Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 28th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 5th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 17th, 2015 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on July 30th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on August 1st, 2015 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 1st, 2015.

Version 0.4 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations. Your revised manuscript is currently accepted for publication. Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript which will now undergo galley proof preparation.

·

Basic reporting

No further comments!

Experimental design

No furher comments!

Validity of the findings

No further comments!

Comments for the author

Very good work!!

Version 0.3

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors

Please do attend to these comments: In spite of the inclusion of many of the previous suggestions, it would be desirable if the article reported two key demographic variables in ICU relatives evidence: Previous ICU experience and the distribution of relative´s educational level due to them being well known determinants of family needs and could add to the instrument´s discrimination strength.

If those variables were not assessed, it should be explicitly stated as a limitation. Moreover, due to some limitations of the sample demographic descriptions, my suggestion is to focus on the robust methodology instead of homogeneity of participants’ demographic features as the study´s strengths

It would make the manuscript information more complete.

Thank You

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors, There are some minors comments from one reviewer that needs to be attended to. Please do this as soon as possible so that the manuscript can be re-reviewed again.

·

Basic reporting

No comments, good work!

Experimental design

No comments, good work!

Validity of the findings

In spite of the inclusion of many of the previous sugestions, it would be desirable if the article report two key demographic variables in ICU relatives evidence: Previous ICU experience and the distribution of relative´s educational level due they´re well known determinants of family needs and could add to the instrument´s discrimination strenght.

If those variables were not assessed, it should be explicited as limitation. Moreover, due some limitations of the sample demographic descriptions, my suggestions it´s to focus on the robust methodology instead of homogeneity of participants’ demographic features as study´s strenghts.

·

Basic reporting

Article now meets all requirements

Experimental design

Article now meets all requirements

Validity of the findings

Article now meets all requirements

Comments for the author

Article now meets all requirements

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors,

Enclosed are suggestions to improve your manuscript. You may or may not include the references that are suggested by the peer reviewers if they are relevant or choose not to but, please do the necessary revisions as written in their peer reviewer comments.

·

Basic reporting

No comments!

Experimental design

The validation process is very well conducted and methodologically designed, but it worth to mention a few points:

- Forward translation: Due the more frequent contact with the relatives and his non-technical way of communication, it would be interesting if one of the two translators were an ICU nurse.

- Implementation: Despite of the good number of subjects for a validation process, authors don´t mention any criteria for the selection of the number, for example, Brislin´s criteria (1986) which requires minimum 5 subjects for each item.

- Inclusion criteria of relatives: The author explicit only two criteria for relatives (age, 24 - 72 hrs.) but in the general literature about family needs/satisfaction, and the other validations, there are relevant inclusion criteria not included in the article such as: previous ICU experience, length of stay > 48 hrs. (24 hrs. would be not enough to “assimilate” the ICU experience) or educational level. Moreover, an educational level of 8th grade at least for readability and understanding, is a CCFNI author´s (Leske) requirement for application and it helps to the contextualization of which people among Turkish population this version could be finally applied.

In this study the authors included only relatives but there´s a broader use of the word “relative” or “family” in the ICU family literature. A modern concept of “relative” it is not limited to the blood related subjects but also includes patient´s relevant persons. Further studies should not include only blood related persons.

Validity of the findings

No comments!

Comments for the author

Excellent validation process, comments related to inclusion criteria such as "relative" definition and ICU previous experience can be addressed in further studies in Turkish population and the rest should be explicited as limitations of the study (educational level not included /reported as an inclusion criteria and relevant demographic data).

·

Basic reporting

The article has clearly defined the outcome of the study. The scientific validity and reliability has been addressed and acceptable.
in the view of reviewer, this is an acceptable article.
No other comments.

Experimental design

No comments.

Validity of the findings

No comments.

Comments for the author

This is a pertinent study and the tools may also be used in some other country with similar background and culture.

·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

The authors are to be congratulated on the very thorough method for establishing content validity in terms of both language and cultural relevance. This is a step that is often treated too lightly in similar translations of instruments. While I am aware that some commentators would recommend a confirmatory factor analysis, I concur with the authors use of exploratory factor analysis. Having established a different factor structure, the authors may wish to use this Turkish version to explore different perceptions of family needs, for example, between family members and critical care nurses as in:
1. Kinrade, T, Jackson AC & Tomnay, J. (2009) The psychosocial needs of families during critical illness: A comparison of nurses’ and family members’ perspectives, Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27,1, 82-88
2. Kinrade, T, Jackson AC & Tomnay, J. (2011) Social workers’ perspectives on the psychosocial needs of families during critical illness, Social Work in Health Care, 50, 1-21.

The paper could do with one final edit for minor irregularities in English expression.

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.