All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I am pleased to accept the revised version of this interesting paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Thank the authors for considering my concerns and revised thea manuscript.
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
Please consider reviewers' comments and revise the paper accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
This is a meaningful survey on the prevalence of fatigue among Chinese nursing students. Before publication, I have several concerns as follows:
1. In line 123-128, the authors said "To lower the risk of contagion between
students, the spring semester was postponed in all universities in China since early 2020. Further, all classroom teaching has been suspended, and replaced by online teaching and learning (Xinhuanet, 2020a, Xinhuanet, 2020b). Due to lockdown measures, outdoor/ physical activities were prohibited." Is this true in all areas of China? Or what's the period/areas when outdoor/ physical activities were prohibited?
2. Using the Questionnaire Star Application embedded in WeChat, how did the participants provide the written informed consent?
3. A NRS was adopted to evaluate severity of pain (Haefeli and Elfering, 2006). What kind of pain was asked here? What is the relationship between pain and fatigue? The authors should introduce and discuss with more details.
4. How did the authors measured the economic loss, perceived economic status and perceived health status? Is there any criterion or tools for these?
5. In the univariate analyses, I see age (years) was significantly statistically different between the two groups. So is the variable age entered into the multiple binary logistic regression model? If yes, multicollinearity could exist between age and the year of study.
6. A total of 1,121 nursing students were consecutively invited to participate in this study; of whom, 1,070 met the study criteria and completed the assessment, yielding a response rate of 95.5%. Is that mean 51 of the invited nursing students did not match the criteria? Why they were lost?
7. In the Discussion section, I don't suggest the authors to say "This was the first study that examined the prevalence of fatigue among nursing students in post-COVID-19 era". Its is hard to say the "first".
8. Actually Table 2 and Figure 1 showed the same results.
9. Typo in line 222: (OR=1.48, 95%CI=1.08-3.33, P=0.015; compared to low loss)).
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors aimed to examine the prevalence of fatigue and its association with QOL among nursing students during the post-COVID-19 era in China. It is qualified for PeerJ, while several issues should be addressed first.
1. In the abstract, the authors declared “many nursing students were summoned to work in hospitals to compensate for the shortage of manpower”, however, as I know, few medical students were summoned to work in the COVID-19 outbreak. So, it would be better to give more information in the Introduction.
In the methods, was there any variables such as whether the students were summoned to work or not investigated? If yes, please give the information, if not, please give the reasons.
2. In this study, five university nursing schools (locates in Beijing, Jilin, Lanzhou, and Wuhan) were investigated, these four cities are in the north or centre of China, they can’t represent the prevalence of China.
3. How many students from Wuhan, was there any difference from other school?
4. In the discussion, if no data supported the medical students served as volunteers in clinical settings, it can’t be conclude as the reasons of high levels of stress and anxiety at work.
5. The English writing should be revised by a native speaker.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.