Evaluation of an Online Learning Concept for Nursing Students in Caring for Patients with Dementia: Results of a Questionnaire Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors for the manuscript they present, but in my opinion could be improved. My comments are organized below for your consideration. I hope my comments are useful for the study author(s) and editorial staff.
# Abstract:
line 10 - the number (1) should be removed.
line 12 - the number (2) should be removed.
line 16 - the number (3) should be removed.
line 22 - the number (4) should be removed.
line 12 – In my opinion the type of study is not a quantitative study, but a quantitative study with a qualitative component
#1 Introduction:
The authors refer that the geriatric assessment covers 8 areas, but in the description of the instruments used to make this assessment I think that the area of sensory functions is missing.
The authors describe the instruments used to assess the different areas identified (e.g. - "(1) activities of daily living (Barthel Index, IADL)", but do not mention which instrument was used to assess "(5) mobility and risk of falling" (e.g., the authors may use the Morse Fall Scale).
#2 Materials and Methods:
- The authors should delete the text on lines 88-102 because it belongs to the Nursing Reports Journal template.
- The authors put results about the characterization of the sample in the subheading "2.1. Participants" (lines 128-129), but they must transfer these data to the beginning of heading "3. Results", where they should characterize the sample
#3 Results
- The authors could improve the results of the qualitative analysis by placing a figure with the outline of the categories and subcategories as well as a word cloud.
#4 Discussion
- Line 276: The authors must revise the punctuation of this sentence " with dementia Bickford et al (2017). report similar".
- Line 296: The authors must revise the punctuation of this sentence " with this digital program Li et al. (2021). reinforces these"
- Line 313: The authors must revise this sentence " are described by Taylor et al. They report an online"
- The authors should consider as a limitation the risk of bias related to the possibility that the responses of the nursing students were given according to social desirability.
#5 Conclusions
- I don't understand why the authors write study in capital letters in this sentence " the Study describes the feasibility of an online-learning concept" (line 338). It doesn't make sense.
# Other comments:
- The authors must delete the content of line 351, because it belongs to the Nursing Reports Journal template.
- The authors must add the "Institutional Review Board Statement" between the "Funding" and the "Informed Consent Statement", as requested by the Nursing Reports Journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this study. The manuscript addresses an interesting topic of nursing education. According to my point of view, there are some issues that would improve the quality of this manuscript as the following:
- The introduction section is well written; however, it would be better if the authors mentioned how the results of this study are expected to help this population in last paragraph.
- Materials and Methods: I think the information from lines 88-102 should be deleted, which is not a part of this paper. Please be careful with this.
- Participants. How many available participants are there in the study setting? How many settings? How to present power analysis and calculate the sample size?
- Lines 106-109 should be moved to the “Institutional Review Board Statement” section (please follow the journal guideline).
- Research instrument: As the authors mentioned that "No valid and reliable instrument in the form of a standardized questionnaire was available. Therefore, a questionnaire was developed instead."
- This is a significant concern regarding all research instruments that were developed by the researchers. This part needs further detail regarding the process of development, validity, and reliability. Please be aware of the construct validity.
- Also, the information about all research instruments needs to be clarified, such as scoring (Likert’s scale or Rating scale), cutoff point, and psychometric properties of each research instrument.
- Lines 149-150: The authors mentioned that “the questionnaire consisted of three dimensions with 74 items;” however, the authors also stated that “48 questionnaires were sent to nursing students.” Regarding this, which one is correct? Please kindly check it.
- Data analysis: Please use the “Chi-squared test” instead of “Chi2 Test” throughout this paper. Also, some assumptions of Chi-squared test and Spearman correlation should be mentioned; why?
- Does “A p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant?” Please mention them.
- Results: The participants’ characteristics should be mentioned because socio-demographic data has been conducted (Lines 143-144), and the response rate of the final sample comprised needs to be mentioned in this survey.
- Strengths and practical implications of this paper and/or describe what needs to be advanced as a prospective future study based on the findings and limitations of the current study.
- The citations need to be checked according to the journal guidelines in both the main text and reference sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
You have worked hard work in doing this manuscript. Unfortunately this manuscript is the result of a satisfaction survey on online learning programs, and the significance of this manuscript to the academic world seems to be very insufficient.
It would be more meaningful if it was a study that evaluated the effectiveness of online learning programs. I suggest some review comments.
There are no general characteristics of the study subjects. Please present this.
Qualitative research is also very insufficient. It seems like there should be enough interview data about this.
Only 28 out of 48 participated, and nearly half of the subjects dropped out. In this part, the results of this study are seem to have fatal errors.
Please explain on the Kuckartz's content analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All comments have been addressed! Congratulations
Reviewer 3 Report
You have worked hard work in revising this manuscript. Unfortunately it is not considered to be a significant improvement based on the previous review comments.
