PONE-D-19-34276

Exploratory study of factors influencing self-efficacy among psychiatric nurses

PLOS ONE

Dear Hironori Yada,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 2/4/2020. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Karen-Leigh Edward

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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: The research idea is interesting. However, the authors need to provide clear description in some parts of the manuscript.

1. The title need editing as does reflect the aim of the study I do suggest to read "Exploration of the factors that influence self-efficacy among psychiatric nurses"

2. The abstract seems incomplete.

The background and methods lacks some key information

Results are well presented through need some editing

The discussion need to discuss the key findings and avoid repletion of result presentations

The conclusion should be drawn in relationship to the aim of the study

Refences need to updated.

The details are prrovide insitu (in the manuscript).

Reviewer #2: It seems that the present manuscript present the results of a study related to development and psychometric assessment of psychiatric nurses self efficacy, but title and abstract does not convey this issue to readers. So it is suggested to revise title and abstract to be more informative about the topic. It is better to add some numerical findings of study in abstract too.

Introduction does not explain the importance of present research sufficiently. The other point which might need authors' consideration is that the preliminary version of the developed scale was not assessed using face and content validity.

In extracting the factors and identifying the number of factors, scree plot might be useful. discussion does not cover all aspects of findings, it is too brief. also in reporting the the results it is better to report the variance of self efficacy explained by this scale.

Conclusion is not provided based on present findings (line 192-195).

Reviewer #3: This article focuses on the group “psychiatric nurses”, is a very interesting topic. I have some suggestions:

1. Please explain how to calculate the sample size.

2. Please clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

3. Is the data collection completed in 2016? if so, does it can represent the current situation?

4. What is the marital status of the nurses? I think this could influence the self-efficacy among these nurses, more details about personal information is needed. It would be better to add a demographic table.

5. In line 69, what is the name of “The scale”? Does higher score mean better self-efficacy? It should be described in more detail.

6. The Measuring Instrument of GSES-J also should be described in more detail. Does higher score mean better self-efficacy?

7. InTable1, Item 2 appears twice, but the content is different. Please confirm it.

8. The logic and readability of the full text language need to be improved.

Reviewer #4: You mentioned that the purpose of the study was to identify the mental health of psychiatric nurses by exploring factors related to the self-efficacy of psychiatric nurses. However, there is a lack of logic about the relevance of self-efficiency and mental health of psychiatric nurses. The relationship between the mental health and self efficacy of psychiatric nurses should be described in the introduction part of manuscript in detail.

However, in the method and the results parts of the study, you implemented exploratory factor analysis to analyze the factors of the instrument consisting of 25 items that increase the sense of self-efficiency and 25 items that decrease the sense of self-efficacy. What is your purpose of the study?

Are you testing the reliability and validity of a tool that can measure the increase and decrease in psychiatric nurses' self-efficacy? I don’t know your study purposes.

There was no criteria for the sample size. 132 participants is not enough to make a exploratory factor analysis for 50 questions. Among the total 50 questions, only 25 questions remained. The deleting process of items was not described.

Moreover the correlation with the general self-efficiency scale was too low to show predictive validity.

Reviewer #5: Thank you for allowing me to review your study, Exploratory study of factors influencing self-efficacy among psychiatric nurses. It is important topic that needs further investigation because of the unique role of the psychiatric nurse. The study examined the responses from a survey consisting of 49 items used to explain self-efficacy. However, the GSES contained 23 items and it was not clear if this was also given to each participant. The abstracts states there were a total of 49 items.

The introduction needs to be revised beginning with the definition of Bandura’s self-efficacy and why this is in important concept for psychiatric nurses. Nursing is a stressful profession but the authors need to be more precise about how stress affects psychiatric nurses.

Some methodological issues- The authors state that the study was anonymous but the survey were collected by the nurse manger. It is unclear whether or not this person had access to the responses or who on their staff completed the survey. This design might have placed increased pressure on participants to complete the survey and needs to be explained in the paper how the researchers protected the data. In line 57 uses the term assistant nurse. The role of this person needs to be defined and included in the demographic table (table 1).

Table 1 should include the demographics of the sample and what type of facility the RNs worked in, e.g. academic center, community hospital, etc. This is an important table and the authors should consider what other items might need to be included.

Results-Surveys were completed from 147 but the results states 132. The authors need to explain this discrepancy.

An appendix with the survey would be helpful to the readers in analyzing the results.

In the statistical section there are some results regarding the analysis. This should be in the results section.

A figure with the factor loadings that were significant would help clarify the results. It is easy to become confused with the factor loading tables.

Discussion-The discussion should be revised to be stronger with the main outcome of the study –i.e. the important factors that impacted self-efficacy. This should be compared with other Japanese studies of nurses’ self-efficacy and how it is different, the same in this study.

The leading sentence in the discussion is confusing-This study aimed to clarify psychiatric nurses’ mental health by exploring the factors related to their self-efficacy. Do the authors really mean this study was designed to assess the mental health of psychiatric nurses?

The second sentence in the discussion should be expanded

Notably, the extracted factors were similar to the qualitatively extracted factors in previous studies. Explain what factors and what studies. This is probably the most important part of the paper and needs to very clear.

Clarification needed:

The number of missing answers in each item was 0–4, which we judged as small. (line 106).What does this mean?

This study have cross-sectional data; therefore, a longitudinal survey using a test-retest method is required (Line 188).

The authors need to correct all grammar errors and wrong tense of verbs-e.g. line 63 not . See above line 188 “have”.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries-(line 188). Explain what is the purpose of this organization. Scientists reading this from other countries might not know. Spelling of organization-both in the text and references.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-34276_reviewer TM.pdf

Exploration of the factors related to self-efficacy among psychiatric nurses

PONE-D-19-34276R1

Dear Dr. Yada,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Karen-Leigh Edward

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: