What Are the Best Practices for Nursing Care during an Earthquake? A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review paper on nursing practice as good nursing care during earthquakes was very interesting to me. I believe that readers of this journal will also enjoy reading the results of an objective analysis of nursing phenomena that they know and are familiar with through experience.

 

459 items were excluded from 486 in the screening phase of Figure 1. Study selection process flowchart. Please briefly add the reason for exclusion to Figure 1.

 

'Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.' 

'Table 2. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.'

Please delete this sentence and provide an appropriate title in Tables 1 and 2.

 

122-124 lines

'the nursing practices identified were grouped into two distinct dimensions: 1) Care practices; and 2) Care management and coordination practices.'

It would be good to divide the 'Main practices identified' part of Table 1 into two dimensions.

 

Why was what was extracted as 'Main practices identified' in Table 1 deleted from Table 2? An explanation of the process leading to these results is necessary.

 

There is a lot of overlap between the results part and the discussion. I recommend a brief description based on the main findings in the discussion.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We thank you for the opportunity to have our manuscript ijerph-2812274, entitled "What are the best practices for nursing care during earthquake? A scoping review", evaluated for publication by IJERPH. We also would like to thank the reviewer for his/her consideration and time spent reviewing our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

 

REVIEWER 1

Comment 1: The review paper on nursing practice as good nursing care during earthquakes was very interesting to me. I believe that readers of this journal will also enjoy reading the results of an objective analysis of nursing phenomena that they know and are familiar with through experience.

459 items were excluded from 486 in the screening phase of Figure 1. Study selection process flowchart. Please briefly add the reason for exclusion to Figure 1.

Our response: Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for the helpful comments you have provided. We briefly included the explanation for the exclusion of articles in the text and complemented the information in Figure 1.

 

Comment 2: 'Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.' 

'Table 2. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.'

Please delete this sentence and provide an appropriate title in Tables 1 and 2.

Our response: The titles of tables 1 and 2 were included.

 

Comment 3: 122-124 lines

'the nursing practices identified were grouped into two distinct dimensions: 1) Care practices; and 2) Care management and coordination practices.'

It would be good to divide the 'Main practices identified' part of Table 1 into two dimensions.

Our response: The table was divided into two, as suggested.

 

Comment 4: Why was what was extracted as 'Main practices identified' in Table 1 deleted from Table 2? An explanation of the process leading to these results is necessary.

Our response: The data extracted from Table 1 were grouped after critical content analysis. Thus, tables 2 and 3 (post review) present the summarized text of Nursing practices in earthquake situations. Each practice listed combines the evidence identified across several studies.

We changed the text as follows:

A critical analysis of each identified practice was conducted, generating connections with dimensions of analysis, later referred to as “Care practices” and “Care management and coordination practices”. Tables 2 and 3 presents a summary of Nursing care practices identified in the lit-erature for earthquake, in dimensions: 1) Care practices; and 2) Care management and coordination practices, respectively. (our emphasis)

 

Comment 5: There is a lot of overlap between the results part and the discussion. I recommend a brief description based on the main findings in the discussion.

Our response: The text was reformulated, as suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Some comments are suggested:

 

-       It would be interesting if the keywords are DeCS/MeSH descriptors.

-       It would be interesting to provide in the introduction data on nursing actions in earthquakes as well as data that justify that nursing actions save or improve situations in catastrophes. It is an area well worked on in caring for multiple victims in disasters and triage.

-       Didn't you register with PROSPERO?

-       The methodology and results are relevant and correct

-       The discussion could be organized into subsections to make it clearer.

-       The discussion also misses the impact that the actions carried out by nurses have on harm reduction.

-       The conclusions must be more specific regarding the results obtained.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We thank you for the opportunity to have our manuscript ijerph-2812274, entitled "What are the best practices for nursing care during earthquake? A scoping review", evaluated for publication by IJERPH. We also would like to thank the reviewer for his/her consideration and time spent reviewing our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

 

REVIEWER 2

Comment 1: Some comments are suggested:

 -       It would be interesting if the keywords are DeCS/MeSH descriptors.

Our response: Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for the helpful comments you have provided. MeSH descriptors and their respective synonyms were used to create the search strategy. The complete strategy is available in the supplementary material.

We changed the text to:

The search strategy included the MeSH descriptors [(“Nursing Care” OR “Patient Care Planning” OR “Nursing”) AND “Earthquakes”] and their respective synonyms. The searches were carried out in the MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PDQ-Evidence, Scopus, ProQuest and the Virtual Health Library (VHL) collection databases. A search was carried out in gray literature using Google Scholar and reference list of included articles. The searches took place in February 2022 and were updated on May 19, 2023. The complete search strategy is available in Supplementary Material. (our emphasis)

 

Comment 2: It would be interesting to provide in the introduction data on nursing actions in earthquakes as well as data that justify that nursing actions save or improve situations in catastrophes. It is an area well worked on in caring for multiple victims in disasters and triage.

Our response: The text was reformulated, as suggested by the reviewer.

The International Council of Nurses (ICN) noted in its 2009 Framework of Disaster Nursing Competencies the critical role these professionals play in disasters. With the largest group of engaged healthcare staff, nurses serve as first responders, screening agents and care providers, care and service coordinators, information or education providers, and, ultimately, counselors [6]. There is still no clear definition of disaster nursing in the world, but it can be understood as the systematic and flexible use of knowledge and skills related to disasters and coo-peration with multidisciplinary teams, from pre-disaster to post-disaster, to reduce health risks, and life-threatening damage caused by disasters. However, there is little research evidence to guide nurses as well as nursing training programs, and the multi-plicity and diversity of disasters have led to variations in the content of responses to disaster care [7,8]. (our emphasis)

Comment 3: Didn't you register with PROSPERO?

Our response: PROSPERO does not allow the registration of scoping review protocols (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). At the time, we did not look for other protocol registration platforms.

 

Comment 4: The methodology and results are relevant and correct. The discussion could be organized into subsections to make it clearer.

Our response: The text was reformulated, as suggested by the reviewer.

 

Comment 5: The discussion also misses the impact that the actions carried out by nurses have on harm reduction.

Our response: The text was reformulated, as suggested by the reviewer.

 

Comment 6: The conclusions must be more specific regarding the results obtained.

Our response: The text was reformulated, as suggested by the reviewer.