Translation and Validation of the Greek Version of the Evidence-Based Practice Competency Questionnaire for Registered Nurses (EBP-COQ Prof©)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The translation of the Greek version of the Evidence-Based Practice of registered nurses is a very helpful instrument in the nursing practice. 

The manuscript is well and clearly  written, however some minor revisions are needed before its complete acceptance.

Please, indicate, as Appendix I, the items of the scale, in order to better expose the argument.

Finally, the Discussion section need to be improved in its content, also by explaining what the other references suggested and the implications for nursing practice.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to warmly thank the reviewers for their kind words and valuable suggestions which have significantly contributed to the improvement of this manuscript. All our revisions have been marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

The translation of the Greek version of the Evidence-Based Practice of registered nurses is a very helpful instrument in the nursing practice. 

The manuscript is well and clearly  written, however some minor revisions are needed before its complete acceptance.

Point 1: Please, indicate, as Appendix I, the items of the scale, in order to better expose the argument.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment which has given us the opportunity to add more information about the items on the scale

Point 2: Finally, the Discussion section need to be improved in its content, also by explaining what the other references suggested and the implications for nursing practice.

Response 2: Many thanks to the reviewer for this valuable comment which has given us the opportunity to add more information regarding the other reference and the implication for nursing practice

Finally, I would like to inform you that we would like to make a correction, if possible, to the title of the article with a final title: Translation and validation of the Greek version of the Evidence-Based Practice Competency Questionnaire for Registered Nurses (EBP-COQ Prof©)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your interesting and well written manuscript. I will give my feedback following the structure of the manuscript. 

1.The title is clear and informative. 

2.Abstract

Abstract is also clear and well written. There is a typing fault in line 19 “pf”. In this section, It might be interesting to read what sampling you used and how the response rate was. It’s also better not to use abbreviations and put confirmatory factor analysis instead of CFA.

3.Introduction 

Although, introduction is quite short it is clear and contains key information. Under my point of view the authors have to clarify the sentence “Searching for evidence in nursing competence for EBP, it has been determined that there is a lack of studies and research”, there are lots of studies regarding EBP, so if the lack of evidence is in Greece, they should state that.  It also could be interesting to read something about a more global background about the use of EBP depending on the setting (hospital, primary care…) or depending on the country, as well as, if there are some strategies to cope with the low use of EBP.

There are some typing faults when you separate references (as an example: line 46 (9.10) , line 82 (15.16)..) 

4.Materials and Methods

The questionnaire

The tool used in this study is very clear and well explained, so in this part I just suggest the authors to review if the term biological gender is correct, or if it’s better to use the term biological sex or gender…

Translation

In this part I only have one question.  I would like to know how the authors chose the 10 nurses who participated in the validation of the questionnaire. 

Participants

The authors say that they recruited 414 clinical nurses, through a convenience sample. But in this section it is important to indicate how many nurses were working in the participaiting hospitals and how many had the opportunity to participate in the study.

 

Reliability-Validity-Data Analysis-Ethical Considerations

In my opinion the section of reliability and validity is clear, well organized and well written. So anything to add. However, data analysis is poorly described. Maybe the authors could explain a little more about the tests they used for all the analysis. Finally, the ethical commité approval must appear in the  ethical consideration section.

5-Results

Results are clear but in my opinion these could increase their meaning and value if the authors add the description of each item in this section. Reading just the number of items doesn’t give readers much information.

6-Discussion

Under my understanding the discussion is that part of the article where the authors have to discuss their results with the current literature. And that one  presented in this study does little to question the results obtained with the rest of the available evidence. I suggest authors make an effort in this section and search if there are validations of this scale in other languages and what are they results, as well as, if there are other tools for assessing EBP and how they work.

7-Conclusions

Thi section is clear. Nothing to add in this section.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We would like to warmly thank the reviewers for their kind words and valuable suggestions which have significantly contributed to the improvement of this manuscript. All our revisions have been marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer #2

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your interesting and well written manuscript. I will give my feedback following the structure of the manuscript. 

Point 1. Title

The title is clear and informative. 

Response 1:  I would like to inform you that we would like to make a correction, if possible, to the title of the article with a final title: Translation and validation of the Greek version of the Evidence-Based Practice Competency Questionnaire for Registered Nurses (EBP-COQ Prof©).

 

Point 2. Abstract

Abstract is also clear and well written. There is a typing fault in line 19 “pf”. In this section, It might be interesting to read what sampling you used and how the response rate was. It’s also better not to use abbreviations and put confirmatory factor analysis instead of CFA.

Response 2: Many thanks for your comment. We have corrected the typing fault and also the response rate and sampling have been added. The abbreviation of CFA has been deleted.

 

Point 3. Introduction 

Although, introduction is quite short it is clear and contains key information. Under my point of view the authors have to clarify the sentence “Searching for evidence in nursing competence for EBP, it has been determined that there is a lack of studies and research”, there are lots of studies regarding EBP, so if the lack of evidence is in Greece, they should state that.  It also could be interesting to read something about a more global background about the use of EBP depending on the setting (hospital, primary care…) or depending on the country, as well as, if there are some strategies to cope with the low use of EBP.

There are some typing faults when you separate references (as an example: line 46 (9.10) , line 82 (15.16)..) 

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment which has given the opportunity to add more information about the global background regarding the use of EBP. We also have done the recommended changes.

4.Materials and Methods

Point 4. The questionnaire

The tool used in this study is very clear and well explained, so in this part I just suggest the authors to review if the term biological gender is correct, or if it’s better to use the term biological sex or gender…

Response: Many thanks! It’s done.

Point 5. Translation

In this part I only have one question.  I would like to know how the authors chose the 10 nurses who participated in the validation of the questionnaire. 

Response: Many thanks for your precious comment. The10 nurses who were selected are from the target population and their mother tongue was the Greek language.

Point 6. Participants

The authors say that they recruited 414 clinical nurses, through a convenience sample. But in this section it is important to indicate how many nurses were working in the participating hospitals and how many had the opportunity to participate in the study.

 Response: Thank you very much for your kind comment. Unfortunately, we do not have the information on how many nurses work in the specific hospitals, because the survey was conducted during the pandemic, but we managed to distribute 550 questionnaires and of those finally 414 were completed by the nursing staff.

Point 7. Reliability-Validity-Data Analysis-Ethical Considerations

In my opinion the section of reliability and validity is clear, well organized and well written. So anything to add. However, data analysis is poorly described. Maybe the authors could explain a little more about the tests they used for all the analysis. Finally, the ethical committee approval must appear in the ethical consideration section.

Response: We kindly thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. We have done the suggested changes, as we developed the data analysis section in detail and we also added more information regarding the ethical approval.

Point 8. Results

Results are clear but in my opinion these could increase their meaning and value if the authors add the description of each item in this section. Reading just the number of items doesn’t give readers much information.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment which has given us the opportunity to add more information regarding the results and additionally a table with the demographic characteristics of the participants has been added (Table 1). Also, in the new version of the manuscript items are presented not only numerical but they are fully described in Appendix I.

Point 9. Discussion

Under my understanding the discussion is that part of the article where the authors have to discuss their results with the current literature. And that one presented in this study does little to question the results obtained with the rest of the available evidence. I suggest authors make an effort in this section and search if there are validations of this scale in other languages and what are their results, as well as, if there are other tools for assessing EBP and how they work.

Response: We warmly thank the reviewer for this valuable comment which gave us the opportunity to enrich and provide more information regarding previous bibliographic references and previous work in this field.

Point 10-Conclusions

This section is clear. Nothing to add in this section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the kind comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

I would like to congratulate you on the improvement of the manuscript. In my view, you have addressed all the suggestions and now the manuscript could be accepted for publication.

I only have a last suggeriment, in line 162 it could be better to first present the table and then point out this information is in (table 1).

Best regards,