Potential of Assistive Robots in Clinical Nursing: An Observational Study of Nurses’ Transportation Tasks in Rural Clinics of Bavaria, Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. You raise the important issue of staff shortages in nursing and attempts to counteract its effects. Your research is an important voice in the discussion about the future of nursing and the workload of nurses.
Although I evaluate your work positively, I have a few comments that may improve your manuscript.
1 – lines 51-53 – should be deleted. The reader knows what the structure of a scientific article is
2 – lines 39-50 – should be included in the Material and Methods section
3 – how were the facilities and staff selected for observation?
4 – how many staff were on duty? What was the age of the staff? Sometimes senior staff are reluctant to "new things" and prefer to do something quickly manually
5 – how was the observation conducted?
6 – headings 5.1 and 5.2 are redundant
7 – what are the limitations of your study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIf assistive robots appear in the keywords, as well as an allusion in the abstract, I propose that this proposal/use appear in the title. In short, consider changing the title of the article and in this change the identification of the country: Lower Bavaria - Germany. The title should reflect the scope and object of the study, which it does not. The keywords must include ‘rural clinics’. They should rethink the number of keywords to a maximum of 5, it makes the article more objective.
Section 2, despite mobilizing a variety of sources/authors, appears to be very summarized. I propose that this section must be more descriptive.
Table 4 presents the various variables they observed. How did these variables arise? Were there similar studies that used them? It is important and fundamental to mention how this observation list came about. Was it validated? It is important to validate research instruments in order to provide rigor to the investigation. This information must be included in the revised version to clarify this fundamental point! In tables 2 and 3 there is a reference to a reference: REFA-Methodology.
In general, the data analysis is well presented with tables, figures and graphs that help to better understand the data gathered.
Table 8 presents values in euros… what is the source for these values attributed to the different tasks? It is true that they refer to some sources but they also present projections… this is where my doubts lie.
Section 5.1. refers careful with generalizations and some weaknesses: well done!
In Section 5.2.3. mention the robots… they only appear here. In the literature review this dimension must be included.
The conclusions are very synthetic and should be expanded with a more critical and reflective appreciation and support.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think this is an interesting research question.
I think RQ is research question, but please state as RQ (research question).
Also, I think that there is a review of previous studies and Table 1 is extracted to create the RQs.
2. Related Work （Literature Review)
Line 95, "In conclusion", this expression "from the above literature review" is considered appropriate.
3. Methodology (The Study)
In this section, please include the following
Objective(s),
Research Questions
Place the text of lines 39-50 and the RQs in this section.
Does it include the following?
Study design
Study setting and sampling
Inclusion and/or exclusion criteria
Instrument with validity and reliability/ data source
Data collection Data analysis
Please briefly describe the method of data analysis for Table 4-8 (9) and Figure 1-5.
In addition, line 282 "4.8. Transportation Cost Analysis" describes the method of analysis in the Results section.
Line 380, Why is Table 9 included in the discussion?
The research methodology as described above is not well organized.
With the above, I believe this manuscript can become a better paper.
I hope you find this helpful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for taking my suggestions into account. The manuscript is clearer now. You put a lot of work into improving.
It's a bit difficult to read seeing the previous version and the changes made at the same time. However, I am satisfied with your work.
Congratulation!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript has been appropriately revised. Thank you very much.
