Is massage a legitimate part of nursing care? A qualitative study

Gora Da Rocha Rodrigues; Adrien Anex; Monique Boegli; Catherine Bollondi Pauly; François Curtin; Christophe Luthy; Jules Desmeules; Christine Cedraschi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0281078

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 29, 2022
13 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Maryam Farooqui, Editor PONE-D-22-18019Is massage a legitimate part of nursing care? A qualitative studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. da Rocha Rodrigues, 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 24 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, Maryam Farooqui, Ph.D 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. [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 ******** 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: No ****** 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: Is massage a legitimate part of nursing care? A qualitative study Comments to the Author Congratulation on the submitted manuscript. The topic is timely and will be of interest to the readers of the journal. However, few changes are suggested to improve the clarity of this manuscript. I have several recommendations and questions about the manuscript. Comment 1. A qualitative study approach was used for this study involving how many participants? It is necessary to provide the total number of participants in your approach at the beginning of your statement. -The inclusion criteria for the study need to be discussed here. -List the Five themes that emerged from the thematic analysis in the abstract. 2. Need to explain the full meaning of The ICD-11 for the first use in a sentence. 3. Please harmonize the statements and explain more regarding this. -An intervention (TM or control) was assigned to each of the two units/clusters.(page 6,para 134) 4. Explain the full meaning what is a unit (CG or IG).example CG=Control Group for the first of the statement. 5. Ethical consideration- Please add the reference number or approval code. 6. I would like to suggest to the author provide more information on the methodology of the study such as: -How about the sample size selected? -The total number of respondents? -The inclusion and exclusion criteria? -The interview protocol process consisted of what? To briefly explain the interview protocol for FGD. What were the questions asked in this phase? 7. All the participant’s statements must be italic 8. No figure attached 9. References: 10/39 of the references are more than 10 years. Recommendation: 5 years above is better. ****** 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 ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comment Reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281078.r001
Revision 1
27 Oct 2022 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewer, We would like to thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Is massage a legitimate part of nursing care? A qualitative study”. We appreciate the careful reviews and constructive suggestions we received. The manuscript has been revised to address the editor’s and reviewers’ comments and we believe the revisions have helped us to improve our manuscript. Original comments are listed below followed by our responses in italics. You will find enclosed a marked-up copy and unmarked version of the revised manuscript we would like to submit for publication in PLOS ONE as an original research. Each author has given approval to the final form of the revised manuscript. We hope that this revised manuscript can be accepted for resubmission in PLOS ONE. We remain receptive to any further suggestions that would improve the paper. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Reviewer #1: Congratulation on the submitted manuscript. The topic is timely and will be of interest to the readers of the journal. However, few changes are suggested to improve the clarity of this manuscript. I have several recommendations and questions about the manuscript. Comment Abstract 1. A qualitative study approach was used for this study involving how many participants? It is necessary to provide the total number of participants in your approach at the beginning of your statement. We have now clearly stated the numbers of participants in the focus groups that are at the core of this qualitative study (p. 2, para 48) “10 caregivers from the TM group and 6 from the machine group” -The inclusion criteria for the study need to be discussed here. HCPs were included in this study if they participated in the training about TM or the use of the machine delivering massage. Thus, we added it in the text accordingly (p. 2, para. 46). “At the end of the trial, two focus groups were conducted with HCPs from each unit who took part in the training and agreed to discuss their experience: 10 caregivers from the TM group and 6 from the machine group.” -List the Five themes that emerged from the thematic analysis in the abstract. This has been amended in the text accordingly (p. 2, para. 52) “Five themes emerged from thematic content analysis: perceived impact on patients, HCPs’ affective and cognitive experiences, patient-professionals relationships, organizational tensions, and conceptual tensions.” Introduction 2. Need to explain the full meaning of The ICD-11 for the first use in a sentence. Indeed, it is important to specify it. Therefore, we added the full name this abbreviation (p. 4, para. 69) “The International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11)” Methodology 3. An intervention (TM or control) was assigned to each of the two units/clusters (page 6,para 134). Please harmonize the statements and explain more regarding this. We thank the reviewer for his/her comment which allows us to improve the overall clarity of our setting. Two units of a general rehabilitation ward from a university hospital in Switzerland were selected for this study. We compared TM with a machine-delivered massage, using a non-randomized cluster clinical trial design. Each of these two interventions were assigned to one of the units. For better clarity, we modified the text accordingly (p. 6, para. 132). “The study was designed as a non-randomized cluster clinical trial with an exploratory qualitative part [32]. Two units of a general rehabilitation ward were selected for this trial. TM has been assigned to one unit (intervention group; IG) whereas machine-delivered massage has been assigned to the other (control group; CG).” 4. “The HCPs received training on TM or the use of the machine according to their unit (CG or IG)” (page 6, para 137). Explain the full meaning what is a unit (CG or IG). Example CG=Control Group for the first of the statement. Please see previous comment (3) for a better description of what unit (CG or IG) means. 5. Ethical consideration- Please add the reference number or approval code. This has been amended in the text as advised (p. 7, para. 139). “This study received the approval of the Cantonal Commission for Ethics and Human Research in Geneva (CCER 2019-00848) and was pre-registered (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04295603) [32].” 6. I would like to suggest to the author provide more information on the methodology of the study such as: -How about the sample size selected? We have now tried to be more explicit regarding the selection of the participants to the 2 focus groups and the total number of respondents. We added in the text as advised (p. 7, para. 150). “From the 21 HCPs working in the IG unit, 15 HCPs (7 nurses and 8 nursing auxiliaries) took part in the TM training and in the trial. In the CG unit all 21 HCPs working in this unit were offered participation, and 8 of them took part in the machine-delivered massage training and in the trial” -The inclusion and exclusion criteria? Inclusion criteria were: to be working in one of the two units selected for this study and to have taken part to the training on either TM or the use of the machine. We modified the text accordingly (p. 7, para. 148) “HCPs were included if they were working in one of the two selected units and participated in the trainings whether or not they delivered the interventions. We aimed to include as many opinions as possible as our goal was to investigate the feasibility of the interventions.” -The interview protocol process consisted of what? We have now added a paragraph regarding the choice of our investigation method (p. 7, para. 159) “Focus groups have been chosen to explore the satisfaction and general perception of massage in the multidisciplinary health care teams in the two units concerned. The choice of this method was of relevance in the context of the various units of the ward that all function as specific teams. Thus, a method of data collection that simultaneously generates data for three levels of analysis: the individual, the group and the interactions between participants was of clear interest. The protocol insisted on the need to recruit at least five participants, including nurses, assistant nurses, physical therapists and/or physicians. Based on the experience of our research team regarding TM, an interview guide was devised to assess the impact of massage on general care, the experience thereof, the positive and negative effects, and its impact on the development and planning of care (see S1 Table). The interview has been audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim.” - To briefly explain the interview protocol for focus group discussion (FGD). What were the questions asked in this phase? We thank the reviewer for his/her suggestions. Therefore, we added a brief description of the dimensions explored in the interview guide and give examples of questions (p. 8, para. 170) “The interview guide explored the HCPs’ experiences and use of the interventions (see Table 1). Four dimensions were investigated : recall of the massage, general appreciation of massage, facilitators and barriers in the experience of massage, and benefits for other.” 7. All the participant’s statements must be italic This has been amended in the manuscript as advised. 8. “Those themes were regrouped into two dimensions: outcomes of the interventions and implementation in nursing care (see Figure)”. No figure attached Indeed, following the submission guidelines of Plos One, Figures should not be included in the manuscript but should be uploaded as a separate document. Thus, we included only the figure caption in the manuscript. For your information, figure 1 is attached below: 9. References: 10/39 of the references are more than 10 years. Recommendation: 5 years above is better. We agree with the reviewer. However, some of the articles are at the foundation of a theory (e.g. Braun and Clarke, 2006 regarding thematic analysis; or Rogers, 1970, and Newman, 2008, regarding the theoretical basis of nursing), or are regarded as landmarks in their field (e.g. Malterud, 2001 challenges and guidelines for the use of qualitative methods outside of social sciences; or Kitzinger, 1994 which still provides a very well-informed methodology for focus groups) or we just could not find more recent article. We carefully checked that our “old” articles could not be replaced by more recent ones. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_27.10.22.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281078.r002
16 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Nabeel Al-Yateem, Editor Is massage a legitimate part of nursing care? A qualitative study PONE-D-22-18019R1 Dear Dr. da Rocha Rodrigues, 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, Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD 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: N/A ****** 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: I acknowledge and have previously reviewed the corrections made by the author in the manuscript titled "Is massage a legitimate part of nursing care? A qualitative study" in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion. The reviewer’s recommendation is ACCEPT. Reviewer #2: The authors have done an excellent job at responding to the reviewers questions and comments. I wish to thank them for addressing all the concerns and questions of the previous reviewers ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: RUSNANI AB LATIF(PhD in nursing) Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281078.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Nabeel Al-Yateem, Editor PONE-D-22-18019R1 Is massage a legitimate part of nursing care? A qualitative study Dear Dr. Da Rocha Rodrigues: 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. Nabeel Al-Yateem Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281078.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 .