A cross-sectional survey of burnout in a sample of resident physicians in Sudan

Yasir Ahmed Mohammed Elhadi; Abdelmuniem Ahmed; Elhadi B. Salih; Osman S. Abdelhamed; Mohamed Hayder Hamid Ahmed; Noha Ahmed El Dabbah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265098

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 27, 2021
14 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Mehmet Serkan Kirgiz, Editor PONE-D-21-37637A cross-sectional survey of burnout in a sample of resident physicians in SudanPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Elhadi, 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 Mar 31 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, Mehmet Serkan Kirgiz 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. Additional Editor Comments: To guide you, I have attached the comments of reviewers. After revising the paper to the comments, the author should resubmit it to the Plos One. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: No ****** 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 rate of encountering psychiatric problems such as burnout syndrome and depersonalization is increasing day by day among doctors all over the world, especially since residents are under intense stress in busy working environments. Reviewer #2: General Comments: Language needs editing. Please check for sentences that are repeated more than once. Specific comments: Abstract: - Add detailed data about the participants. - The results need more details. - The conclusion does not support the findings. It should be precise and concise. Add the future directions. Introduction: - Define "Burnout syndrome" in detail. - Explain the measured variables. - You have to focus more on the rationale of the study. What is already known and what will you add to the knowledge. - Add a clear hypothesis. Methods: - How and who administrates the data collection? - How did you achieve the validity and reliability of the outcome measures? - Please, reframe the components (SPICES) for methods i. Study design, setting, sample size ii. Participant iii. Intervention/issue of interest (exposure) iv. Comparison v. Ethics and endpoint vi. Statistical analysis - What were the eligibility criteria for participants? - How was the sample size determined? Discussion: - Introductory paragraph should include the main findings of the study. - This section needs to be put in the line with objectives and hypotheses. - Discuss and compare your findings with similar previous studies. - Explain more the implications and strengths of the study. - Explain the limitations of the study in detail. The main limitation of the study design is not demonstrated. Conclusion: - The conclusion should be precise and concise. Add the future directions. References: - Many references are very old. You have to update the references published within the last 5 years. ****** 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: Turgay Dağtekin Reviewer #2: Yes:** Walid Kamal Abdelbasset [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265098.r001
Revision 1
21 Feb 2022 Author Response Dear Prof Emily Chenette Editor-in-Chief of Plos One, And Mehmet Serkan Kirgiz Academic Editor Plos One, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled [A cross-sectional survey of burnout in a sample of resident physicians in Sudan]. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to the editors’ reviewers’ comments and concerns. Editor’s comments and journal requirements 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Dear Editor, the revised manuscript has been formatted to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements. 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. Response: Data was uploaded to and shared publicly. Data Availability statement was updated to “The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the following DOI link: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19184831” 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 Response: The references list was revised according to the editors’ and reviewers comments, references no 1, 3, 19, and 44 in the original submission were removed and updated. All changes were highlighted in the track-changes version. Reviewers’ Comments First: General Comments Language needs editing. Please check for sentences that are repeated more than once. Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, after addressing all reviewer’s concerns, we have sent the manuscript to the language editing and proofreading service, and duplicated parts were removed. Second: Specific comments A- Comments related to the Abstract: • Add detailed data about the participants. • The results need more details. • The conclusion does not support the findings. It should be precise and concise. Add the future directions. Response: We agree with these remarks, we have revised the Abstract part to include more details about the study participants and future directions for policymakers and areas of further studies. All changes were highlighted. B- Comments related to the Introduction: • Define "Burnout syndrome" in detail. • Explain the measured variables. • You have to focus more on the rationale of the study. What is already known and what will you add to the knowledge. • Add a clear hypothesis. Response: Thank you for these comments, we have revised the Introduction part according to the reviewers’ comments. All new parts inserted on page 2 lines 54-59 and page 4 lines 90-95, were highlighted within the revised version of the manuscript. C- Comments related to the Methods: • How and who administrates the data collection? • How did you achieve the validity and reliability of the outcome measures? • Please, reframe the components (SPICES) for methods i. Study design, setting, sample size ii. Participant iii. Intervention/issue of interest (exposure) iv. Comparison v. Ethics and endpoint vi. Statistical analysis • What were the eligibility criteria for participants? • How was the sample size determined? Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions to improve the presentation of our work, we agree with most of these remarks. We have provided the required details and revised the Methods part according to the reviewers’ comments. Because the size of the study population (resident physicians at Wad Madani in Gezira state hospitals) was relatively small, we approached and invited members of the target population. We clearly defined the study population instead of sampling in the Methods section. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the MBI-HSS in this study was 0.79 suggesting a high internal consistency of the MBI subscale. The changes were highlighted within the Track-changes version of the Manuscript. D- Comments related to the Discussion: • Introductory paragraph should include the main findings of the study. • This section needs to be put in the line with objectives and hypotheses. • Discuss and compare your findings with similar previous studies. • Explain more the implications and strengths of the study. • Explain the limitations of the study in detail. The main limitation of the study design is not demonstrated. Response: We appreciate your kind comments to improve the presentation of our work, we agree with these suggestions. We have provided the required details and revised the Discussion part according to the reviewers’ comments. The changes on page 13 lines 218-223 and page 14 lines 260-267, were highlighted within the track-changes version of the Manuscript. We elaborated more on the strength and limitations of the study. E- Comments related to Conclusion : • The conclusion should be precise and concise. Add the future directions. Response: We have updated the conclusion part according to the reviewer’s comment. F- Comments related to References: • Many references are very old. You have to update the references published within the last 5 years. Response: In this study, we performed an online data search to compare burnout rates between resident physicians in Sudan and other countries. We searched the PubMed database for similar cross-specialty studies of burnout among resident physicians published between 2000-2021. Other than these citations, old references were removed and updated. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265098.r002
23 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Mehmet Serkan Kirgiz, Editor A cross-sectional survey of burnout in a sample of resident physicians in Sudan PONE-D-21-37637R1 Dear Dr. Elhadi, 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, Prof. Dr. Mehmet Serkan Kirgiz Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265098.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Feb 2022 Acceptance Letter - Mehmet Serkan Kirgiz, Editor PONE-D-21-37637R1 A cross-sectional survey of burnout in a sample of resident physicians in Sudan Dear Dr. Elhadi: 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 Professor Dr. Mehmet Serkan Kirgiz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265098.r004

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 .