1. The authors claim training improves all three aspects (knowledge, attitude, practice), yet Table 5 shows knowledge scores between trained (15.09) and untrained (14.78) groups are NOT statistically significant (p=0.636). How do you justify this misinterpretation of your own data?
2. The conclusion states a need to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice, but Table 6 reports a non-significant correlation between knowledge and practice (r=0.107, p=0.166). On what basis do you claim a gap exists when no direct relationship was found?
3. In the discussion, you state medical doctors displaying greater knowledge levels than nurses, yet Table 5 shows MD vs RN knowledge difference (15.84 vs 14.65) with p=0.199, which is not statistically significant. Why are you reporting non-significant findings as if they were meaningful?
4. Table 4 presents place of death preferences with response percentages that sum to >100% for each row (e.g., home: 4.9% disagree + 15.4% undecided + 79.6% agree = 100.0%, which is fine, but the three locations are reported as independent questions allowing multiple agree responses. Did participants select only one preferred location, and if not, how do you interpret someone who agrees that hospital, home, AND hospice are all preferable?
5. The response rate is reported as 92.8% (168/181), but voluntary response sampling via email and social media typically cannot yield a valid response rate denominator since you cannot know how many received the invitation. How was the denominator of 181 determined when using Google Forms distributed through contacts?
