Social support and professional networks of nurses and nursing technicians in coping with Covid-19: A sectional study in two Brazilian cities

Helena Maria Scherloski Leal David; Maria Rocineide Ferreira da Silva; Magda Guimarães de Araújo Faria; Tarciso Feijó da Silva; Tatiana Cabral da Silva Ramos; Marcus Vinicius Pereira-Silva

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280357

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 3, 2021
25 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - José S. Andrade Jr., Editor PONE-D-21-24493Social support and professional networks of nurses and nursing technicians in coping with Covid-19: a sectional study in two Brazilian citiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. David, 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 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, José S. Andrade Jr. 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 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. We note that you have reported significance probabilities of 0 in places. Since p=0 is not strictly possible, please correct this to a more appropriate limit, eg 'p<0.0001'. 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file). [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: 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: I have appreciated the manuscript and I think the following points must be clarified/improved: 1. The authors could double check the structural and grammar aspects in the following sentences: “Networks can, in terms of homogeneity and reciprocity between their actors, be classified as type-1 (total network) or mode-2.” and “It’s an observational and cross-sectional research, based on the social network analysis methodology, using an online data collection instrument.” 2. The authors state that “The study of social networks began in the 1930s within the scope of the social sciences.” and “The concept of social support is widely disseminated and studied by the scientific community.” These statements should be referenced. 3. The authors should be clear to all readers, not only those from Social Science. Therefore, I suggest that they introduce the nomenclature used by social scientists, physicists, and mathematicians in the studying of social networks at the beginning and adopt only one throughout the manuscript. For example, the authors state that “The former exists when the actors (nodes) who mention other actors (also called links or alters) are part of the same network, in a square matrix.” Links are edges (ties) for Physicists. The authors should avoid this kind of problem. 4. It is imperative that the authors include a didactic figure explaining their model precisely. Further, I think the authors could emphasize that their model is a bipartite network at the beginning, not only at the ending. 5. I think the Social Network Analysis performed was quite superficial. There are no histograms or scatter plots of any kind, there is only 1 table and 4 figures (which could be combined into a single panel). Further, the quality of all figures is very low. The authors should improve their analysis. 6. Why are the results not biased due to the chosen sample of participants (only nurses and nursing technicians)? For example, if the questionnaire was applied to janitors, I believe the result would be the janitors care more about the health of other janitors. The authors must clarify this point. 7. Finally, I think the authors overlooked some interesting papers related to their research topic, for example: - https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15307 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-020-00643-9 - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173476v1 - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21257245v1 Reviewer #2: Examining social support and professional networks of nurses and nurse technicians during COVID is a timely undertaking, the report of which is the focus of this manuscript. While interesting, there are areas where more information or clarification are needed. These are address below. General comment: The manuscript would benefit from editorial review, as there are incomplete or confusing sentences throughout the manuscript. Introduction: Please make clear the gap being addressed by this study as there has been considerable information published about the nurse’s experience during COVID. In addition, 2nd line of 1st paragraph – not certain “control” is the most appropriate word. Would think perhaps “care of infected persons” might be more appropriate. Research question: Seems focus was on two types of nurse: nurses with baccalaureate and nurse technicians. Suggest rewording RQ. “ What are the social networks of nurses and nurse technicians during COVID?” or something to make it clear you are simply describing social networks of two different nurse types. If you intended to compare, then that should be included in the RQ. Social Networks: Thank you for including this information. 3rd paragraph in this section: one sentence paragraph – not certain the purpose of this information. Mention is made of SNA studies but no references are provided contributing to a lack of clarity. Social support at work: Please clarify who provides the assistance and protection to professionals. Perhaps this information could be combined with the previous discussion on social support – with greater emphasis on findings. Also please consider including more than one citation when using phrases such as “several studies.” Methods: Believe you can use subheadings – which would be very helpful to the reader. Design: suggest using cross-sectional only as that design is one type of observational design. Please include more discussion about the social network analysis methodology. In fact, consider a subheading of data analysis – this would be the place to discuss SNA in greater depth. Describe how the list was developed, based on the literature?? Consider a subheading for participants that provides inclusion criteria, desired number of participants, rationale for two different clinical settings and sites, who approached them to invite them, where were they approached, etc. Were any demographic data collected about the participants? If so please indicate and then describe under findings. Including a subheading called “data analysis” would strengthen the manuscript and could include the discussion of centrality metrics. Make clear these metrics are the key to SNA. Also include the type of analysis performed – descriptive statistics? Research Ethics: The statement that is made implies IRB was obtained for a previous study, not this one. Please clarify and if possible, provide the IRB reference number. Results: Please note phraseology in the first sentence. Should be reordered as something is presented in a table, not a table presenting something – this is a common mistake . However, please consider revising the tables to reflect a clear purpose. Provide sample number- consider only including the top five and bottom five social networks. Somehow, the numbers included in the table need to discussed better. For example, Table 1, Nurse has 0.905 for Degree – but it is not clear what this number means. Is it the mean, total score? Some goes for Table 2. In addition, please be consistent in presenting findings: Nurses first, followed by nurse technicians. Note that differences are references when discussing proximity scores but differences was not mentioned in the research question. Consider a paragraph at the end of findings that clearly states the conclusions drawn from the findings. This could be the first paragraph of Discussion instead – what is important is that the reader needs to be clear about what conclusions can be drawn for these data. For example, is it possible nurses and nurse technicians have similar social networks? 3rd paragraph – support the first sentence with citations. Moreover, if social support has been addressed in Brazilian literature, make clear the contribution being made by this study. Conclusion: The term “informal” is introduced – do not recall seeing the term earlier in the paper. Was this the focus of the study – if so, please make clear from the outset. Please address limitations associated with the study and make clear the implications. What do findings mean for nurses and technicians? References: Several references are in a language other the English, making retrieval and understanding of the work inaccessible to an international audience. Please consider replacing with other references. Figures – please provide legends to help the reader understand information being presented. Hope comments help. ****** 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 [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.0280357.r001
Revision 1
30 Mar 2022 Author Response Reviewer 1 1. The authors could double check the structural and grammar aspects in the following sentences: “Networks can, in terms of homogeneity and reciprocity between their actors, be classified as type-1 (total network) or mode-2.” and “It’s an observational and cross-sectional research, based on the social network analysis methodology, using an online data collection instrument.” The entire text was submitted to English proofreading. 2. The authors state that “The study of social networks began in the 1930s within the scope of the social sciences.” and “The concept of social support is widely disseminated and studied by the scientific community.” These statements should be referenced. We included the corresponding references. 3. The authors should be clear to all readers, not only those from Social Science. Therefore, I suggest that they introduce the nomenclature used by social scientists, physicists, and mathematicians in the studying of social networks at the beginning and adopt only one throughout the manuscript. For example, the authors state that “The former exists when the actors (nodes) who mention other actors (also called links or alters) are part of the same network, in a square matrix.” Links are edges (ties) for Physicists. The authors should avoid this kind of problem. We used the most common nomenclature adopted in Social Network Analysis, and attempted to make it more intelligible. 4. It is imperative that the authors include a didactic figure explaining their model precisely. Further, I think the authors could emphasize that their model is a bipartite network at the beginning, not only at the ending. We included a didactic frame summarizing the research model (Frame 1). 5. I think the Social Network Analysis performed was quite superficial. There are no histograms or scatter plots of any kind, there is only 1 table and 4 figures (which could be combined into a single panel). Further, the quality of all figures is very low. The authors should improve their analysis. This SNA study was based on egocentric networks. Sociograms are usually the only graphic representation employed. The four sociograms were organized in one unique figure (Figure 1). Figure met the author’s guide requirements regarding the quality of images. 6. Why are the results not biased due to the chosen sample of participants (only nurses and nursing technicians)? For example, if the questionnaire was applied to janitors, I believe the result would be the janitors care more about the health of other janitors. The authors must clarify this point. The research was focused on social relationships between each professional (ego) and other professionals according to their position/category. Each respondent could choose any one of the presented categories. A paragraph was inserted in the final part of the Discussion section, where we comment on this potential bias limitation. Reviewer 2 General comment: The manuscript would benefit from editorial review, as there are incomplete or confusing sentences throughout the manuscript. Introduction: Please make clear the gap being addressed by this study as there has been considerable information published about the nurse’s experience during COVID. In addition, 2nd line of 1st paragraph – not certain “control” is the most appropriate word. We included the lack of studies of this type during the pandemic, and changed the verb "control". Research question: Seems focus was on two types of nurse: nurses with baccalaureate and nurse technicians. Suggest rewording RQ. “ What are the social networks of nurses and nurse technicians during COVID?” or something to make it clear you are simply describing social networks of two different nurse types. If you intended to compare, then that should be included in the RQ. We changed the RQ. Social Networks: 3rd paragraph in this section: one sentence paragraph – not certain the purpose of this information. Mention is made of SNA studies but no references are provided contributing to a lack of clarity. We included the corresponding references. Social support at work: Please clarify who provides the assistance and protection to professionals. Perhaps this information could be combined with the previous discussion on social support – with greater emphasis on findings. Also please consider including more than one citation when using phrases such as “several studies.” We merged the two topics (social networks and social support) into one and we corrected the phrases. Methods: Believe you can use subheadings – which would be very helpful to the reader. Design: suggest using cross-sectional onlyas that design is one type of observational design. Please include more discussion about the social network analysis methodology. In fact, consider a subheading of data analysis – this would be the place to discuss SNA in greater depth. Describe how the list was developed, based on the literature?? Consider a subheading for participants that provides inclusion criteria, desired number of participants, rationale for two different clinical settings and sites, who approached them to invite them, where were they approached, etc. Were any demographic data collected about the participants? If so please indicate and then describe under findings. Including a subheading called “data analysis” would strengthen the manuscript and could include the discussion of centrality metrics. Make clear these metrics are the key to SNA. Also include the type of analysis performed – descriptive statistics? Research Ethics: The statement that is made implies IRB was obtained for a previous study, not this one. Please clarify and if possible, provide the IRB reference number. The Methods section was expanded and reorganized. We also added detailed information on the statistical methods. Results: Please note phraseology in the first sentence. Should be reordered as something is presented in a table, not a table presenting something – this is a common mistake . However, please consider revising the tables to reflect a clear purpose. Provide sample number- consider only including the top five and bottom five social networks. Somehow, the numbers included in the table need to discussed better. For example, Table 1, Nurse has 0.905 for Degree – but it is not clear what this number means. Is it the mean, total score? Some goes for Table 2. In addition, please be consistent in presenting findings: Nurses first, followed by nurse technicians. Note that differences are references when discussing proximity scores but differences was not mentioned in the research question. Consider a paragraph at the end of findings that clearly states the conclusions drawn from the findings. This could be the first paragraph of Discussion instead – what is important is that the reader needs to be clear about what conclusions can be drawn for these data. For example, is it possible nurses and nurse technicians have similar social networks? 3rd paragraph – support the first sentence with citations. Moreover, if social support has been addressed in Brazilian literature, make clear the contribution being made by this study. We improved the phraseology and provided the English language proofreading of the manuscript. The centrality measures results are commented both in the Results and Discussion sections. Conclusion: The term “informal” is introduced – do not recall seeing the term earlier in the paper. Was this the focus of the study – if so, please make clear from the outset. Please address limitations associated with the study and make clear the implications. What do findings mean for nurses and technicians? References: Several references are in a language other the English, making retrieval and understanding of the work inaccessible to an international audience. Please consider replacing with other references. Figures – please provide legends to help the reader understand information being presented. We included a comment about "informal relationships" in the Discussion section. English language was improved and we provided figures’ captions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Author responses 21 March 2022.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280357.r002
27 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - José S. Andrade Jr., Editor PONE-D-21-24493R1Social support and professional networks of nurses and nursing technicians in coping with Covid-19: a sectional study in two Brazilian citiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. David, 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. Before the manuscript gets accepted for publication, please answer carefully the remarks raised by the Reviewer #2 related to the item 6, namely, the "Review Comments to the Author" which follows in the report below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 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, José S. Andrade Jr. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ******** 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: No ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Authors are to be commended for addressing reviewer concerns. As sometimes happen, when one set of issues is addressed others become apparent. Please clarify the following: 1. Page 6; last paragraph: who provides the social support to professionals? 2. Network data and collection: Information in this section needs to be re-orgranized. Suggest subheadings of Setting and Sample - two separate headings. Combine all the sample information into one section and make clear whether a desired number of participants was needed. Expand on how the sample was recruited - blast email to employees? word of mouth? 3. Instrument: Please provide more information about the questions asked - did anyone review them for validity? 4. Page 10: Human Research Ethics Committee: Information presented here makes this reviewer question whether the current study is secondary analysis of another larger study - please clarify. ****** 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 [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.0280357.r003
Revision 2
31 May 2022 Author Response Response to the Reviewer 2 1. Page 6; last paragraph: who provides the social support to professionals? R – We provided the requested information. 2. Network data and collection: Information in this section needs to be re-orgranized. Suggest subheadings of Setting and Sample - two separate headings. Combine all the sample information into one section and make clear whether a desired number of participants was needed. Expand on how the sample was recruited - blast email to employees? word of mouth? R – The section was reorganized. We added the requested information about sample size and recruiting. 3. Instrument: Please provide more information about the questions asked - did anyone review them for validity? R – We added information about validity. 4. Page 10: Human Research Ethics Committee: Information presented here makes this reviewer question whether the current study is secondary analysis of another larger study - please clarify. R – We clarified this item. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewer 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280357.r004
1 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza, Editor PONE-D-21-24493R2Social support and professional networks of nurses and nursing technicians in coping with Covid-19: a sectional study in two Brazilian citiesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. David, 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 16 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, Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza, M.D., Ph.D. 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. Additional Editor Comments: The revised version is improved in clarity, and several questions posed by reviewers were appropriately addressed. However, please pay attention to requests from reviewer #2, concerning information that we believe that are important to improve readability and inform readers appropriately. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 1. In my opinion this st study presents results of original research, in special the theme nursing and COVID-19. 2. The method and data analyses performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient details. 4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. 5. The ethics procedures were described. 7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability. ****** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Rosely Moralez de Figueiredo ******** [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.0280357.r005
Revision 3
23 Nov 2022 Author Response We authors have already responded to reviewers twice. Please, refer to anterior files. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewer 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280357.r006
28 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza, Editor Social support and professional networks of nurses and nursing technicians in coping with Covid-19: a sectional study in two Brazilian cities PONE-D-21-24493R3 Dear Dr. David, 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, Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors provided appropriate answers to the reviewers' requirements and changed the manuscript appropriately. The version that was reinserted in the editorial manager does provide answers to the questions posed by reviewers. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280357.r007
Formally Accepted
11 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza, Editor PONE-D-21-24493R3 Social support and professional networks of nurses and nursing technicians in coping with Covid-19: a sectional study in two Brazilian cities Dear Dr. David: 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. Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Fortaleza Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280357.r008

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 .