Relationship between emotional labor and sense of career success among community nurses in China, Beijing: A cross-sectional study based on latent class analysis

Fengping Han; Aihua Li; Dongmei Zhang; Lanting Lv; Qian Li; Jing Sun

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268188

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 26, 2021
25 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Petri Böckerman, Editor PONE-D-21-39368Relationship between emotional labor and sense of career success among community nurses in China, Beijing: a study based on latent class analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sun, 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. The revised version should address all comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 11 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, Petri Böckerman 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). 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. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: 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: Comments General comment The Manuscript is interesting and contributes a lot for better patient care Abstract Background: You should clearly state the research problem (Much better). The author starts with the research objective Why this topic What is the problem? Method: Better to indicate your research design Conclusion: Mention the major finding, then continue with your recommendation. Result Associate degree not clear try to clarify Technical secondary school or below what does this mean? The participants were community nurses, Explain how community nurses were recruited in your area somewhere in the methodology OR what is community nurses? What is their educational level in your setup? Discussion and conclusion Too long with unclear explanation Try to choose major findings and discuss them by comparing them with the literature together with your assumption. The manuscript should answer “So what” What is the take-home message? The manuscript has many terminologies which is difficult for readers, so better to have some operational definition. Reviewer #2: Dear authors your study 'Relationship between emotional labor and sense of career success among community nurses in China, Beijing: a study based on latent class analysis' was well done study. Add the caption to the figure on page 27. ****** 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: Yes:** Mohammed Hasen Badeso [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.0268188.r001
Revision 1
7 Apr 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Dear Reviewers, On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Relationship between emotional labor and sense of career success among community nurses in China, Beijing: a study based on latent class analysis” (PONE-D-21-54188). The revised version of our manuscript has been modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. The following is a point-to-point response to the editors’ and reviewers’ comments. Reviewer #1: Comments Background: You should clearly state the research problem (Much better). The author starts with the research objective. The research problem of our study is “The potential categories of community nurses’ emotional labor and related factors”. We made it clear in the Introduction part. Why this topic We chose emotional labor as the study topic because excessive emotional labor can cause physical and mental health problems, job stress, burnout, et al. Although emotional labor is an important part of nursing practice, it is usually invisible, neglected and under estimated. So, this topic remains to be investigated. We made it clear in the Introduction part. What is the problem The problem is “what is the level and the internal characteristics of emotional labor of community nurses and its related factors”. We made it clear in the Introduction part. Method: Better to indicate your research design We added research design in the Method part of the manuscript, including inclusion criteria, sampling methods and distributing and retrieving questionnaires procedure, et al. Conclusion: Mention the major finding, then continue with your recommendation. We abbreviated the Conclusion part and leaving the major finding of the study. Result Associate degree not clear try to clarify. We revised the associate degree referred to the literature that used the same grouping method, and revised the Table 1. Hoping more clearly this time. Technical secondary school or below what does this mean? The meaning of “the technical secondary school or below” means nurses graduated from the secondary vocational school. The participants were community nurses. Explain how community nurses were recruited in your area somewhere in the methodology OR what is community nurses? We added related information in the Method part to explain the criteria of the community nursing in China and how we recruited them. Community nurse in China are nurses (with the nurse’s certificate) who pass the community nurse on-the-job training prescribed by health administrative department of province or city and working in the community health institution. Based on the principle of convenient cluster sampling, 11 community health service institutions in Beijing were selected. And community nurses in the 11 community health service institutions were potential participator of the study. What is their educational level in your setup? The education level of the community nurses in our setup was revised in the Result part: 5.7%graduate from secondary vocational schools, 49.1%participants had an associate degree, 45.2% has a bachelor’s degree or above. Discussion and conclusion Too long with unclear explanation. Try to choose major findings and discuss them by comparing them with the literature together with your assumption. We rewrote the Discussion part and made it clearer. And only the main findings were retained and we discussed our assumption by comparing with the related literature. The manuscript should answer “So what”. Yes, we rewrote the Discussion part of the manuscript and emphasized the scientific and practical significance of this study. What is the take-home message? The discussion section was rewritten to delete the long and irrelevant content, highlight the research focus, and reflect the key information. The manuscript has many terminologies which is difficult for readers, so better to have some operational definition. We added operation definition or explanations of the terminologies in the revised version and hope it easier to be understood. Reviewer #2: Dear authors mine study 'Relationship between emotional labor and sense of career success among community nurses in China, Beijing: a study based on latent class analyses was well done study. Add the caption to the figure on page 5418. We added the caption of the Figure in the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268188.r002
25 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Petri Böckerman, Editor Relationship between emotional labor and sense of career success among community nurses in China, Beijing: a study based on latent class analysis PONE-D-21-39368R1 Dear Dr. Sun, 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, Petri Böckerman Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #2: 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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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: All comments have been addressed The author carefully considered all comments and incorporated all appropriately. Thank you for considering my comment Reviewer #2: Very Good. Well organized manuscript. You Revised the manuscript as per the comments and all comments were addressed. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268188.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Apr 2022 Acceptance Letter - Petri Böckerman, Editor PONE-D-21-39368R1 Relationship between emotional labor and sense of career success among community nurses in China, Beijing: a cross-sectional study based on latent class analysis Dear Dr. Sun: 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 Petri Böckerman Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268188.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 .