Strategical Pedagogy for the Development of Socio-Emotional Competences in Nursing Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript's topic is very current and significant regarding a challenging nursing education issue. The study makes a unique contribution because it points to several aspects of developing socio-emotional competencies in nursing students. The manuscript also provides significant data and implications pointing to the need for curriculum restructuring and further discussions to achieve greater resilience among nursing students and thereby maintain a healthier work environment..

I would like to offer some suggestions to improve the manuscript:

-        Introduction: The introduction highlights the importance and concept of socio-emotional competencies in higher education and points to the importance of these competitions for the nursing profession. Moreover, ethics, morals, listening skills, patience, and relationships are indicated to be the worst rated in the hospital sector. However, more information is missing for this quotation, in which context this assessment was made, such as in line 101. Please provide more information regarding that sentence.

It is unclear what the statements in lines 79-80 are based on. The statements must be supported by references. I suggest you correct/complete them.

Facts/perspective about teaching in lines 92-94: is this your conclusion, or is it supported by the literature, which then requires a reference?

-          Materials and Methods: All segments of the descriptive exploratory study that used the approach to qualitative data are adequately presented and clearly described

-          Results: The results are generally adequately presented. However, it remains to be seen why you showed the results related to the student's place of origin in great detail. Does this information impact the study's results and the development of the socio-emotional competencies of the students involved in the study? If there is, it is necessary to consider it both in the introduction and the discussion. Please consider this.

-          Discussion: The authors draw attention to many important questions raised by their research and thematic analysis in correlation with literature data on the socio-emotional competencies of students and nurses. Furthermore, they clearly indicate the study's strengths, suggest potential weaknesses and discuss aspects of pedagogical strategies that have the potential to develop socio-emotional competencies in nursing students.

-          The conclusions are concise, well-argued, and based on research results. The references mentioned are relevant to the topic that the paper dealt with.

I hope you find my comments helpful.

Author Response

Dear Editorial Committee,

We authors would like to thank you for your valuable suggestions and highlight that we have responded to all requests. The corrections are highlighted in yellow, and more specifically we address the following points:

• In the introduction line 67-69, the way in which these variables were evaluated in the highlighted research was highlighted.
• In line 81-83 it is highlighted that these observations were made by the author, in accordance with empirical research in the databases. It was not taken from any citation. This speech is anchored in the research carried out in preparing the article according to the theme.
• In lines 92-97 it is a conclusion of an observation made by the author in accordance with the highlighted theme. It is not taken from any quote.
• Results: results related to the student's place of origin do not impact the study theme. It was just sociodemographic data. Removed as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the manuscript is clear and functional.

The summary of the manuscript is adequate. It has an IMRD structure. The key words are consistent with the purpose and title of the manuscript.

The introduction and theoretical contextualization of the manuscript is coherent. It highlights the importance and justification of the study, providing relevant information about the main categories of analysis, such as professional competence in the field of nursing, socio-emotional competences and teaching methodologies in the university environment. However, the section requires improvements regarding its organization and design, through the following actions: 1) provide more robust data about the context (local, national or international) in which the research is framed; 2) specify in a robust way the way in which professional competences in the field of nursing contribute or do not contribute to the promotion of socio-emotional competences; 3) incorporate pedagogical models and strategies based on evidence that have served to promote the development of socio-emotional competences in nursing students; 4) provide theoretical and epistemological elements around the category of perception and how it was integrated into the study.

Regarding the method, the description of the data collection technique, as well as the ethical considerations are sufficient. However, for the comprehensive improvement of the manuscript, I recommend the following: 1) they should provide more precise technical elements about the paradigm/approach; 2) justify in a more robust way the characteristics of the study (design); 3) they should specify the type of sampling and technically justify the inclusion and exclusion criteria of participants (I recommend using a table). In addition, they should describe how the procedure of contact and selection of participants was carried out (why that educational center was selected and not another); 4) the data analysis strategy is very superficial. It requires a structural improvement in terms of its wording and justification.

Regarding the results, they provide an adequate and functional characterization of the participants. However, the wording and organization (in logical terms and internal coherence) of the emerging categories is confusing. As a recommendation, I suggest a clearer organization of the findings (I recommend constructing a table or figure) in which the main results can be described visually, ensuring greater consistency, coherence and clarity in their writing, complementing it with the representative quotes included in the manuscript. The “challenges” subsection is somewhat confusing in the section, given that, despite its relevance, it is described superficially. On the other hand, the names of some categories are very long and linear. Review or correct.

The discussion is relevant, pertinent and current. I would only recommend a minor revision in terms of its writing and logical organization. Likewise, they provide a mention of the limitations of the study.

The conclusions are adequate, although very brief for the nature and focus of the study. Likewise, the projections that emerge from the manuscript can be improved.

The references require a structural and thorough review, so that they comply with the editorial standards of the journal.

Author Response

We authors would like to thank you for your valuable suggestions and highlight that we have responded to all requests. The corrections are highlighted in yellow, and more specifically we address the following points:

• In the introduction line 66-68, the way in which these variables were evaluated in the highlighted research was highlighted.
• In line 95-97 it is highlighted that these observations were made by the author, in accordance with empirical research in the databases. It was not taken from any citation. This speech is anchored in the research carried out in preparing the article according to the theme.
• In lines 103-107 it is a conclusion of an observation made by the author in accordance with the highlighted theme. It is not taken from any quote.
• Provided more robust data on the context (local, national or international) in which the research is framed.
• Robustly specifies the way in which professional skills in the area of ​​nursing contribute or not to the promotion of socio-emotional skills. Line 53-57
• Requested to "provide theoretical and epistemological elements surrounding the category of perception and how it was integrated into the study." The data in the introduction were taken from research carried out in databases plus reflection on the authorship. A systematic review was not performed. The theoretical framework of the theme used was already mentioned previously in quotes 11-16.
• Requested in the introduction to "incorporate evidence-based pedagogical models and strategies that served to promote the development of socio-emotional skills in nursing students", however it is highlighted that there is no evidence in the literature that confirms this finding. There are mentions about strategies to strengthen socio-emotional intelligence, such as that already mentioned in lines 92-94, but there are no specific citations about socio-emotional competence and strategies for its development. Therefore, this study aims to describe these strategies.
• In the method: provided more precise technical elements about the paradigm/approach and characteristics of the study (design); The inclusion and exclusion criteria were already described, but, as this is a qualitative study, with a small sample, we do not see the need to create a table if the detailed collection method was mentioned.
• Included on how to contact and collect data with participants and in-depth data analysis phases.
• Results: “results related to the student's place of origin do not impact the study theme”. It was just sociodemographic data. Removed as suggested.
• Results: As this is a qualitative study, we authors do not see the intention of creating a extra table (as we do not have numerical data) so an extraction table was created according to the statements highlighted. The data has been rewritten to make it clear. Table 1 highlights and illustrates the main strategies found. Category names have been shortened. The challenge category has been rewritten.
• In-depth discussion and conclusion.
• References corrected in accordance with the journal’s standards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This manuscript is written well and clearly. To enhance some parts, I have some suggestions for the authors, as below:

1. The research questions and aim are not in line with each other. On page 3 lines 108-109, this study is guided by the question, “What strategies has the university mobilized for developing SEC in nursing students in Brazil?”; however, the aim of the study based on page 3 lines 117-118 is “to describe nursing students' perceptions of the main pedagogical strategies provided and used by the university for developing SEC in Brazil.” I suggest changing the question or the aim to make them in line with each other. If the question is “what strategies?"  the aim of this study should be to know the strategies the university developed, not to know students’ perceptions about the strategies.
2. How to ensure the robustness of this study? Please add the trustworthiness of the study under the method section.
3. What questions were asked during FGs? Did researchers use an interview guide during the interview? Please add the information.
4. Need English editing, for example: Page 2 lines 69, 76: A scoping review international, a systematic review international, etc. do that mean an international scoping review? Page 2 line 86, the authors wrote “some researcher’s internationals."  Do they mean some international researchers? Another example is page 2, line 78, where it is written, “students graduate unprepared” and so on., do you mean graduate student unprepared...?

Author Response

Dear Editorial Committee,

We authors would like to thank you for your valuable suggestions and highlight that we have responded to all requests. The corrections are highlighted in yellow, and more specifically we address the following points:

• In the introduction and summary, the objective was rewritten to be aligned with the research question inserted as suggested by the reviewer (Pg 3, 149-151). Still in the introduction, included a discussion about the cultural meaning of SECs and whether they are transferable (Pg 2, 69-86). Also included more clearly the reasons why there are few detailed and pedagogical articles on the dynamics of SECs (Pg 3, 104-111).
• Explained and detailed the terms 'meaningful learning', or 'successful careers', or 'transformative learning' in the introduction. (Pg 3, 120-126)
• Included in the method in the ethical aspects item on the robustness of this study and added on Trustworthiness. (Pg 5, 232-238)
• The method also included the questions asked during the FGs (Pg 5, 199-204). Furthermore, details about the exact content of each FG and what material was covered in each one were included more clearly (Pg 5, 206-218).
• Performed English editing and grammar review with a specialized translator.
• As the objectives of the work were rewritten in order to clarify the guiding questions, we believe they are in agreement with the results presented.
• Included quote about Trustworthiness.

We, authors, are at your disposal for clarifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was an extremely interesting paper and I enjoyed reading it. Thankyou. However, there are points that need clarification prior to further consideration for publication. These include:

1. a discussion within the literature about the cultural significance of SECs - are they culturally transferable? do they apply to nursing in all cultural and international contexts?

2. a clearer discussion as to the reasons that there are few detailed and pedagogical papers concerning the dynamics of SECs and  how these show the sorts of skills and outcomes that are desired within nursing in general.

3. in some places, you refer to 'meaningful learning', or 'successful careers', or 'transformative learning'. These are all very particular terms which need to be explained to give the best possible understanding and interpretation of the paper's research.

4. it is quite clear what was carried out in the research. There is little detail on the exact content of each FG and what material was covered in each and why. 

5. as a result, the findings are not located carefully in the data as far as I can see. They are very interesting findings but there seems to be missing link between the aims of the study and the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are many grammatical errors in the paper so the quality of language needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear Editorial Committee,

We authors would like to thank you for your valuable suggestions and highlight that we have responded to all requests. The corrections are highlighted in yellow, and more specifically we address the following points:

• In the introduction and summary, the objective was rewritten to be aligned with the research question inserted as suggested by the reviewer (Pg 3, 149-151). Still in the introduction, included a discussion about the cultural meaning of SECs and whether they are transferable (Pg 2, 69-86). Also included more clearly the reasons why there are few detailed and pedagogical articles on the dynamics of SECs (Pg 3, 104-111).
• Explained and detailed the terms 'meaningful learning', or 'successful careers', or 'transformative learning' in the introduction. (Pg 3, 120-126)
• Included in the method in the ethical aspects item on the robustness of this study and added on Trustworthiness. (Pg 5, 232-238)
• The method also included the questions asked during the FGs (Pg 5, 199-204). Furthermore, details about the exact content of each FG and what material was covered in each one were included more clearly (Pg 5, 206-218).
• Performed English editing and grammar review with a specialized translator.
• As the objectives of the work were rewritten in order to clarify the guiding questions, we believe they are in agreement with the results presented.
• Included quote about Trustworthiness.

We, authors, are at your disposal for clarifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy with the revisions and thank the authors for their comments