Primary Healthcare Nurses’ Views on Digital Healthcare Communication and Continuity of Care: A Deductive and Inductive Content Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editors, first of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this text. I attach a number of considerations that I consider to be of interest.
Reference number 2 deals specifically with the diagnosis and management of Heart Failure, and does not correspond exactly with what is stated in the text.
Lines 48 to 50. The authors discuss a wide variety of literature and reference only one study.
It is convenient to specify the objective of the study at the end of the introduction section.
Are lines 111 and 112 inclusion criteria? It is not clear
Who recruited the study participants and how? What biases were detected in the selection process?
Conclusions are too brief, the results obtained should be emphasised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting this paper. I found your manuscript being well-written and highly of interest as it focused on the impact of digital communication and continuity of care in primary care organizations.
Some suggestions are reported as follows, to improve the paper:
1. You wrote that "participants were asked to describe their experiences of using digital healthcare communication in home nursing care” ". Can you include some more information about the interview guide? How was this developed? Were the questions informed by any other sources? Was it sense checked or piloted before the interviews? Could you include a full version as a supplementary file for transparency?
2 2. Can you elaborate/clarify a little more in the “Materials and Methods” section what you mean with “their experiences of using digital healthcare communication”? Which digital communications tools were used by the participants? Video? Chat?
3 3. Can you elaborate a little more about how the participants were recruited? How did they get information about the study? How many in total got invited to participate in the study?
4. How much experience had the participants in the study of using digital communication tools in healthcare communication?
5. The description of the data analysis process is well-written. However, I would suggest adding a Table with examples of data describing the process you have conducted from identifying “units of meaning” resulting in subcategories and categories (section 2.7 Inductive phase).
6. In line 125 you wrote “All researchers were senior researchers” and in line 163 you wrote “The authors were all senior researchers”. The text can be deleted one place to avoid repetition.
7. In Table 1 and Table 2 the quotes are labelled. I notice that quotes from participants A4, A6 and A12 are missing, can you add a quote from all the participants in the study to ensure that all voices are heard?
8. I think it might be helpful to label all your quotes in the “Results” section, for example in lines 245-246 you wrote: “It’s easier to see and read body language about how a person feels at a physical encounter”. Who said this?
9. I miss information about the identified subcategories from the inductive analysis in the study. I suggest adding a Table presenting both the subcategories and categories in the “Results” section to present the results more clearly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript raises the important topic of the relationship of health care nurses to digital communication. The authors of this manuscript attempted to analyze the impact of this issue on health care improvements and continuity of care. In general, the manuscript is written quite well. The authors used a diverse focus group, clearly described the stages of the survey, and correctly selected the methodology (COREQ). It is also worth emphasizing the mention in the manuscript of the confirmation of the study by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority, as well as the high level of English used in the article.
I have suggestions that the article could be stronger and have more impact.
1. In the abstract and in the introduction, it would be helpful to emphasize the main idea of ​​your research. What is the main global problem that is being solved by the results of your research?
2. Are the results only applicable to Sweden? Or can they be extrapolated to wider geographic coverage?
3. I am concerned that a sample of 12 would not be sufficient for the conclusions drawn in this manuscript.
4. Survey results can be presented in a more representative way (eg tables, graphs). Moreover, in your conclusions you type your results K J Sparbel , M A Anderson. If so, you should unequivocally compare your results with theirs.
5. Was there any quantitative evaluation of this research? If not, is it planned in the future?
I have suggestions that the article could be stronger and have more impact.
1. In the abstract and in the introduction, it would be helpful to emphasize the main idea of ​​your research. What is the main global problem that is being solved by the results of your research?
2. Are the results only applicable to Sweden? Or can they be extrapolated to a wider geography?
3. I have doubts that a sample of 12 people will not be enough for the conclusions drawn in this manuscript.
4. Survey results can be presented in a more representative way (e.g. tables, graphs)
5. Was there any quantitative assessment of this issue? If not, is it planned in the future?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, after carefully reviewing the text again, it is noted that changes have been made regarding the suggestions made by this reviewer, so at this time there is no objection to the acceptance of the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the detailed answers to the questions. All necessary changes and additions have been made. I wish you good luck with your research!
