PONE-D-20-18345

Effects of nurses’ shiftwork characteristics and aspects of private life on work-life conflict

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oh,

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 17 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.

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 Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

4. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 authors investigate the effects of nurses' shiftwork schedules on their work-life balance.

It 's an interesting work that addresses a current and unresolved issue, i.e. the balancing of workers' health and well-being, hospitals' organization and inpatients' needs.

I have some suggestions and requests for minor revisions:

1) introduction:

- authors states that adjusting work schedules can be a solution to improve.... I suggest to enphazyze that in particular changes of the shift-patterns may make the difference (cite Wilson JL. Nurs. Manag. 2002, 10. 211-219; Barton J et al. Occup. Envirom. Med. 1994, 51, 749-755, and Shiffer D et al Int. J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Sep 18;15(9):2038. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15092038h) these same citations should be mentioned throughout the discussion when appropriate

- typos: children and time spent (not spend) on domestic...

- state more clearly the aim of the study at the end of introduction

2) variables and ...

- you mention figure 1 that I can't see

3) discussion

- the first sentence is not clear, please rephrase

- in England, ....it is an examples

- add some thoughts about the increased cv risk due to shifts, work-life conflicts, the impact of such conflicts on worse patients' care

- try to put the results in perspectives

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this article, titled “Effects of nurses’ shiftwork characteristics and aspects of private life on work-life conflict.” This is an overall well-written paper. However, I think it could be a better article with a few modifications, so I'll give you some opinions.

My suggestions for revision are:

1. Results

Please check the number in the first sentence. 217? 271? Which one is correct?

2. Discussion

What does 2.02 mean in the first sentence? Please clarify the meaning.

3. Conclusion

It is good to articulate your findings, but it doesn't seem necessary to repeat them in your conclusions. Your implications are seen as the strength of this paper. At the end of the discussion, describe the strengths and limitations of this paper. In the conclusion, the implications will be described, but based on the results of this study, please describe in more detail the direction of plans and policies for improving nursing environments that the authors want to propose.

Thank you for your writing a good paper.

Reviewer #3: 1. The manuscript is technically sound and well prepared. The results support the conclusion

2. Statistical analysis is performed appropriately as per the objectives of the study

3. Data collection scales are made available whereas all data underlying the findings in the manuscript is not fully

available.

4. Manuscript is well written, however there are few errors noted which needs to be rectified. Comments are given in

the manuscript.

5.

• Setting and sample: Author has mentioned that the data collection was done from 4 hospitals.

There could be mention about the type of the hospital (tertiary care hospitals).

• Sampling techniques adopted for the study is not mentioned. As the study was multicentric what proportion of nurses

were selected from each of the hospital need to be mentioned. Did the samples represent from all four hospitals

needs to be mentioned.

• The sample size calculation needs to be mentioned.

• Data collection: The study includes shift nurses working in the specified areas of the four hospitals as mentioned under the setting and sample section, whereas under data collection it is mentioned that 'Nurse manager’ and nurse’ surveys were conducted'. There is no data presented on the nurse managers. The reason for conducting survey among nurse managers to be specified.

• There is mention on approval for IRB but process of taking informed consent from the participants needs to be included.

• As the study aims to find the shift work schedule, the reader has no information on the shift timing across the hospitals in the country. This could be included.

• Variables and instruments: All the instruments need to be described including the scoring and interpretation. Eg work-life conflict scale needs mention on number of items in the scale and interpretation.

• Results: Results are presented as per the objectives. There were few errors noted needs to be rectified.

• Discussion: Compared the results with the previous study. Directs to draw the conclusions.

• Conclusion: Limitations of the study needs to be mentioned.

Reviewer #4: Indeed, this study is a worth study in measuring the nurses’ shift work characteristics and aspects of private life on work-life conflict.

I would like to suggest the following recommendations to improve the scientific rigor of the study.

1. Mention the appropriate sample size calculation formula used to calculate sample size.

2. In the study it is mentioned that samples were selected based on their willingness other than that have you used any inclusion and exclusion criteria for sample selection.

3. Mention the sampling method.

4. The authors made a good attempt to describe the variables, instruments and their validity.

5. The discussion part appears to be confused, please try to organise the discussion part same as that of the results, by including more studies.

6. Mention the strength and weakness of your study.

7. Try to include the limitations.

8. Write the conclusion properly.

9. Do a language editing.

**********

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: Yes: Laura Adelaide Dalla Vecchia

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Dr Shejila Chillakunnel Hussain Rawther

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-18345_reviewered.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments to the author.docx

Effects of nurses’ shiftwork characteristics and aspects of private life on work-life conflict

PONE-D-20-18345R1

Dear Dr. Oh,

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,

Ritesh G. Menezes, M.B.B.S., M.D., Diplomate N.B.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Author has incorporated the suggestions given and has thoroughly revised the manuscript. Details on sampling technique, obtaining consent and data collection method is given. Limitations of the study are included.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes: Laura Adelaide Dalla Vecchia

Reviewer #3: Yes: Prima Jenevive Jyothi D'Souza

Reviewer #4: Yes: Shejila C Rawther