Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 10, 2021
Decision Letter - Ka Ming Chow, Editor

PONE-D-21-35623Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Perinatal Bereavement Care Confidence Scale (C-PBCCS) in nursing practicePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The translation and validation of an instrument to assess the perinatal bereavement care confidence of nurses and midwives is important to develop additional education and support for them to provide bereavement care for the patients. I have the following comments and suggestions for revision:

1. In Line 49, the symbol "~" should be revised to "-".

2. In Line 141, please add the meaning of higher scores indicating higher or lower confidence in the provision of bereavement care.

3. In Line 142, please add the reference.

4. in Line 149, the word "a nursing doctor student" should be "a nursing doctoral student".

5. In Line 160, the word "create the constructs" should be "measure the constructs".

6. in Line 171, the word "region" should be "religion".

7. In Line 232, the title of Table 1 should be "Socio-demographic information ......"

8. In Line 247, what's the meaning of "CR value"? Please provide more information.

9. In Line 285, "See Additional file 4" should be "See S4 File".

10. In Line 307, "See Additional file 4" should be "See S4 File".

11. In Line 346, S5 File is referred. What's the meaning of highlighted 4 items in S5 File? And there are two S5 Files are uploaded. Is there any difference between the two files?

12. In Line 477, please add the wording assessment tool "for" education.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 13 2022 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,

Ka Ming Chow

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.

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Line 64 Add emotionally before painful

Line 82; Low confidence is noted, but no citation to support this.

Line 149; change ‘nursing doctor student’ to doctoral nursing student

Line 160: Were the nursing experts excluded from the study?

Line 171 Update region to religion

Line 189-193: How was it identified who would be getting the survey from this website? The total participants who completed, is this the total number of individuals who are part of the WeChat? More clarification is needed in this area.

Line 226-227: A total of 750 midwives and nurses (is this the total number of WeChat participants?) Is WeChat only for maternity nurses?

Table 1 Education Level (can information be added to include years or equivalence to the United States educational pathways?)

Table 1 Personality~ Individuals self-selected introverted, neutral, and extroverted. Was a tool offered for individuals to complete to identify this? As self-selecting and completing of a tool may result in different outcomes.

Line 356 Nurses’ and midwives’ written, rather than the consistent order midwives and nurses throughout manuscript.

Line 360 Here you note recruited from 10 different areas. More information is needed to fully describe the connection between recruiting and WeChat use.

Line 400 update ‘items’ to ‘item’

This study is value added information for maternity healthcare providers. Families all over the world experience perinatal loss, and healthcare providers need the tools and confidence to provide care to these families. The translation and application of this tool to a variety of languages will enable educators and leaders to implement training and potentially simulation scenarios to further develop nurses’ ability to provide specific perinatal loss care to families.

**********

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: Dr. Sabrina Ehmke DNP, RNC-OB, NPD-BC, PHN

[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.

Revision 1

Response to academic editor:

General comment:

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. The translation and validation of an instrument to assess the perinatal bereavement care confidence of nurses and midwives is important to develop additional education and support for them to provide bereavement care for the patients.

Reply:

We appreciate the positive feedback from the editor. We would like to thank the editor for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our response follows (the reviewer’s comments are in italics).

Specific comments:

Comment 1:

In Line 49, the symbol "~" should be revised to "-".

Reply:

Thank you for the editor’s careful reviewing. The correction has been made as suggested. Please see line 49.

Comment 2:

In Line 141, please add the meaning of higher scores indicating higher or lower confidence in the provision of bereavement care.

Reply:

We have added the sentence “Higher scores indicate higher confidence in the provision of bereavement care ” in the revised manuscript. Please see line 142.

Comment 3:

In Line 142, please add the reference.

Reply:

As suggested, we have added the reference. Please see line 143.

Comment 4:

in Line 149, the word "a nursing doctor student" should be "a nursing doctoral student".

Reply:

The correction has been made.

Line 150: ‘a nursing doctor student’ -> ‘a nursing doctoral student’

Comment 5:

In Line 160, the word "create the constructs" should be "measure the constructs".

Reply:

The suggested correction has been made.

Line 161: ‘create the constructs’ -> ‘measure the constructs’

Comment 6:

in Line 171, the word "region" should be "religion".

Reply:

The suggested correction has been made.

Line 172: ‘region’-> ‘religion’

Comment 7:

In Line 232, the title of Table 1 should be "Socio-demographic information ......"

Reply:

The suggested correction has been made. Please see line 239.

Comment 8:

In Line 247, what's the meaning of "CR value"? Please provide more information.

Reply:

We have added a description of the meaning of CR value. Please see line 254. The text now reads:

‘CR value was calculated to determine each item’s degree of discrimination (values above 3.0 were desirable).’

Comment 9:

In Line 285, "See Additional file 4" should be "See S4 File".

Reply:

The suggested correction has been made.

Line 294: ‘See Additional file 4’-> ‘See S4 File’

Comment 10:

In Line 307, "See Additional file 4" should be "See S4 File".

Reply:

The suggested correction has been made.

Line 316: ‘See Additional file 4’-> ‘See S4 File’

Comment 11:

In Line 346, S5 File is referred. What's the meaning of highlighted 4 items in S5 File? And there are two S5 Files are uploaded. Is there any difference between the two files?

Reply:

Highlighted 4 items had the lowest scores on the four scales. We described these four items in the Discussion. Please see line 440-446.

We are sorry that we mistakenly uploaded two S5. We only have one S5 File in our study.

Comment 12:

In Line 477, please add the wording assessment tool "for" education.

Reply:

The suggested correction has been made. Please see line 486.

Response to Review #1:

Comment 1:

Line 64 Add emotionally before painful

Reply:

Thank you for the reviewer’s careful reviewing. We have added ‘emotionally’ before ‘painful’. Please see line 64.

Comment 2:

Line 82; Low confidence is noted, but no citation to support this.

Reply:

As suggested, we have added three relevant references to support it. Please see line 83.

Comment 3:

Line 149; change ‘nursing doctor student’ to doctoral nursing student

Reply:

The correction has been made.

Line 150: ‘a nursing doctor student’ -> ‘a nursing doctoral student’

Comment 4:

Line 160: Were the nursing experts excluded from the study?

Reply:

We included nurses and midwives with different education level, job title and length of work experience. Therefore, nursing professionals with rich clinical experience as well as young nurses were all included in this study.

Comment 5:

Line 171 Update region to religion

Reply:

The suggested correction has been made.

Line 172: ‘region’-> ‘religion’

Comment 6:

Line 189-193: How was it identified who would be getting the survey from this website? The total participants who completed, is this the total number of individuals who are part of the WeChat? More clarification is needed in this area.

Reply:

Thank you for the reviewer’s valuable comment. The head nurses were responsible for distributing questionnaires to midwives and nurses who met the eligibility requirements.

All the participants completed the questionnaire through WeChat. A total of 750 questionnaires were distributed in this study; of them, 142 were excluded due to obviously irregular answers. Finally, 608 valid questionnaires were recovered.

We have revised the section of “Data collection” to give more information. Please see line 189-199.

Comment 7:

Line 226-227: A total of 750 midwives and nurses (is this the total number of WeChat participants?) Is WeChat only for maternity nurses?

Reply:

Line 232-234: A convenience sample of 750 midwives and nurses completed the survey through WeChat; of them, 142 were excluded due to obviously irregular answers. Finally, 608 valid questionnaires were recovered, resulting in a response rate of 81%.

WeChat was not only for maternity nurses. The link of the questionnaire were sent to midwives and nurses working in the maternity ward or delivery room using WeChat.

Comment 8:

Table 1 Education Level (can information be added to include years or equivalence to the United States educational pathways?)

Reply:

Thank you for the reviewer’s comment. Given that this survey was conducted in mainland China, we collected information of education level according to Chinese educational pathways. Therefore, we could not add information to include years or equivalence to the United States educational pathways.

Comment 9:

Table 1 Personality~ Individuals self-selected introverted, neutral, and extroverted. Was a tool offered for individuals to complete to identify this? As self-selecting and completing of a tool may result in different outcomes.

Reply:

Thank you for the reviewer’s helpful comment. In this study, we just wanted to have a general idea about midwives’ and nurses’ personality and it was not the research emphasis of our study. Therefore, we did not use a tool for personality identification. Participants chose the personality based on their subjective judgments.

Comment 10:

Line 356 Nurses’ and midwives’ written, rather than the consistent order midwives and nurses throughout manuscript.

Reply:

The correction has been made as suggested.

Line 364: Nurses’ and midwives’-> midwives’ and nurses’

Comment 11:

Line 360 Here you note recruited from 10 different areas. More information is needed to fully describe the connection between recruiting and WeChat use.

Reply:

The advantage of WeChat use in the recruitment has been added. Please see line 369. The text now reads:

‘The use of WeChat for data collection made up the limitation of space so that we could include midwives and nurses of diverse backgrounds. ’

Comment 12:

Line 400 update ‘items’ to ‘item’

Reply:

The suggested correction has been made.

Line 409: ‘items’-> ‘item’

General comment:

This study is value added information for maternity healthcare providers. Families all over the world experience perinatal loss, and healthcare providers need the tools and confidence to provide care to these families. The translation and application of this tool to a variety of languages will enable educators and leaders to implement training and potentially simulation scenarios to further develop nurses’ ability to provide specific perinatal loss care to families.

Reply:

We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer. We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Ka Ming Chow, Editor

PONE-D-21-35623R1Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Perinatal Bereavement Care Confidence Scale (C-PBCCS) in nursing practicePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:The authors have revised the manuscript and addressed most comments from the reviewers. Two minor comments are provided for further improve the quality of the manuscript: 1. In Table 1, personality of the participants was reported. How to categorise the participants into three different personalities? Which instrument was adopted for assessment? What's the significance of this data to the results?2. Some grammatical errors which affect the clarity, especially the revised and newly added parts.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 18 January 2022. 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,

Ka Ming Chow

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

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.

Revision 2

Response to academic editor

Specific comments:

Comment 1:

In Table 1, personality of the participants was reported. How to categorise the participants into three different personalities? Which instrument was adopted for assessment? What's the significance of this data to the results?

Reply:

Thank you for the editor’s valuable comment. We did not use an instrument to assess participants’ personality. Participants chose personality according to their subjective judgements. Given that participants’ personality has little relation with the results in our study, we have removed it from Table 1 to avoid ambiguity. Please see Table 1.

Comment 2:

Some grammatical errors which affect the clarity, especially the revised and newly added parts.

Reply:

Thank you for the editor’s careful reviewing. We have invited two native speakers to polish the revised manuscript. Some grammatical errors have been corrected.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Ka Ming Chow, Editor

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Perinatal Bereavement Care Confidence Scale (C-PBCCS) in nursing practice

PONE-D-21-35623R2

Dear Dr. Yu,

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,

Ka Ming Chow

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ka Ming Chow, Editor

PONE-D-21-35623R2

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Perinatal Bereavement Care Confidence Scale (C-PBCCS) in nursing practice

Dear Dr. Yu:

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. Ka Ming Chow

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .