dependent will be excluded.
Intervention APP as described by World Physiotherapy [15] whereby practitioners a) have advanced clinical and analytical skills that influence service improvement and provide clinical leadership, b) have post-registration masters level specialisation (or equivalence), c) deliver safe, competent care to patients with complex needs and d) may be associated with particular occupational titles (Table 1), in all clinical fields (e.g., MSK, orthopaedics, emergency department).
Comparison Not applicable.
Outcome Patient satisfaction. Studies investigating only patient experience will be excluded.
Study designs Primary research of any design (e.g., experimental, qualitative, or mixed-methods).
Publication language English, or papers able to be sufficiently translated into English via Google Translate [31].
Open in a new tab

Information sources

The Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PEDro databases will be searched from inception to 17/8/2023. Grey literature will be searched through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). Manual searching the reference lists of included studies will identify any further articles that meet eligibility criteria. Expert researchers of APP and/or patient satisfaction will be consulted for identification of other potential studies. If studies cannot be retrieved, access requests will be made through contacting the authors by email on two occasions.

Search strategy

Database search strategies were developed first by the lead author, then reviewed and revised by an independent specialist librarian not otherwise associated with the systematic review [32]. Table 4 demonstrates the MEDLINE (Ovid) search strategy that will be adapted to meet search terms of other included databases (see S1 Table).

Table 4. MEDLINE (Ovid) search strategy.

1 Patient Satisfaction/
2 ((patient* or client* or participant*) adj5 (experience* or perception* or perceive* or expectation* or happiness or contented* or fulfilment)).tw,kf.
3 Satisf*.tw,kf
4 1 or 2 or 3
5 Physical Therapists/
6 Physical Therapy Specialty/
7 Physical Therapy Modalities/
8 physiotherap*.tw,kf.
9 physio-therap*.tw,kf.
10 physical therap*.tw,kf.
11 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10
12 4 and 11
13 ((advanced or speciali* or consultant* or extended or expanded) adj5 (practice or practitioner* or scope or role or physi*)).tw,kf.
14 military physician extender*.tw,kf.
15 senior physiotherapist fellow*.tw,kf.
16 (First adj3 contact adj3 (physiotherap* or physio-therap* practitioner*)).tw,kf
17 13 or 14 or 15 or 16
18 12 and 17
Open in a new tab

Study records

Data management

Covidence (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia), a web-based collaboration software platform that streamlines processes within systematic and other literature reviews, will be used to import all citations, remove duplicates yielded from the search strategy, and aid in determining eligibility during screening and review stages.

Selection process

Pre-screening eligibility criteria training and instruction will be provided to reviewers before selection to promote consistency. CD will perform searches and import citations into Covidence. Two reviewers (CD and JM) will independently screen titles and abstracts against eligibility criteria. Disagreement on studies to be included will be resolved through discussion. A third author (TN) will provide arbitration for any unresolved discrepancies. Full text reports will be obtained for all studies deemed to meet eligibility criteria from title and abstract screening. If it is not possible to determine if a study meets eligibility criteria from title and abstract screening, they will be marked “maybe”, full text reports will be obtained, and they will be included in the full text review. Full texts will then be independently reviewed by two reviewers (CD and JM) against eligibility criteria. Disagreement on full texts to be included will be resolved through discussion, or through third author (TN) arbitration. Any overlapping or companion studies (multiple publications for one study) will be accounted for in the final data synthesis. Inter-rater agreement will be calculated using Cohens kappa (k) at both the title and abstract screening and full text review stages. Study identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion will be presented using a PRISMA flow diagram (Fig 1).

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram [33].

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

TBC = To be confirmed.

Data collection process

Two reviewers (CD and JM) will extract data independently and in duplicate from each eligible study. Data will be extracted into a standardised form with pre-set data items. Prior to full data extraction, a pilot of 5 studies will be completed by both reviewers to ensure consistency. Disagreement on data extraction will be resolved through discussion, or through third author (TN) arbitration. Authors will be contacted on two occasions to account for any missing or incomplete data (if necessary).

Data items

Data items to be collected are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Data items.
Data items
Author(s)
Year of publication
Country of data collection
Study design
Study setting
Interaction type
Number of interactions with APP
APP consultation time
Patient characteristics
Eligibility criteria
Sample size
APP characteristics (incl. training)
Patient satisfaction data collection method and time-point
Patient satisfaction results
Human attributes of patient satisfaction
System attributes of patient satisfaction
Open in a new tab

Outcomes and prioritisation

The outcome used in this systematic review is patient satisfaction with APP measured using surveys, questionnaires, PROM’s, or PREMS.

Quality assessment

The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 will be used for methodological quality assessment of the included studies. The MMAT is a valid, reliable, and efficient tool [34, 35] developed to appraise the methodological quality of five empirical study categories (qualitative research, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies) eligible for inclusion [36]. Using a single critical appraisal tool for all included studies will allow a consistent approach to methodological quality assessment. Two reviewers (CD and JM) will become familiar with the MMAT before independently completing a methodological quality assessment of each included study. A pilot of the first 5 studies will be completed to ensure consistency between reviewers, and any discrepancies resolved through discussion. A detailed, descriptive presentation of ratings for each quality criterion will be provided to inform the overall strength of the evidence, rather than a numeric score. This descriptive approach, as recommended by the MMAT developers, will be used for two main reasons. Firstly, presenting a single score, or a summary scale made up of somewhat arbitrary thresholds, may hide significant inadequacies within the study and overstate the trustworthiness of the evidence [37]. Secondly, although quantifying quality criteria may be appropriate for qualitative research situated within positivist or post-positivist paradigms, it is less suitable for quality assessment of qualitative research existing in other paradigms [38]. Owing to the descriptive presentation of ratings, the constructivist nature of this research, and to ensure this review includes the totality of evidence available in the synthesis, studies will not be excluded based on methodological quality. Instead, quality assessment will be used to demonstrate transparency in the results, contribute to the robustness of the synthesis, and to nuance or weight conclusions and recommendations from this research [39].

Data synthesis

The parallel-results convergent synthesis design involves the separate synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data, before integration in the discussion as detailed below [40].

Quantitative synthesis

To address the first objective a narrative synthesis as proposed by Popay et al. (2006) will be conducted. This synthesis method has been chosen due to the expected heterogeneity of study design, participant characteristics, setting, APP characteristics, and/or data collection method used in primary studies, including an expected lack of randomised clinical trials. The methodological foundation of this narrative synthesis will include 3 key elements, completed iteratively and non-sequentially [41].

Developing a synthesis of findings from included studies. This element will initially describe the relevant patient satisfaction data from included studies using statistical data and textual descriptions of findings. Studies will be organised in a way that allows patterns in the data to emerge (e.g., by clinical field, country, or study design). Where studies present patient satisfaction data using homogenous rating scales like the VSQ-9 [42], data within groups may be pooled.

Exploring relationships within and between studies. Patterns that emerge from the data will then be interrogated, exploring factors that may influence patient satisfaction with APP. This will involve looking for relationships between study characteristics and the patient satisfaction results, then comparing and contrasting these relationships across different studies. The influence of heterogeneity will be explored, considering variations in study design, participant characteristics, setting, APP characteristics, data collection method, and other context relating to patient satisfaction.

Assessing the robustness of the synthesis. MMAT quality criterion outcomes, alongside the quantity of studies included, will be used to provide a summary of the robustness of the synthesis. Methodological quality will be built into the exploration of heterogeneity, and if appropriate, higher methodological studies will be given larger weighting in the final interpretation of results.

Qualitative synthesis

To address the second objective a thematic synthesis as proposed by Thomas and Harden (2008) will be conducted. This synthesis method has been chosen to integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies or qualitative data from multiple mixed methods studies and will involve three key steps [43].

Free line-by-line coding. Free line-by-line coding will take place using all text within the “results” or “findings” sections in qualitative studies of patient satisfaction (including qualitative sections of mixed-methods studies).

Construct descriptive themes. Free codes will be organised and grouped into related areas to construct descriptive themes. During free line-by-line coding and constructing descriptive themes, the synthesis will stay close to the data, be somewhat descriptive, and use in-vivo coding where possible.

Development of analytical themes. To synthesise the data beyond the content of the original studies, a constructivist paradigmatic approach will be used to develop analytical themes. Constructivism assumes multiple, equally valid realities exist and that meaning is hidden within the data and must be discovered through reflection and interpretation [44]. This constructivist approach will allow a deeper synthesis of the data that can answer the second objective of this systematic missed studies review. Two reviewers (CD and JM) will complete this thematic synthesis independently, before bringing analytical themes together to discuss, debate, and explore similarities and differences. The final stage of the synthesis using crystallisation will develop and create more abstract, analytical themes that have substance and offer rich accounts of patient satisfaction attributes [45]. To increase integrity and align with constructivist approaches, both reviewers will use reflexivity to situate themselves in the research and evaluate how subjective and intersubjective elements may influence the shaping of analytical themes [46]. MMAT criteria will be presented, allowing readers to interpret synthesis findings and judge trustworthiness in their own contexts. The relative contribution of qualitative studies with low methodological quality to final analytic themes will also be presented.

Meta-biases

Two important meta-biases relevant to this systematic review are selection and publication biases. Selection bias will be minimised by conducting a broad, inclusive, and exhaustive search from published and grey literature sources, and by using multiple reviewers during the selection process. Publication bias will be reviewed by comparing patient satisfaction with APP between published and any un-published studies identified in grey literature, where homogenous data are available [27].

Discussion

Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings will occur during the discussion. Triangulation “as a methodological metaphor”, whereby points of the triangle are represented by theoretical concepts and empirical data from qualitative and quantitative syntheses, will be used to identify relationships between findings and theory, and provide deeper insight into patient satisfaction with APP internationally [47].

Depth of understanding of patient satisfaction will allow greater consideration of how pleased or happy patients are with APP care they receive, across clinical fields. It will also provide insight into attributes that may influence patient satisfaction with APP. Knowledge of these attributes should improve our understanding of patient’s expectations and needs when interreacting with APP. This improved awareness will aid design, implementation, or improvement of APP and facilitate the delivery of patient-centred healthcare. Being more sensitive to patient satisfaction and patient experience in APP will also drive the quality of healthcare being delivered. Lastly, this systematic review will inform future methodologically robust research investigating APP patient satisfaction and experience.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Adapted search strategies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (20KB, docx)
S2 Table. Completed PRISMA-P checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (27.6KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

Alanna Marson, Research & Scholarly Communication Librarian at Western University (London, Ontario, Canada) for support with reviewing and shaping the search strategy.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Benson T, Benson A. Routine measurement of patient experience. BMJ Open Qual [Internet]. 2023. Jan 27;12(1):e002073. Available from: doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cleary PD. Evolving concepts of patient-centered care and the assessment of patient care experiences: Optimism and opposition. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2016. Aug 1;41(4):675–96. doi: 10.1215/03616878-3620881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Larson E, Sharma J, Bohren MA, Tunçalp Ö. When the patient is the expert: Measuring patient experience and satisfaction with care. Bull World Health Organ. 2019. Aug 1;97(8):563–9. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.225201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hills R, Kitchen S. Toward a theory of patient satisfaction with physiotherapy: Exploring the concept of satisfaction. Vol. 23, Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. 2007. p. 243–54. doi: 10.1080/09593980701209394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ng JHY, Luk BHK. Patient satisfaction: Concept analysis in the healthcare context. Patient Educ Couns. 2019. Apr 1;102(4):790–6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rossettini G, Latini TM, Palese A, Jack SM, Ristori D, Gonzatto S, et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction in outpatient musculoskeletal physiotherapy: a systematic, qualitative meta-summary, and meta-synthesis. Vol. 42, Disability and Rehabilitation. Taylor and Francis Ltd; 2020. p. 460–72. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1501102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sánchez-Hernández RM, Martínez-Tur V, Peiró JM, Moliner C. Linking Functional and Relational Service Quality to Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: Differences between Men and Women. Psychol Rep. 2010. Apr 1;106(2):598–610. doi: 10.2466/pr0.106.2.598-610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Withers KL, Puntoni S, O’Connell S, Palmer RI, Carolan-Rees G. Standardising the collection of patient-reported experience measures to facilitate benchmarking and drive service improvement. Patient Exp J. 2018. Nov 6;5(3):16–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kluzek S, Dean B, Wartolowska KA. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as proof of treatment efficacy. Vol. 27, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. BMJ Publishing Group; 2022. p. 153–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wolf J, Neiderhauser V, Marshburn D, LaVela S. Defining Patient Experience. Patient Exp J. 2014;1(1):7–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Health Education England. Multi-professional framework for advanced clinical practice in England. London, UK; 2017.
  • 12.James JJ, Stuart RB. Expanded Role for the Physical Therapist: Screening Musculoskeletal Disorders. Phys Ther. 1975. Feb 1;55(2):121–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tawiah AK, Desmeules F, Finucane L, Lewis J, Wieler M, Stokes E, et al. Advanced practice in physiotherapy: a global survey. Physiotherapy (United Kingdom). 2021. Dec 1;113:168–76. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2021.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.World Physiotherapy. https://world.physio/about-us. 2023. World Physiotherapy.
  • 15.World Confederation for Physical Therapy. Advanced physical therapy practice Policy statement [Internet]. 2019. Available from: www.world.physio
  • 16.Vedanayagam M, Buzak M, Reid D, Saywell N. Advanced practice physiotherapists are effective in the management of musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Vol. 113, Physiotherapy (United Kingdom). Elsevier Ltd; 2021. p. 116–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ (Online). 2014. Mar 7;348. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. 2020. Dec 19;396(10267):2006–17. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.World Physiotherapy. Description of physical therapy Policy statement [Internet]. 2019. Available from: www.world.physio [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Desmeules F, Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Champagne F, Hinse O, Woodhouse LJ. Advanced practice physiotherapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Vol. 13, BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fennelly O, Blake C, Desmeules F, Stokes D, Cunningham C. Patient-reported outcome measures in advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice: a systematic review. Musculoskeletal Care. 2018. Mar;16(1):188–208. doi: 10.1002/msc.1200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lafrance S, Lapalme JG, Méquignon M, Santaguida C, Fernandes J, Desmeules F. Advanced practice physiotherapy for adults with spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. European Spine Journal. 2021. Apr 1;30(4):990–1003. doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06648-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Matifat E, Méquignon M, Desmeules F, Matifat E, Méquignon M, Cunningham C, et al. Benefits of Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review. Phys Ther [Internet]. 2019;99:1150–66. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/99/9/1150/5554395 doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzz082 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Oakley C, Shacklady C. The Clinical Effectiveness of the Extended-Scope Physiotherapist Role in Musculoskeletal Triage: A Systematic Review. Vol. 13, Musculoskeletal care. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2015. p. 204–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Thompson J, Yoward S, Dawson P. The Role of Physiotherapy Extended Scope Practitioners in Musculoskeletal care with Focus on Decision Making and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Musculoskeletal Care. 2017. Jun;15(2):91–103. doi: 10.1002/msc.1152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Trøstrup J, Juhl CB, Mikkelsen LR. Effect of extended scope physiotherapists assessments in orthopaedic diagnostic setting: a systematic review. Vol. 108, Physiotherapy (United Kingdom). Elsevier Ltd; 2020. p. 120–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. Vol. 349, BMJ (Online). BMJ Publishing Group; 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Revista Espanola de Nutricion Humana y Dietetica. 2016;20(2):148–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cerigo H, Quesnel-Vallée A. Systematic mixed studies reviews: leveraging the literature to answer complex questions through the integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Int J Public Health. 2020. Jun 1;65(5):699–703. doi: 10.1007/s00038-020-01386-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McKenzie J, Brennan S, Ryan R, Thomson H, Johnston R, Thomas J. Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Google. Google Translate [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Sep 24]. Available from: translate.google.com/
  • 32.McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. Jul 1;75:40–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009. Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews. Vol. 46, International Journal of Nursing Studies. Elsevier Ltd; 2009. p. 529–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012. Jan;49(1):47–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Crowe M, Sheppard L. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011. Jan;64(1):79–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ravenek MJ, Rudman DL. Bridging Conceptions of Quality in Moments of Qualitative Research. Int J Qual Methods. 2013. Feb 1;12(1):436–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Meline T. T Selecting Studies for Systematic Review: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria [Internet]. Vol. 33, CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN COMMUNICATION SCIENCE AND DISORDERS; •. 2006. Available from: https://pubs.asha.org [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hong QN, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Vol. 6, Systematic reviews. 2017. p. 61. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers. M, et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. 2006. Apr;1. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ware J, Hays R. Methods For Measuring Patient Satisfaction With Specific Medical Encounters. Med Care. 1988. Apr;26(4):393–402. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198804000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ponterotto JG. Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Vol. 52, Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2005. p. 126–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Stewart H, Gapp R, Harwood I. Exploring the alchemy of qualitative management research: Seeking trustworthiness, credibility and rigor through crystallization. Qualitative Report. 2017. Jan 1;22(1):1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Finlay L. “Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity. Qual Health Res. 2002. Apr 1;12(4):531–45. doi: 10.1177/104973202129120052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Östlund U, Kidd L, Wengström Y, Rowa-Dewar N. Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review. Vol. 48, International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2011. p. 369–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Maher Abdelraheim Titi

4 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-21887Patient satisfaction with advanced practice physiotherapy internationally: protocol for a systematic mixed studies reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Davis,

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 Oct 18 2023 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,

Maher Abdelraheim Titi

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. 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.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thanks a lot for the opportunity you have offered me to revise the fascinating protocol "Patient satisfaction with advanced physiotherapy practice internationally: protocol for a systematic mixed studies review". I thank the authors for their efforts in producing this exciting protocol. It is perfectly aligned with my area of research and expertise; thus, I am confident I can offer a valuable peer review.

As a significant strength, this manuscript aims to evaluate patient satisfaction with advanced physiotherapy practice (APP) internationally and to evaluate human and system attributes of patient satisfaction with APP. This proposal is interesting in the field and adds information to the existing evidence in the literature.

As a major weakness, the manuscript sometimes lacks details and clarity concerning methodological steps that would help improve the understanding of the manuscript. Therefore, I have suggested some strategies to improve authors' reporting and increase the quality of their work.

Overall, my peer review is a minor revision: I suggest revising the manuscript to improve the pitfalls presented. The final goal is to improve the overall clarity of the message to help the reader understand this fundamental topic. I look forward to reading the revised version of the manuscript.

Thanks again, and good luck with researching in this challenging time.

¶MINOR REVISION

#INTRODUCTION

*Background: The authors analyse the concepts of patient satisfaction and patient experience in the context of physiotherapy. Although the work they do is commendable, I believe it is appropriate to integrate some fundamental references for both concepts into the background. Among them, I suggest: patient satisfaction (doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1501102), patient experience (doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzac080 doi: 10.1186/s40945-020-00088-6).

#METHODS

*Tidier: Please report it in full.

*Search strategy: Please report the search strategy for each database.

*Research group details: Please report details about the authors' background. Are they pt? Have they experienced in performing mixed-method systematic reviews?

#FIGURE

*Figure 1: Please report in full the abbreviation TBC.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting protocol on patient satisfaction with advanced practice physiotherapy. I have one major comment that would need to be addressed before publication; otherwise, I provide 12 other comments to improve your protocol and eventual paper but that can be considered as minor comments/suggestions.

Major comment

1. In your eligibility criteria you include “APP (…) have post-registration masters level specialization”, however, many studies include APP without this specialization and who instead has a bachelor level education with an onsite APP training such as a residency type training. Other studies poorly described the training of APP, sometimes because many APP with different training are included. Therefore, this inclusion criterion, if taken by its words, would lead to significant number of relevant papers to be excluded from your analysis. It is also important to make the distinction between advanced practice physiotherapy roles, which does not necessarily require a specific training or highly specialized training and advanced practice physiotherapy title, that are for example not present in Canada.

Minor comments / suggestions:

1. Lines 29-30 “However, no evidence synthesis of patient satisfaction with APP across clinical fields exists.” This is no completely true as a few systematic review included a synthesis of patient satisfaction, at least of quantitative questionnaires. You also discussed results from a few studies in the introduction.

2. Lines 39-40 & 85-86 “b) have post-registration masters level specialisation” Does that mean that you will exclude all studies including advanced practice physiotherapists that do not have a masters level specialisation? If so, you will exclude some relevant studies as many include physiotherapists with a bachelor level education who received a non-master-level APP training (e.g., residency type training). Please consider removing this eligibility criteria or clarifying the text.

3. Lines 44-45: Please provide more details regarding the data synthesis plan.

4. Line 103 – Table 1: Although they were reported in the Tawiah et al. paper, are ‘Manual Therapists’, ‘Military Physician Extender’ and ‘Senior Physiotherapist Fellow’ really terms used to describe APP? I would suggest either to remove them from Table 1 or to provide a footnote providing more details (e.g., these terms have been used in the past to describe APP although …)

5. Line 105 – Table 2: in the What (procedures), we see treatment and rehabilitation that are under the scope of PT and may or may not be included in an APP model of care (although they are often included). Should a distinction be made between APP procedures (like the other ones that are described) and PT procedures that may be included in an APP model of care?

6. Line 105 – Table 2: As mentioned above, it is not necessary to be an “highly experienced, physical therapists with post-registration master’s level (or higher)” to be considered as an advanced practice physiotherapist or at least to work in an advanced practice role.

7. Lines 112-113: You discussed well the results from previous systematic reviews. However, there is two limitations in the previous systematic review that I think you should highlight. First, none of them conducted a comprehensive evaluation of patient satisfaction with APP care, instead they all focused on various outcomes specific to a clinical setting (specialized medical care or emergency department) which limit the evaluation of satisfaction to these settings. Also, they only included quantitative data, omitting to include qualitative analysis from patients interviews, for example. I think you can also cut a bit the description of these studies, especially if you are lacking word space.

8. Line 159 – Table 3: Intervention same comment as above regarding the masters level specialisation

9. Line 159 – Table 3: Study design, you could add a few examples e.g., such as experimental, observational or qualitative studies

10. Line 159 – Table 3: Which software? Also in the final article, it would be important to provide details regarding the studies that were translated and included or excluded because translation was not possible.

11. Lines 172-175: You provide the search strategy for MEDLINE and mentioned that the search strategy was adapted for other included databases. Although it is not of common practice, it would be even more transparent and useful to other researchers who might want to replicate your study to provide all search strategies in supplementary materials (at least for the paper publication).

12. Lines 280-282: You mention that a “constructivist paradigmatic approach” will be used. Although you described why you would use it, I believe that readers would benefit from having a short description of what is a “constructivist paradigmatic approach”. Also, the reference 40 (Thomas & Harden 2008) does not describe this approach.

********** 

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: Yes: Simon Lafrance

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0293170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293170.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

3 Oct 2023

Please see attached rebuttal letter titled "response to reviewers" for our responses to all specific reviewer and editor comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: APP PSAT SMSR rebuttal letter PLOS ONE Sept 2023.docx

Click here for additional data file. (23.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Maher Abdelraheim Titi

9 Oct 2023

Patient satisfaction with advanced physiotherapy practice internationally: protocol for a systematic mixed studies review

PONE-D-23-21887R1

Dear Dr. Davis,

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,

Maher Abdelraheim Titi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

congratulations. The paper is suitable for publication.

You have done a good job with your revision.

Best regards.

Reviewer #2: The author adequately address my comments. The description of APP in the introduction (master or equivalency) is adequate, but I believe that these details should also be present in the method section (e.g., what do you consider as an equivalence, this could be added as a footnote). A reader that reads only the method section should be able to know clearly what is included in your review. Although I believe this should be clarified, I do not think the paper should go in another revision. The authors may decide or not to make corrections.

I think there is a mistake at line 166: "They" should be "He" ?

**********

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: Yes: Simon Lafrance

**********

Acceptance letter

Maher Abdelraheim Titi

12 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-21887R1

Patient satisfaction with advanced physiotherapy practice internationally:  protocol for a systematic mixed studies review

Dear Dr. Davis:

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. Maher Abdelraheim Titi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Adapted search strategies.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (20KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Completed PRISMA-P checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (27.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: APP PSAT SMSR rebuttal letter PLOS ONE Sept 2023.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (23.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES