Teaching methods for critical thinking in health education of children up to high school: A scoping review

Anna Prokop-Dorner; Aleksandra Piłat-Kobla; Magdalena Ślusarczyk; Maria Świątkiewicz-Mośny; Natalia Ożegalska-Łukasik; Aleksandra Potysz-Rzyman; Marianna Zarychta; Albert Juszczyk; Dominika Kondyjowska; Agnieszka Magiera; Małgorzata Maraj; Dawid Storman; Sylwia Warzecha; Paulina Węglarz; Magdalena Wojtaszek-Główka; Wioletta Żabicka; Małgorzata M. Bała

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307094

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 7, 2024
21 May 2024 Decision Letter - Bogdan Nadolu, Editor PONE-D-24-05236Teaching methods for critical thinking in health education of children up to high school: a scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Prokop-Dorner, 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. Congratulations for your work! There are few necessary adjustments, please find below the details from our reviewers. We are looking forward for your upgraded version. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 05 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, Bogdan Nadolu, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work is the result of research project Diagnosis and developing health capital - Health Literacy of primary school students (Project no. UMO-2020/39/B/HS6/00977) funded by the National Science Centre.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. 4. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: The scoping review followed JBI and PRISMA, the gold standards, for this review paper. It is beautifully written with no grammatical or editorial mistakes. It is interesting to see that the authors used MASQDA to conduct the qualitative synthesis and reported the results based on the six dimensions. The methodology is sound. The results are clear and well-organized. The discussion is not as strong as Methods and Results but acceptable. I do have a question regarding 1056 studies. When I calculated the numbers listed in the first paragraph of Results, the total was 1053. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this scoping review. I am screening from the lens of an information specialist trained on comprehensive and transparent literature search methods. I want to applaud the authors for their database selection, reporting the dates when searches were last executed, and sharing their entire search strategies in the supplementary materials. For the most part, they are reproducible. To ensure reproducible search methods, the authors will want to indicate which platforms were used for all databases. This was done with some (e.g., Ovid Medline) but not all (e.g., EMBASE via ?). I have a concerns about the comprehensiveness of the literature search. For some of the databases, there were only subject heading searches performed without targeting other metadata fields like titles, abstracts, and author keywords. I worry that some studies could have been missed in this approach. Could you justify this choice? ****** 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.0307094.r001
Revision 1
13 Jun 2024 Author Response Thank you, Reviewer 1, for taking the time to review our work. We appreciate your kind comments and positive feedback. Thank you for paying our attention to our calculation of the studies sought for retrieval. We have verified it and cleared it out in the text. Our calculation looks as follows: the total number of the studies sought for retrieval is 1056, of which: - 938 were excluded due to 10 different reasons - 3 potentially eligible studies were identified as ongoing - 115 eligible studies were included. We revisited the explanation of this calculations that we provided initially in the manuscript and cleared it out. Now it states: We identified 118 eligible studies, of which 3 were still ongoing [43-45]. Finally, we included 115 completed studies. Thank you, Reviewer 2, for your positive feedback on our work and for your detailed comments. We appreciate the time and efforts you have put into reviewing our manuscript. Below we respond to your remarks. 1. Thank you for the comment regarding the platforms. We used the following platforms to search the databases: - Embase from Elsevier - WoS from Clarivate - Medline from Ovid - ERIC from EBSCO - PsycArticles from EBSCO - CINAHL from EBSCO - Proquest from Proquest central We added to the missing details to the Supporting information 2. 2. As far as comprehensiveness of the literature search, we have tested several strategies to choose the option that would be optimal and feasible for research question. In the main databases (Medline and Embase) we used a comprehensive approach, and we used MesH Tesaurus terms and fields. In Medline via Ovid .mp which means that database search title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier). In Embase we used an explode option (major topic), index term and some keywords we searched in all fields ('teaching' OR 'curriculum' OR 'education’/ 'critical thinking' OR 'thinking'). Web of Science Core Collection employs no controlled vocabulary or thesaurus, so we used abstract, title, author keywords. In CINHAL database we used Word in Subject Heading, Exact Subject Heading and for some keywords, such as "critical thinking", we used all text search. For some terms in Proquest Central, like “Health education”, we used the main subject option because when we had used a broader search without restrictions, we have got huge number of results, and when we provide initial selection, most of the records were irrelevant. Additionally, even after narrowing down the search fields in databases like ProQuest and CINHAL, a high number of results persisted and was screened. During the selection process, many records were still excluded. We believe that searching across multiple databases minimizes the risk of overlooking crucial publications pertinent to the research problem under analysis. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307094.r002
1 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Bogdan Nadolu, Editor Teaching methods for critical thinking in health education of children up to high school: a scoping review PONE-D-24-05236R1 Dear Dr. Prokop-Dorner, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Bogdan Nadolu, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307094.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Bogdan Nadolu, Editor PONE-D-24-05236R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Prokop-Dorner, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Bogdan Nadolu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307094.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 .