Level of satisfaction to clinical learning environment and its associated factors among nursing students of public universities in Central Ethiopia

Birhanu Tesfaye; Adamu Birhanu; Jiregna Darega; Samuel Abate Walda; Meseret Robi Tura

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314240

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 6, 2024
Decision Letter - Maria José Nogueira, Editor Dear Dr. Abate, 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 Jul 12 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. 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 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, Maria José Nogueira, 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. 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. The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive 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. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 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) 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 5. 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: This manuscript is an important contributor to nursing teaching Recommendations: The manuscript has 4 tables, and for all of them I suggest: 1- synthesize the information to make it more appealing and for clearer reading; 2- reduce information from the table titles (if absolutely necessary, place it as a table note -footnote); 3- Do not use redundant information in the table titles or the content of the table vs text [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? 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 Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Level of Satisfaction to Clinical Learning Environment and Its Associated Factors among Nursing Students of Public Universities in Central Ethiopia Congratulations on choosing this topic; it is pertinent and relevant for understanding the clinical learning of students and the conditions that influence their satisfaction. Utilizing a cross-sectional study is highly appropriate for deepening knowledge in this area. Abstract Regarding the abstract, the objective is concise and appropriate to the topic and nature of the study. It summarizes the most relevant aspects without exceeding 300 words. It clarifies who the study participants are and the context. Introduction The introduction is well-supported by reference authors. The references are extensive, current, and the topic is explored adequately. Materials and Methods 1. Clarifies the type of study; 2. Identifies the type of context; 3. Clearly explains the criteria for sample identification and inclusion; 4. Ethical considerations for a study of this nature are clear. Limitations and Constraints It is essential to present the study's limitations and constraints, as well as the benefits of these findings for the education and preparation of nurses. Conclusions In a study of this nature, the conclusions could be richer and more robust, clearly highlighting the most relevant findings of the study. Tables and Graphs Regarding the graphs and tables, they should have a more appealing graphical presentation to improve the understanding of the results. ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314240.r001
Revision 1
8 Aug 2024 Author Response Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. � I have read it and I have tried to use as much as possible 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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. Response:-all the data used for this research were included in the document. And the the raw data can be accessed from corresponding author at a reasonable request. The manuscript has 4 tables, and for all of them I suggest: 1- synthesize the information to make it more appealing and for clearer reading; 2- reduce information from the table titles (if absolutely necessary, place it as a table note -footnote); 3- Do not use redundant information in the table titles or the content of the table vs. text Response: - Revised accordingly 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: 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 ________________________________________ 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: Level of Satisfaction to Clinical Learning Environment and Its Associated Factors among Nursing Students of Public Universities in Central Ethiopia Congratulations on choosing this topic; it is pertinent and relevant for understanding the clinical learning of students and the conditions that influence their satisfaction. Utilizing a cross-sectional study is highly appropriate for deepening knowledge in this area. Abstract Regarding the abstract, the objective is concise and appropriate to the topic and nature of the study. It summarizes the most relevant aspects without exceeding 300 words. It clarifies who the study participants are and the context. Introduction The introduction is well-supported by reference authors. The references are extensive, current, and the topic is explored adequately. Materials and Methods 1. Clarifies the type of study; 2. Identifies the type of context; 3. Clearly explains the criteria for sample identification and inclusion; 4. Ethical considerations for a study of this nature are clear. Response:-. Type of the study: - An institutional based cross-sectional study involving was conducted Response: - Clearly explains the criteria for sample identification and inclusion;- Response: - Study population All randomly selected second year and third year undergraduate nursing students who are studying at universities found in Central Ethiopia. Response:-Sampling unit Individual Nursing student who was selected during the data collection period. Response:-Inclusion criteria All undergraduate nursing students of second year and third year as well as those participated at least once in clinical practice. Response:-Exclusion criteria Fourth year nursing student due to educational leave at the time of the study. Limitations and Constraints It is essential to present the study's limitations and constraints, as well as the benefits of these findings for the education and preparation of nurses. Response: - This study only looks at the quantitative data; therefore, additional insights into the qualitative responses from the students regarding their opinions and/or perceptions of the CLE could be gained by using a mixed methodology akin to other pertinent studies. The impact of the CLE on students' learning and development cannot be solely determined by looking at student satisfaction. Other intriguing and unknown variables may surface in such a mixed methodology. The study was limited to only public universities, the findings from a private facility may be different. Furthermore, the questionnaire contained Likert scale questions that offered a choice to participants to be indecisive when responding. This aspect might have affected the accuracy and validity of the study findings. Response: - Benefits of these findings for the education and preparation of nurses. The finding of this study will be help nursing department, minister of education and nurse association to understand the nursing student’s satisfaction with clinical learning environment and factors that affect nurse students’ satisfaction and to design strategy to enhance factors positively influence on nurses ‘student satisfaction as well as improve factors that contribute for dissatisfaction with clinical learning environment. In addition, the knowledge generated from this study will be enriched literatures available on the issue and aid for further a researcher who has an interest in conducting researches on this topic. ________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________ 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. # I have done it accordingly Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314240.r002
Decision Letter - Maria José Nogueira, Editor Dear Dr. Abate, Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 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. 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, Maria José Nogueira, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Dear authors Please respond to all suggestions made by reviewers, in order to overcome the weaknesses highlighted in the manuscript, especially those highlighted by reviewer 2. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: The starting question of the study is not clear when reading the document, nor is the objective. I suggest that these items, which are essential to all studies, be revised. The presentation of the results is descriptive, which makes it confusing. My suggestion is that it should be presented using tables and graphs that are appealing for reading and interpreting the data, thus making it easier to understand. The table titles are too big, they need to be improved. ****** 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: Yes: Delfina Ana Pereira Ramos Teixeira ******** [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.0314240.r003
Revision 2
6 Nov 2024 Author Response Editor Comments: Dear authors Please respond to all suggestions made by reviewers, in order to overcome the weaknesses highlighted in the manuscript, especially those highlighted by reviewer 2. Response: We appreciate the valuable suggestions and recommendations given to us by the editor and the reviewers. In this revision, due attention was given to every section, especially the comments given by reviewer 2. All comments point by point were addressed and highlighted by yellow color in the revised content in the text. Thank you! Reviewer #2: 1. The starting question of the study is not clear when reading the document, nor is the objective. I suggest that these items, which are essential to all studies, be revised. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. This has now been corrected as suggested. Under the introduction section, page 5, paragraph 3, lines 126-139. 2. The presentation of the results is descriptive, which makes it confusing. My suggestion is that it should be presented using tables and graphs that are appealing for reading and interpreting the data, thus making it easier to understand. Response: Thank you for your suggestion and comment. This has now been corrected as suggested. Under references section page 13, line 343 and page 11 line 303, page 12, line 321, page 12 line 325. 3. The table titles are too big, they need to be improved Response: We sincerely acknowledged and improved it. This has now been corrected as suggested. Under result section, Page 21-26, line 527-539. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314240.r004
Decision Letter - Maria José Nogueira, Editor Level of Satisfaction to Clinical Learning Environment and Its Associated Factors among Nursing Students of Public Universities in Central Ethiopia PONE-D-24-08053R2 Dear Dr. Samuel Abate 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, Maria José Nogueira, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors made the suggested corrections to the manuscript, which greatly improved it. The manuscript is now ready to be accepted for publication. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314240.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Maria José Nogueira, Editor PONE-D-24-08053R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abate, 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 Professor Maria José Nogueira Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314240.r006

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 .