A Graduated Approach to Spiritual Intervention in Health and Long-Term Care
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Brief summary
Dear author and editors,
Thank you for the possibility of reviewing the revisions made to this manuscript. I believe the paper has improved a lot with regards to methodological clarification. The paper is delightful to read and easy to follow. The practical and straightforward approach of the paper could be very useful for many practitioners and the general readership of Religions. I commend the author for their efforts in revising the manuscript.
I have only a few comments left, of which one is a major concern.
Comments:
Although the methodology has now been much more satisfactorily outlined, I do believe that the analysis is missing? The author mentions a content analysis, but doesn’t explain e.g. how papers identified in the search were synthesized, coded, etc. This process is needed in order to follow the link from the methodology to the results (the levels). This is a major concern and would obviously require yet another revision. The author might consider calling the paper a “narrative review” rather than content analysis. In that case, the paper would be more or less in line with what is needed from that. See e.g.
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., and Adams, A. (2006), "Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade," Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5 (3), 101-117. DOI: 10.1016/s0899-3467(07)60142-6.
Minor comments:
In the abstract, I think a few clarifications might be made:
L5: it is probably to steep to say that “professionals know”. Although I understand where the author is going, it would be more precise, and also underline the need for the present paper, to write “many” or “most” or “some” or similar.
L9-11: I would suggest to present the five levels as that would make the results clearer. Something along the lines of this might suffice: “The content analysis identified five levels of spiritual interventions: […]. The first two levels (listening and acknowledgeing, refer) requires no special training”
Other:
L66: typo on “Spiritualy Care”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the relevant content!
The improvements to the text met the requests of the previous review, such as method, procedures, presentation of results, and in-depth discussion of the findings. The new title is now better suited to the content of the text that is also more didactic and clear. Very useful for the practice of spiritual caregivers in long-term care.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
