Nursing Professional Self-Concept: A Scoping Review Protocol

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

Line 13: suggest changing “…along the people’s life cycle…’ to ‘…for people at various stages of life…’

 

Introduction

The introduction is too brief and needs more detail regarding the implications of PSC particularly as it relates to nurses in different countries and health systems. More could be elaborated on the importance of how PSC could be related to perhaps the shortage of nurses globally and possible issues related to recruitment and retention.

Can the authors also please describe previous work completed in this area such as the multidimensional self-concept theory of Cowin's model.

Can the authors please describe the potential gap in the research that may exist with the existing approach taken to measure this construct so that the reasons for your research questions are clear.

 

Line 28: suggest changing ‘…life cycles…’ to …lifetimes…’

Line 96: suggest ‘search OF CINAHL”

 

Data analysis and presentation

Will the authors be including some sort of quality appraisal of the studies retrieved for this review, if so can this be described.

 

Conclusions

Line suggest “clarification OF the meaning’

 

Study Status

Can the authors please provide a timeline of what stage they are currently at, when the charting of data may be completed and when the final scoping review will be finalised.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Point 1: The introduction is too brief and needs more detail regarding the implications of PSC particularly as it relates to nurses in different countries and health systems. More could be elaborated on the importance of how PSC could be related to perhaps the shortage of nurses globally and possible issues related to recruitment and retention. Can the authors also please describe previous work completed in this area such as the multidimensional self-concept theory of Cowin's model. Can the authors please describe the potential gap in the research that may exist with the existing approach taken to measure this construct so that the reasons for your research questions are clear.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your important comment. We have made significant changes to the introduction by adding in lines 40 to 44 a definition of professional self-concept and the reference to cowin's multidimensional self-concept theory. Also in lines 63 to 77 we have added realities from other countries and realities regarding professional self-concept in nursing. we have also clarified in lines 82 to 89 the gap in existing research in order to clarify the research questions.

 

Point 2: Will the authors be including some sort of quality appraisal of the studies retrieved for this review, if so can this be described.

Response 2: Thank you for your observation. Following JBI recommendations, due to the fact that it is not necessary to perform a qualitative evaluation of the articles when preparing a scoping review, this will not be done by the authors.

 

Point 3: Can the authors please provide a timeline of what stage they are currently at, when the charting of data may be completed and when the final scoping review will be finalised.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. We have included this information in the Methods section. It now reads: « The scoping review is expected to be finalized in the month of July 2023, considering that the process of database search is currently ongoing».

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

1.         The articles try to use a scoping review of nursing professional self-concept; However, the study may be interesting; there are many highly similar sentences copied from the research below: “Rehabilitation programs for bedridden patients with prolonged immobility: a scoping review protocol.” Please check the similarity report via the attachment and clarify.

2.         Based on the topic related to “self-concept,” please add the definition of the terms and strength references for more contribution.

3.         On  page 2,  the study stated that “this Scoping Review aims to map the literature related to the state of  knowledge on PSC in nursing, integrating what is performed to improve PSC and how it is accessed the PSC in nursing students and nurses.” Yet, the Review Question presented that “ …How is professional self-concept defined in nursing?”,  “How is professional self-concept measured?”, and “What types of interventions are available to improve professional self-concept in students and nurses?”. Please clarify the research question that does not make sense to the study’s scoping review aims.

4.         Materials and Methods section, the study stated that “Findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic 76 Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines utilizing the extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)” yet, I could not see the PRISMA process.

5.         The study showed that “The databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL complete (via EBSCOhost), Academic search complete (Via EBSCOhost), Mediclatina (via EB- SCOhost), Psychology and Behaviour Sciences Collection (via EBSCOhost), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Via Cochrane Library), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library), SciELO and Scopus. The search for unpublished studies, namely grey literature, will include OpenGrey and RCAA” please revised the table1 and suggest adding each database to the table. In addition, how to deal with the duplicate study data; please explain more.

6.         The study lack a result section.

 

7.         due to the unclear materials and methods section, result in section. Thus the discussion and conclusions section should be reworded.

Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Point 1: The articles try to use a scoping review of nursing professional self-concept; However, the study may be interesting; there are many highly similar sentences copied from the research below: “Rehabilitation programs for bedridden patients with prolonged immobility: a scoping review protocol.” Please check the similarity report via the attachment and clarify.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. We have revised the similar sentences that you have highlighted.

 

Point 2: Based on the topic related to “self-concept,” please add the definition of the terms and strength references for more contribution.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion we have define the main concept in the introduction. It now reads as follows: For some authors the PSC is define as an individual´s perception of self as a professional person, with affects different aspects of professional performance.

 

Point 3: On page 2, the study stated that “this Scoping Review aims to map the literature related to the state of knowledge on PSC in nursing, integrating what is performed to improve PSC and how it is accessed the PSC in nursing students and nurses.” Yet, the Review Question presented that “…How is professional self-concept defined in nursing?”, “How is professional self-concept measured?”, and “What types of interventions are available to improve professional self-concept in students and nurses?”. Please clarify the research question that does not make sense to the study’s scoping review aims.

Response 3: Thank you for this important comment. We have clarified the research question and aim has suggested. It now reads as follows: “aims to map the literature related to the definition of PSC in nursing, how is it measured and what interventions are performed to improve it.”

 

Point 4: Materials and Methods section, the study stated that “Findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic 76 Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines utilizing the extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)” yet, I could not see the PRISMA process.

Response 4: The present manuscript is a protocol describing the techniques to perform the review. Therefore, we have not completed the screening process that the PRISMA flowchart entails, which will be fully described in the final scoping review manuscript.

 

Point 5: The study showed that “The databases to be searched will include MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL complete (via EBSCOhost), Academic search complete (Via EBSCOhost), Mediclatina (via EB- SCOhost), Psychology and Behaviour Sciences Collection (via EBSCOhost), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Via Cochrane Library), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library), SciELO and Scopus. The search for unpublished studies, namely grey literature, will include OpenGrey and RCAA” please revised the table1 and suggest adding each database to the table. In addition, how to deal with the duplicate study data; please explain more.

Response 5:

As you can see, table 1 shows an example of a search in CINAHL database. We are at the initial steps of the scoping, therefore we don’t have all search strategies for all databases, as this is a collaborative process between all authors. Being a protocol, and following JBI recommendations, we have presented an example of one database. In the final manuscript we will present the detailed search strategies used. We should also add that search strategies may change throughout the review process thus we can’t add the final versions in the protocol.

 

Point 6: The study lack a result section.

Response 6: The present manuscript is a protocol, therefore the mentioned section (results) is not applicable.

 

 

Point 7: Due to the unclear materials and methods section, result in section. Thus the discussion and conclusions section should be reworded.

Response 7: We have revised the Discussion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please write in full what CSP is the first time it is used. If this is a typo please amend and write in full the first time it is used.

Author Response

Dear reviewer. 
Thank you very much for your comment. 
We have now submitted it with the change. 
Thank you very much 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx