PONE-D-24-01945Exploring Perception and Attitude of Nursing Students Towards Interprofessional Education in Saudi ArabiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abu Sabeib,

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 Jun 13 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Naeem Mubarak, 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

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1030863/full

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

We will receive funding from Princess Nourah bin Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

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.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript requires major revisions to improve its methodology and results section in particular. To draw comparisons of similar studies focusing on interprofessional education and signify the need to integrate module of collaborative care into the curriculum; you may cite the following studies in discussion section (This is optional and should only be taken as a suggestion for the improvement of the manuscript):

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079507

DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10101204

To further strengthen the evidence of how collaborative care is achieving success in other professions linked with patient care ; you may cite the following studies in discussion section (This is optional and should only be taken as a suggestion for the improvement of the manuscript):

doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1323102

[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: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: 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: I would like to, firstly, congratulate the authors for their effort and dedication in writing this scientific article. I hope that the following considerations will further strengthen your work.

In the introduction, it would be pertinent to include the current state-of-the-art regarding nursing students' readiness and attitudes for IPE. We have existing studies that have analyzed the attitude and readiness of nursing and healthcare students in simulation scenarios. Therefore, I suggest addressing existing studies in the field, the uniqueness of your study, and/or the relevance of your study, considering the simulation scenario. Students underwent a high-fidelity simulation cenario, and I noticed that it was not adequately explored throughout your scientific article, even though it was integrated into your aim. Integrating this aspect into both the discussion and conclusion sections would be beneficial, as it is through this pedagogical intervention that readiness and attitudes for IPE was analyzed, thus serving as a important component in the interpretation of the gathered data.

In the methodology, in the "Study design, Setting, and population" section, it would be useful to characterize/describe the university and, if possible, the nursing course. It is important in the methodology to also describe the high-fidelity simulation, as it is an important element, being the pedagogical intervention used to assess attitudes and readiness for interprofessional education and practice. In line 88, I suggest describing the name of the platform used to distribute online questionnaires to participants.

In the methodology, between lines 93 and 94, I wondered if validation occurred through the pilot study described later? If so, it's pertinent to indicate the pilot study here. For example: "A validated self-administered online questionnaire was administered following a pilot study." It is also pertinent to change the words to avoid repetition of "self-administered" and "administered."

In the discussion, in line 180, I noticed that two of these cited studies present results from faculty members and educators. It would be interesting to cite and relate to your results studies that examined attitudes using the RIPLS in nursing students during realistic simulation. For example: (This is optional and should only be taken as a suggestion for the improvement of the manuscript): 

Examining interprofessional learning perceptions among students in a simulation-based operating room team training experience. DOI: 10.1080/13561820.2018.1513464 

Does Interprofessional Scenario-Based Simulation Training Change Attitudes Towards Interprofessional Learning - A Pretest-Posttest Study. DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S370100

Effects of High-Fidelity Simulation on Physical Therapy and Nursing Students' Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Learning and Collaboration. DOI: 10.3928/01484834-20170712-03

Effects of a single interprofessional simulation session on medical and nursing students' attitudes toward interprofessional learning and professional identity: a questionnaire study. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-1971-6

Implementation and evaluation of an interprofessional simulation-based education program for undergraduate nursing students in operating room nursing education: a randomized controlled trial. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-015-0400-8

In the discussion, between lines 200 and 203, we note that realistic simulation is an important aspect to consider in the results you identified regarding attitude and readiness in nursing students.

What is the reference/citation for the passage in the discussion "Recently, however, there has been a shift in emphasis toward the concept that leadership should be determined by the context in which the team operates"?

In line 226, it is appropriate to clarify in the writing that it refers to "nursing students."

In your discussion, in line 235, how does this finding "however, the academic year was significantly related to the mean total score for RIPLS (p ≤ 0.05)” relate to what we have in the scientific literature? In line 241, replace the comma with a period.

In your conclusions, it is important to include information about the high-fidelity simulation scenario, as there was an interesting connection in the discussion with the use of the simulation. This consideration also applies to the conclusion in your abstract.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thanks for choosing PLOS ONE. I hope my feedback is helpful for you.

Abstract: please add the sampling method (i.e., convenience sampling method).

Methods: Please address the reporting guidelines (i.e., STROBE). For more information, please check the link below https://www.equator-network.org

Elaborate more on the data collection procedure

The reference for the RIPLS was not addressed within the methods section. Please cite the original study and report the reliability and validity of the instrument.

Please replace this statement: " Statistical significance was determined by p ≤ .05." to " statistical significance was determined by p <.05.

I recommend you to modify the heading of Table 4 to "The association between demographics' characteristics and RIPLS"

The limitations of the study were too brief. Please address the major limitations associated with the methodology (i.e., sampling method, research design, etc...) and how these limitations affect the generalizability of the findings.

Address the implications for future research and practice in a separate heading.

**********

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: Dr. Adnan Innab

**********

[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: PLOSE ONE F.docx

PONE-D-24-01945R1Exploring Perception and Attitude of Nursing Students Towards Interprofessional Education in Saudi ArabiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abu Sabeib,

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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Naeem Mubarak, PhD

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 manuscript may be accepted for publication after minor revisions

[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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Thank you for considering me to review this manuscript. The manuscript analyses the perception and attitude of nursing students towards interprofessional education (IPE). It certainly highlights the importance of IPE in nursing education for better understanding, learning, and integration in the healthcare team. However, there are few recommendations which authors can consider to improve the manuscript.

Methods

• Study Design, Setting, and Population

The authors are suggested to justify how the sample size of 320 nursing students is sufficient for the research question in line 111. Also give information about the sample size calculation in the text.

Results

The authors framed the results well. However, following points in my opinion are recommended:

• Teamwork and Collaboration

In line 155 the authors are advised to justify how they classified the 5-point Likert scale on 2-point scale of agree and disagree values. It is suggested to discuss it in text also.

Discussion

• Study Limitations

The authors are recommended to talk about the risk of bias by using convenience sampling in the text.

• Implications for Future Research and Practice

The authors discussed almost every possible implication. However, in line 276 along with IPE, the authors are recommended to talk about the economical aspect of implementation of IPE in educating the nursing students. For better insights about the interprofessional education and collaboration, the authors may refer to the following study (This is optional and should only be taken as a suggestion for the improvement of the manuscript).

1. DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S296113

Reviewer #4: (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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: Exploring Perception and Attitude of Nursing Student.pdf

Exploring Perception and Attitude of Nursing Students Towards Interprofessional Education in Saudi Arabia

PONE-D-24-01945R2

Dear Dr. Zeinab Abu Sabeib,

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,

Naeem Mubarak, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript requires no further revisions

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 #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 #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

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 #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 #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 #3: (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 #3: No

**********