Innovation Support Reduces Quiet Quitting and Improves Innovative Behavior and Innovation Outputs among Nurses in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with an interesting and little studied topic. The logic of the construction is clear and logic, as is the presentation of the results. The limitations of the study are well described.

The section on future perspectives and implications should be improved, thinking not only about a national implications but also about possible similar experiences in other Countries.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. the manuscript is well-written and there are a few improvements to make it perfect, following my suggestion.

 

The title is repetitive, especially the innovation word.

 

Abstract

There is no data about the sample and equator checklist.

 

Introduction

lines 31-37 there are no references to support your sentences. 

The introduction's second page should focus on the nurses and not on employees, see for example the paragraph on the quit quitting.

The rationale of this research is simply the absence of a previous study. This is a limited support and you have not even supported this sentence with a reference. 

The research hypotheses are missing. 

Methods

The sample should be a separate paragraph. The first subparagraph should be the study design. the Equator checklist followed is missing.

Are there exclusion criteria?

The data collection subparagraph and its relative concepts are missing: how have the survey shared, reminders, how privacy has been guaranteed... 

Move the sample estimation to the sample subparagraph. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title. The title is attractive, and clear, and informs readers about the study's focus.

Abstract. It provides a general and faithful overview of the study carried out. However, it is silent regarding ethical considerations. Authors are suggested to add missing information.

Keywords. The authors listed four keywords. To increase the possibility of the manuscript being found in databases, it is suggested that authors add keywords related to screening tools, for example: “assessment of healthcare needs”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=assessment+of+healthcare+needs and “patient-reported outcome measures” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/2016372.

Introduction. The manuscript contextualizes the importance of the innovative behaviour of nurses in promoting the quality of care. It defines the core concepts of the study (innovation, nurse innovation behaviours, and quiet quitting). It highlights the importance of the work environment and the role of supervisors/managers in nurses’ development. It justifies the pertinence of the study with the absence of identical studies. However, as the authors wrote in the abstract “We found that managerial support and cultural improved several aspects of innovative behaviour,” to improve the introduction, it is suggested to contextualize the study with current culture creation policies in innovation in health care, for example with:

https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/373122/9789240080973-eng.pdf?sequence=1

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/council-on-the-economics-of-health-for-all/councilbrief-no1_20210609_corr.pdf?sfvrsn=90341716_5

https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diae2022d2_en.pdf

factsheet.pdf?sfvrsn=e60ddd10_1&download=true

Methods. I suggest the authors change the 2.1 subsection to “Study design and sample”.

Discussion. The authors do not discuss some important results, for example, the positive impact of cultural support on the idea generation, idea communication and implementation starting activities”. I encourage the authors to support this result with studies or experiences in which the existence of programs, hubs, competitions, and the integration of hospitals into innovation ecosystems led nurses to develop ideas for care devices to improve or have improved patient outcomes. I also encourage authors to explore another result: the impact of managerial support on improving innovation outputs, discussing some examples of outputs, such as the creation of nursing innovation projects, such as nursing consultations, app development, etc. In addition, I think the authors are worth introducing a section on “implications for nursing management and leadership” leaving some recommendations/ideas for initiatives to promote the culture of innovation in work environments by nurse leaders. The documents below may be inspiring:

https://www.nursingworld.org/globalassets/ana/innovations-roadmap-english.pdf

https://www.england.nhs.uk/improvement-hub/wp-content/uploads/sites/44/2017/11/Creating-the-Culture-for-Innovation-Practical-Guide-for-Leaders.pdf

 References. It must be reviewed, in particular the abbreviated journal names.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf