Investigating the Relationship between Fear of Failure and the Delivery of End-of-Life Care: A Questionnaire Study
, Hannah Sawyer 3, Sarah Butchard 1,4, Stephen R. Mason 5 and Kathryn Sartain 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-designed and interesting paper. The introduction, materials/method, inclusion/exclusion criteria. It requires some editing of the tables for legibility:
Table 3 is very dense and hard to read and would probably be better for an Appendix, or otherwise combining into departments and aggregating.
Table 4 should have short descriptions of each of the outcome variables (OV1-4) as I shouldn't need to flip back/forth to recall what they are (you have them in Table 5, but not 4).
Tables 5-7 need to be formatted differently or moved to an appendix; they are difficult to read (even if one has a statistics background) and can be summarized adequately in the paragraphs (as they are) without the large tables in the body of the paper.
The discussion is well-written and appropriate from the results. It would be interesting to see if the clinical specialties had an influence on FOF by PFAI or subscales - I understand this paper would not be powered to detect such an influence with such a large number of specialties but it could be useful to see if specific subscales (or FOF) is more prominent in certain specialties. I didn't see that listed in the limitations.
With some small revisions to data presentation, I think this paper is very reasonable to publish. It is refreshing to see a 'negative' paper being published - I actually find the discussion/conclusions more interesting in those scenarios, and I think the novel contribution of using PFAI in medical professionals is itself a very useful thing to publish. Thank you for your work!
Author Response
|
|
Reviewer comment |
Response comment |
Line / page |
|
Reviewer 1 |
Table 3 is very dense and hard to read and would probably be better for an Appendix, or otherwise combining into departments and aggregating. |
Table 3 has been moved to appendix 1 as Table A. A Graph replaces Table 3 in the main text (named Figure 2) showing total number across different specialities. |
Line 283 |
|
Table 4 should have short descriptions of each of the outcome variables (OV1-4) as I shouldn't need to flip back/forth to recall what they are (you have them in Table 5, but not 4). |
Added. Table renamed Table 3. |
Line 303 |
|
|
Tables 5-7 need to be formatted differently or moved to an appendix; they are difficult to read (even if one has a statistics background) and can be summarized adequately in the paragraphs (as they are) without the large tables in the body of the paper. |
All Tables have been reformatted. Table 5 & 6 have been moved to Appendix 1 (as Table B & Table C). Table 7 has been reformatted but has been left in the main text for context. This has been re labelled Table 4, line 391. |
Line 391 |
|
|
The discussion is well-written and appropriate from the results. It would be interesting to see if the clinical specialties had an influence on FOF by PFAI or subscales - I understand this paper would not be powered to detect such an influence with such a large number of specialties but it could be useful to see if specific subscales (or FOF) is more prominent in certain specialties. I didn't see that listed in the limitations. |
Clarified in Future Research section |
489 |
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. Interesting and topical area for consideration. My comments are few but need to be considered:
Explicit definition of EOL related to cancer patients and not all palliative care
Line 144 participants were generated via team manager I cant see what occurred after the email was sent to the team manager. I note an email was sent to potential participants but who did this? and who made decisions re internal criteria?
Line 155 nurse band 6 were invited to participate - explain what band 6 means for international audience
There is no mention about participants culture and their contribution/results and or patients culture and the difference this makes to FOF.
Thank you for an excellent manuscript.
Author Response
|
Reviewer 2 |
Explicit definition of EOL related to cancer patients and not all palliative care |
Have clarified that this paper describes EOL as a general term of care with dying people (line 31). Removed reference to cancer (line 44). |
Line 31, 44 |
|
Line 144 participants were generated via team manager I cant see what occurred after the email was sent to the team manager. I note an email was sent to potential participants but who did this? and who made decisions re internal criteria? |
Clarified. |
Line 145 |
|
|
Line 155 nurse band 6 were invited to participate - explain what band 6 means for international audience |
Clarified as ‘senior responsibility level’ |
Line 159 |
|
|
There is no mention about participants culture and their contribution/results and or patients culture and the difference this makes to FOF. |
Helpful suggestion – an addition has been made in limitations and future research. |
Line 472, and Line 502 |
