The Burnout of Nurses in Intensive Care Units and the Impact of the Pandemic of SARS-CoV-2: Protocol of a Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work entitled The burnout of nurses in intensive care units and the impact of 2

the pandemic by SARS-CoV-2: Protocol of a Scoping Review, has great relevance because it seeks to present a discussion about Bournout Syndrome. However, the methodology of the study needed to be more explicit to facilitate the understanding of the readers. The results presented in the table alone are not enough to enlighten readers in the way that this section demands. In the discussion, there are elements that are presented in the table that are not potentiated the discussion, the same is repeated in the conclusion, there was a lack of intensity to confirm what the research proposes.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your appreciation. We are certain that it contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. available.
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this protocol called: "The burnout of nurses in intensive care units and the impact of the pandemic by SARS-CoV-2: Protocol of a Scoping Review".

I believe that everything that has to do with caregiver care is to be welcomed, as far as research is concerned.

This protocol that the authors have done is very interesting and opens the door to future research. So therefore, I believe it should be published.

Below are some detailed comments:

In the introduction, the authors provide an adequate description of the subject of the work. In particular, they focus on the effects of covid and the measures implemented for its eradication. They also provide an appropriate definition of burnout and its problems in nursing. Section 2 provides a correct description of the materials used and the methods employed to carry out the protocol presented. Also, it is quite clear the criteria used in the search and where the articles that serve as the basis of the work have been extracted from. In addition, they give a correct description of the way in which the results will be presented once the study has been carried out.

 

Finally, the authors explain what they expect to obtain after the discussion of the results and, as necessary, they also describe the contributions that their work will have.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your appreciation. We are certain that it contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. available.
The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper who present the methodology for a scoping review about the burnout of nurses working in ICU during this pandemic. The methodology describes is corrected. My only objection is one of the filter used in the search strategy: last 4 years: 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022. I think is more correctly  to limit at 2020, 2021, 2022, yes the first cases were in december 2019, but the burnout didn't started in december 2019 and before any researcher could have write and publish any paper it was already 2020 so for me it doesn't make sense to include papers from 2019 in the research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your appreciation. We are certain that it contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. available.
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review this protocol.

The final review aims to map the scientific evidence related to nurses' burnout in intensive care units. It will be conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.

Below I present some comments and suggestions to enhance the quality of your protocol:

Introduction

1. It has paragraphs with only one sentence. Then, I recommend the authors rewrite it, providing a corpus for each of these paragraphs with 1 statement/argument, followed by examples or counterarguments, as it should be. It will enhance the cohesion of the text.

2. The authors state that they conducted a literature review on some databases. However, they don’t provide information about when and how they conducted this search. Then, I recommend adding more information about it. It will support your statement that there is no other Scooping Review.

3. The authors present Covid-19 as part of the research in the title, abstract, and introduction. Nevertheless, in presenting their aim, they don’t. I recommend re-writing the aim clarifying the Covid-19 or removing it from the argumentation and title.

 

Material and Methods

Inclusion Criteria and Searching strategy

4. The authors stated that “It all started in China in December 2019” (Introduction) and “concerning the context — this review will consider articles in which the study period includes articles in which it occurred during the pandemic by SARS-CoV-2”. However, they also state that they will use a 4-year filter in the searches. Why? Why do you want documents published before the pandemic? If it is a comparison, it should be explained. It seems to be a lack of coherence.

5. Table 1, it was confusing seeing searches with so many terms and others with only two/three. Why did? Why you reduced the terms for OPEN GREY and LILACS?

6. Table 1, it was confusing seeing “burnout” OR “burnout, professional” once the first one includes the second. Why add the second?

 

Study Selection

7. The authors stated “The collected data will be presented in narrative form and or table in order to best present the available evidence. Summary tables of the articles included in the review will also be presented. The identification, characteristics, and synthesis of knowledge in this area will pursue with the objective and question of the present review.”. I suggest the author describe in more detail how they will present the results. For example, the treatment given to the papers must be standard. Then, it will present what information? It should be clear.

 

Discussion

8. The authors state that “This scoping review will gather the necessary information to identify the level of burnout of nurses who worked in the ICU context and its consequences during the pandemic by Sars-CoV-2.”. It is not aligned with the aim identified in the introduction or with the 4-year criteria in the search. I recommend a review of these statements to provide a sound and coherent review.

 

 

I expect that my comments and suggestions are helpful in supporting the enhancement of your protocol. The best of luck in your research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your appreciation. We are certain that it contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. available.
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the review carried out by the authors, it is noted that they followed the guidelines offered in the previous evaluation and justified all the necessary changes, which qualified the article and strengthened it so that it can be published in this renowned journal.