PONE-D-23-36317Nursing and Midwifery Students’ Attitudes Towards Addressing Patient Sexual Health in their Future Profession: Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Students’ Attitudes Towards Addressing Sexual Health Extended Questionnaire (SA-SH-Ext)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marcinowicz,

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 Feb 04 2024 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,

Nabeel Al-Yateem, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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

[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: Dear Editor

Thank you for your invitation to review of manuscript entitled " Nursing and Midwifery Students’ Attitudes Towards Addressing Patient Sexual Health

in their Future Profession: Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Students’ Attitudes

Towards Addressing Sexual Health Extended Questionnaire (SA-SH-Ext)

This is a strong introduction that effectively sets the stage for your research paper on sexual health care education for nurses and midwives in Poland. It highlights the importance of sexual health, the challenges faced by healthcare professionals in providing this care, and the need for adequate education.

Introduction

comment 1: Reduce redundancy. The first paragraph could be shortened by removing some redundant information about the importance of sexual health.

comment 2: Provide more specific details about your research: While you mention the need to assess students' competence and preparedness, you could provide a more specific outline of your research methods and objectives.

comment 3: Consider adding a thesis statement: A clear thesis statement at the end of the introduction would help to summarize your main argument and provide a roadmap for the rest of the paper.

comment 4: You could consider mentioning any relevant government policies or regulations in Poland concerning sexual health education for healthcare professionals.

comment 5: You could provide a brief overview of the literature review you conducted, highlighting the key findings.

comment 6: You could briefly discuss the potential implications of your research for improving sexual health care in Poland.

Material and Method

comment 1: While you describe the sampling method used, it would be helpful to explain why convenience sampling was chosen rather than a more random approach.

comment 2: Missing information about data analysis: While you mention validating the psychometric properties of the SA-SH-Ext, you do not provide details about the specific statistical methods used for this analysis.

comment 3: Consider adding a table or figure: A table summarizing the characteristics of the participants and a figure depicting the structure of the SA-SH-Ext questionnaire would further enhance clarity.

Discussion

comment 1: You mention that two items (18 and 19) did not load significantly onto any of the factors. While you explain why they were kept in the questionnaire, you could consider conducting further research to explore their validity and reliability in the Polish context.

comment 2: You briefly mention the potential for the SA-SH-Ext v.PL questionnaire to be used with students from other disciplines. You could consider elaborating on this point and discussing how the questionnaire could be adapted for use in other healthcare professions.

comment 3: You acknowledge the potential for bias due to self-reporting. You could consider discussing alternative data collection methods, such as focus groups or interviews, that might be less susceptible to this bias.

Reviewer #2: First of all, congratulations for the work done, the research study and the tool to be validated are of great interest at present and the study is well justified. Congratulations for the results, the psychometric characteristics determined are powerful.

As a reviewer, a doubt arises in my mind, have you not considered completing the study with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)?

After reviewing the manuscript, the following points could be improved:

1. The introduction could be improved, I think it should be pointed out if the tool has been validated in other languages and provide data on these validations.

2. It is also possible to address cultural differences if any in the introduction or discussion.

3. On the other hand, you talk about validation in general without a gender perspective. Is this validation valid for male students? Because of the sample, and the scarcity of male students, I think it is only possible to talk about the tool being validated for female students.

4. It should be indicated, if considered, the need to perform the validation in male population, as a future study.

**********

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: Ivan Santolalla-Arnedo

**********

[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.

Nursing and Midwifery Students’ Attitudes Towards Addressing Patient Sexual Health in their Future Profession: Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Students’ Attitudes Towards Addressing Sexual Health Extended Questionnaire (SA-SH-Ext)

PONE-D-23-36317R1

Dear Dr. Marcinowicz,

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: 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: Accepted. No need more revision. All comments have been addressed. 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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Iván Santolalla Arnedo

**********