Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on professional identity development of intern nursing students in China: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Clinical experience plays a vital role in the development of the professional identity (PI) of nursing students. China has applied a strict zero- COVID health policy in combating the COVID-19 pandemic since December 2019 and studies have been conducted in different places of China to explore PI development of nursing students during the pandemic time among the intern nursing students who are on clinical practices. This review study aims to synthesize the previous studies and provide a comprehensive picture of the impacts of the pandemic on the PI development of intern nursing students.
METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework was used. Combinations of keywords were used to search relevant articles in both Chinese and English databases published from inception of the articles until the final search date (10 March 2022). The initially included articles were also appraised for their quality, and those that passed the appraisal were left for data analysis. The analytic results were cross-checked among the reviewers. RESULT: Three themes emerged from the included studies: 1) the PI levels, 2) the impacts of personal and social factors of PL, and 3) the specific impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The levels of students' PI ranged from 66%-80% of the total scores in PI instruments, almost the same levels as in pre-pandemic time, despite the elevated social image of nurses after the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no consensus about the impacts of most personal and social factors on students' PI across the studies. The impacts of COVID-19 on PI were both positive and negative.
CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 epidemic exerted complicated impacts on the PI of intern nursing students. While it is necessary to address the fear of the COVID-19 pandemic among intern nursing students, the pandemic may not be an opportunistic time to enhance the students' PI.

Introduction

COVID-19 was first reported in December 2019 in central China and soon spread to other places of China and beyond the border. As of March 20, 2022, over 468 million confirmed cases and 6 million deaths were reported globally [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed severe challenges for healthcare professionals, especially for the frontline nursing staff since its breakout in 2019 [1]. It also affected the clinical experience of nursing students [2, 3]. The pandemic is a fast-moving public health crisis and has manifested differently in different places [4]. While most countries have decided to live with COVID-19 after having experienced the painful surges of infections, China has kept the most stringent measures all the time. A number of research studies on nursing professional identity (PI) in China have explored the development of nursing students’ PI in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic since early 2020 [5-9]. The current review study will synthesize the findings of the previous studies and portray a full picture of the relationship between the pandemic and PI of the intern nursing students.

Intern nursing students in China are those students who are in their final year of nursing program and are conducting one-year clinical practice under the supervision of experienced clinical nurses [10]. Nursing students are in the process of developing their PI, a journey when they internalize nursing-related knowledge, skills, and values [11, 12]. Junior nursing students develop PI in nursing schools by learning nursing-related knowledge and engaging with student peers and faculty members, while intern students nurture their PI by engaging with nursing staff and patients in clinical practices [13-15].

In many countries, COVID-19 has forced the shutdown of schools during the outbreak peaks [2, 16]. In addition, fieldwork practices for students have been canceled or postponed [2, 17]. China applies a zero-COVID policy, and even a handful of cases can trigger a big city with millions of population into lockdown. As a result, China has seen fewer and smaller COVID-19 spikes than many other countries. However, due to the strict policy and the high transmissibility of new COVID-19 variants, healthcare systems in many places in China have been overwhelmed by sporadic cases [18].

Intern nursing students have to face the changing learning environment brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. In some countries, like Spain, intern nursing students who had little work experience were put on the frontline in taking care of the COVID-19 cases, and this induced psychological distress among the intern students [19]. On the other hand, thanks to the relatively fewer COVID-19 inpatients in China than those in many other countries, no intern nursing students in China are reported to directly encounter COVID-19 patients because more experienced nurses or nurse specialists are usually allocated to the COVID-19 units. While frontline nurses exposed to COVID-19-related healthcare in China experienced COVID-19-induced distress [20-22], nursing students also reported anxiety, worry, fear, and sadness [22, 23].

Researchers interested in the PI of nursing students in China have added COVID-19 into their exploration of the influencing factors of PI since 2020. However, their studies differ in research areas and scopes, and the extent of the pandemic also varies in different places in China, resulting in different findings [5-9]. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain the convincing evidence from single studies on the specific role the pandemic has played in shaping the PI of nursing students. It is necessary to review current studies to get a broad view of the pandemic’s impacts on the intern students’ PI development.

Methods

A scoping review of the literature on the PI of intern nursing students in China under the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted to summarize the available evidence on the factors affecting the PI of intern nurses, with the review process guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage scoping review framework [24]. The researchers also referred to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) in data collection, data analysis, and the reporting of the review study [25] (Please see S1 Table).

Stage 1: Identifying the research questions

Intern nursing students on clinical practices may have been differently affected by the pandemic compared with the junior students on the campus of the nursing schools. Two main questions were identified: 1) How were the PI levels of the intern nursing students during the epidemic? 2) What factors affected the PI of intern nursing students?

Stage 2: Searching for relevant literature

The two researchers of this review study began with the Chinese databases CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data and then followed by English databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, Clinicalkey, and ProQuest. They also searched the grey literature on Google Scholar. No time limit and study design were imposed on the publications. The search was conducted to identify all relevant publications from inception until the final search date (10 March 2022).

Stage 3: Screening articles

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the included studies were developed. The studies would be included if they: 1) explored the impacts of COVID-19; 2) focused on the development of PI; and 3) contained intern nursing students from the baccalaureate programs. We targeted the students from the baccalaureate programs to reflect the nursing education trend in China. There are three levels of pre-registration nursing programs in China: secondary diploma; advanced diploma; and baccalaureate degree, with the baccalaureate program increasing steadily in the past years. Of around 540000 nursing students in the three programs in 2017 in China, 10% joined the baccalaureate program [26]; while among 515700 nursing students in 2012, 7.71% were in the baccalaureate program [27].

The studies would be excluded if they: 1) did not contain the nursing students in the baccalaureate program or 2) were conducted outside mainland China.

After the removal of duplicate articles, 1574 articles were left. A two-phase screening was independently performed by the two researchers. Phase 1: Review titles and abstracts of the articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Phase 2: Read the full text of the articles left after the first phase. The two researchers independently screened articles, and any discrepancies between them were agreed upon through discussion. After the two screenings, 25 articles were identified (Fig 1).

Fig 1

The search and screening of relevant articles.

Quality appraisal

As all the 25 articles were survey studies, the researchers conducted a quality appraisal using an appraisal checklist form (Center for Evidence-Based Management [28]) to examine the quality of the selected studies. This checklist includes 12 questions related to the quality of the articles, with three choices for each of the questions: Yes, No, or Can’t tell. There had been no guidelines on how to use the appraisal checklist, and the researchers decided to quantify the appraisal outcome to facilitate the analysis. The desired answer to each question would be scored one mark. For Question 4 and Question 11, the answer "No" was scored one mark, while the answer "Yes" was scored one mark for the remaining ten questions. The reviewers independently assessed the articles and reached a consensus when there were dispensaries. The scores for the articles ranged from 6 to 9, with an average of 7.5, accounting for 62.5% of the total score. This means that, on average, the articles satisfied 62.5% of the quality requirements for survey studies. As all the 25 articles scored more than half of the total score, they were included in the article pool for reviewing (Please see S2 Table).

Stage 4: Charting the data

According to the research purpose and questions, the 25 full-texted articles’ essential information was extracted and classified. The basic information in the articles, such as authors, study titles, research design, participants, etc., was also collated. A chart was produced to collate the data.

Phase 5: Synthesizing the findings

This process was done by applying the thematic analytic technique. The analysis mainly focused on influencing factors of PI development among nursing interns under the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Relevant data were compared, and relationships were detected. Again, the two researchers independently synthesized the findings in the included studies. The discrepancy was discussed until a consensus was reached.

Results

General information of the included studies

COVID-19 was first detected in December 2019 and then spread to other places. So it attracted wide attention from nursing professionals from 2020 on. The 25 articles published from 2020 to 2022 were quantitative survey studies. Fifteen studies were conducted exclusively among intern nursing students, and the others were among different groups of nursing students with the intern students as part of the samples. Table 1 represents the basic information of the included studies, and S3 Table provides detailed information on the studies’ findings. Three themes emerged from the data of the included studies: the PI levels, the personal and social influencing factors of PI, and the specific impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 1

Basic information of included studies (N = 25).

Author (year)	Title of study	Study design, sampling, data collection	Participants (Number)
Sun et al. (2021)	The exploration on levels and influencing factors of professional commitment among nursing undergraduates during COVID-19 epidemic	Cross-sectional survey. convenience sampling, online survey	Students including interns from baccalaureate program (N = 412)
Ma et al. (2020)	Analysis of occupational identity and influencing factors of internship nursing students under the COVID-19	Cross-sectional survey, convenience sampling, online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 270)
Rao et al. (2021)	Analysis of the Status and Influencing Factors of Nursing Interns’ Occupational Identity Under the NovelCoronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic	Cross-sectional survey, convenience sampling, online survey	Interns from Master’s, baccalaureate, and advanced diploma programs (N = 208)
Yang et al. (2020)	Corona Virus Disease 2019 during the Period of Occupational Nursing Students’ Occupation Identity and its Influencing Factors	Cross-sectional survey, convenience sampling, online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 227)
Yang et al. (2022)	Investigation on Professional Self-identity of Nursing Students during COVID-19 Epidemic	Cross-sectional survey, convenience sampling, online survey	Interns from advanced diploma and baccalaureate programs (N = 340)
Zhou et al. (2020)	The status and influencing factors of professional identity of nursing students during the period of COVID-19	Cross-sectional survey, convenience sampling, online survey	Students including interns from advanced diploma and baccalaureate programs (N = 2000)
Hu et al. (2022)	Investigation on professional identity status of post-internship nursing students in Henan Province under the context of COVID-19 pandemic	Cross-sectional survey, convenience sampling, online survey	Interns from advanced diploma, baccalaureate, Master’s programs (N = 625)
Luo et al. (2021)	Professional identity of nursing students in the context of COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study	Cross-sectional study, convenience sampling, online survey	Students including interns from baccalaureate program (N = 512)
Tang et al. (2020)	The influence of anxiety and coping style on professional identity of nursing students during internship in the context of COVID–19	A cross-sectional survey, convenience sampling, online survey	Interns from secondary or advanced diploma (not clear) and baccalaureate programs (N = 230)
Shen et al. (2021)	The status and influencing factors of psychological capital and professional identity of undergraduate nursing students during COVID-19	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 410)
Gao et al. (2020)	Current Situation of Nursing Interns’ Perception of Stress and Its Impact on Professional Identity During COVID-19	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from secondary diploma, advanced diploma, and baccalaureate programs (N = 533)
Wen et al. (2021)	An investigation on the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on the professional identity of undergraduate nursing students	A cross-sectional survey, random sampling,online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 260)
Liu et al. (2020)	A study on the impacts of COVID-19 epidemic on nursing professional identity	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from secondary diploma, advanced diploma, baccalaureate, and master’s programs (N = 587)
Zhang et al. (2021)	Professional identity and its relationship with emergency attitudes to public health emergencies among undergraduate nursing interns during the outbreak of COVID-19	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 301)
Ruan (2021)	Analysis of professional identity and influencing factors of nursing students under public health emergencies	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 204)
Liu et al. (2020)	Analysis of the status and the influencing factos of nursing interns’ work reshaping under COCID-19 context	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling, no descriptions on data collection	Interns from secondary diploma, advanced diploma, and baccalaureate programs (N = 287)
Li et al. (2022)	The status quo and correlation analysis of caring ability and professional identity of interns in the post pandemic era	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 293)
Huang et al. (2021)	Recognition of professional self-concept of nursing interns and its impact on professional attitudes under the COVID-19 epidemic	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 207)
Wang et al. (2021)	Research on professional identity and psychological resilience of college nursing students during prevention and control of COVID-19 epidemic	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from baccalaureate program (N = 425)
Nie et al. (2021)	The Professional Identity of Nursing Students and Their Intention to Leave the Nursing Profession During the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Interns from advanced diploma and baccalaureate programs (N = 150)
Wang et al. (2020)	The effect of acute stress response on professional identity and self-efficacy of nursing students in China during COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Students from baccalaureate program (N = 2024)
Zhang et al. (2021)	Professional identity of Chinese nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak: A nation-wide cross-sectional study	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Students including interns from baccalaureate program (N = 6348)
Hao et al. (2020)	Investigation and research on the professional identity situation of nursing students under the background of COVID-19 epidemic	A cross-sectional survey,ramdom sampling,online survey	Students from secondary diploma, advanced diploma, and baccalaureate programs (N = 500)
Liu et al. (2021)	Current Situation Analysis of Nursing Students’ Professional Attitudes and Employment Intentions during COVID-19 Pandemic	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Students from baccalaureate, Master, and Doctorate programs (N = 689)
Tang et al. (2021)	Associated factors of professional identity among nursing undergraduates during COVID-19: A cross-sectional study	A cross-sectional survey,convenience sampling,online survey	Students from baccalaureate program (N = 3875)

The PI levels

Six types of PI instruments were used in the included survey studies to examine the PI levels of the student participants, with higher scores indicating higher levels of the PI. The studies showed that the PI levels among nursing students ranged 67%-80% of the total scores. One study compared the PI levels of the intern students pre-and post-pandemic times and found that the PI levels post-pandemic were still at the over-medium levels despite a slight increase from pre-pandemic time [29]. Regarding the PI levels in different dimensions of the PI instruments, the social dimension scored higher than other dimensions, whereas the dimensions of job retention and autonomy in career choice scored lower.

The personal and social influencing factors of the PI

Most of the included studies examined the relationships between nursing students’ PI levels and their demographic backgrounds, such as gender, age, grade, etc. However, there are no confirmed findings across the studies. Some of the studies explored the impacts of participants’ commitment to nursing on their PI levels, and these studies had common findings [8, 30–34]. For example, those who voluntarily chose nursing as their college major and/or those who intended to stay in nursing after graduation had higher levels of PI than those who were forced into nursing and/or who intended to leave nursing post-graduation [8, 30–34].

The included studies examined a variety of social factors, including healthcare-related social practices [7], the economic status of the family [34], and family members’ support [32, 33]. While studies all highlighted the importance of healthcare-related practices in PI development, it was found that different social factors had different impacts [30, 35, 36].

The specific impacts of COVID-19

The included studies implied that no intern students were assigned to take care of COVID-19 cases directly. Instead, the hospitals that hosted the intern students tended to assign experienced nursing staff to care for COVID-19 cases. However, the interns were still effected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and these effects could be positive or negative to the interns’ PI development.

The positive impacts

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses played a key role in combating the pandemic and their heroic actions have been praised in mass media [37, 38]. This has been reflected in the self-perceptions of health professionals [39]. The review found that the intern students’ attitude towards nursing positively changed after the epidemic, as more students intended to stay in nursing after graduation [5, 29, 34, 40]. However, the students from the regions with COVID-19 outbreaks less agreed with the positive change than those from the areas without COVID-19 outbreaks [6, 41]. Some students expressed that the COVID-19 pandemic had made them more passionate about clinical nursing [5, 8, 9, 30, 40], and many of the intern students expressed willingness to join the frontline to fight COVID-19 if they were allowed to [7, 8, 42]. Those interns who did their clinical practice in designated hospitals where COVID-19 patients were treated scored higher levels of PI than other interns [34, 43].

The negative impacts

The included studies also reported negative impacts on nursing students’ PI by the COVID-19 pandemic. These impacts were mainly related to the psychological distress attributed to COVID-19. The studies reported that some nursing students experienced depression, anxiety, fear, and other mental health problems attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and had lower PI levels. Although no studies examined the relationships between the students’ knowledge about COVID-19 and the negative impacts of the pandemic on the psychological status of nursing students, some studies found that the students who had a higher level of knowledge of COVID-19 scored a higher level of PI [9, 44, 45].

Answers to the open questions in one study showed that the students worried about delayed or canceled clinical practicing opportunities, increased workload, and lack of health resources during the pandemic [34].

The influencing factors of the PI among intern nursing students under the COVID-19 pandemic can be illustrated in Fig 2.

Fig 2

Factors effecting the PI of intern nursing.

Discussion

This scoping review provided a summary of the status of PI and the influencing factors of the PI among intern nursing students in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared with studies at the pre-pandemic time [46-48], this review added some interesting findings on PI development during a time when a public health crisis profoundly affected society.

While individual studies reported the influence of nursing students’ personal factors on their PI, synthesis of the study findings did not show confirmed impacts for most factors. Previous reviews support that the demographic backgrounds of individual students can exert complicated influences on the students’ PI status [46, 47]. This review study also maintained that the impacts of demographic factors of nursing students on their PI were contingency.

One notable change since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic is the changed social attitudes towards nurses among the public. Since the COVID-19 cases were detected, nurses have risked their own lives in caring for patients and the public. They are hailed as heroes and portrayed as hardworking and selfless professionals in mass media [37, 38]. While the elevated social image of nurses is observed in many countries [38, 49, 50], it is particularly important in the countries where the public do not value the social status of nurses [51, 52]. The changed social image of nurses was reflected in the higher levels of social dimensions of PI instruments, which is a startling contrast to the findings in the studies prior to the pandemic that social factors exerted an overall negative impact on PI development [47, 53, 54].

Surprisingly, the heightened levels in social dimensions of the PI instruments did not translate into increased overall PI levels among the nursing students. The scores of PI were 67%-80% of the total scores on the PI instruments. A pre-pandemic review on the PI status of nursing students reported that the PI levels of the students ranged 3–4 (60%-80%) to a total score of 5 on the PI instruments [47], indicating no apparent change of the PI levels pre- and post-pandemic times among the nursing students. The PI levels among the Chinese nursing students are the same as in other countries [51]. Further, the PI levels in the dimension of self-selection and preference for nursing on the PI instruments remained low both pre-and post-pandemic times, indicating that students were still forced into the nursing programs post-pandemic time, rather than self-selecting nursing as their college major [47, 51].

Another striking finding of our review study was that nursing students from regions with no COVID-19 cases had higher PI levels than those with the COVID-19 outbreaks. It is supposed that when nursing students faced COVID-19 risks, they were more likely to be overwhelmed by the pandemic-triggered fear and anxiety rather than inspiration [55-57].

Practical implications of the study findings

The unchanged PI levels among intern nursing students have implications for nursing education and nursing practice. Our review study implies that nursing schools in China had experienced difficulties recruiting students as they had to force the college candidates who had not chosen nursing into nursing. The recruitment difficulty is also reported in other countries where nurses have a low social image [58, 59]. Unfortunately, the recruitment difficulty may not be eased despite the increased social favor for nursing post-pandemic. The same passion for nursing during COVID-19 was once witnessed following the 2003 Severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak [60, 61]. However, the passion triggered by Severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003 quickly faded away and did not result in tangible impacts on the recruitment of nursing students and nurses. While nursing educators may capitalize on the COVID-19 pandemic to promote their students’ reflection on nurses’ PI, such reflection alone may not be enough to cultivate positive PI.

The fact that the PI levels among nursing students have not improved post-pandemic should be taken seriously by nursing professionals and policymakers. Some long-term problems nurses face, such as low pay, heavy workload, and low status within the healthcare power hierarchy, are amplified and exaggerated during the pandemic [62]. The International Council of Nurses [63] suggested that healthcare employers and organizations provide nurses with better working conditions and more support in the post-pandemic era. Politicians and policymakers should turn their appreciation for nurses, which was bred or enhanced during the pandemic, into positive changes, as did the Japanese Nurses Association, which, by lobbying the government, applied a series of strategies to support nurses and nursing students during the pandemic.

Our appraisal of the included studies revealed the generally low quality of the studies. Particularly, the weaknesses in sampling approaches and statistical analysis call for further training in research methodology in nursing schools and healthcare institutions for the current and future nursing researchers. We did not impose limitations in the search for relevant literature. However, the only type of the included studies as survey design indicates a lack of research diversity in the inquiry of nursing students’ PI. One study included in the review contained open questions as part of a primarily quantitative inquiry and yielded limited but valuable data on the effects of COVID-19 on nursing students’ PI development [34]. Research designs other than the survey, such as qualitative or experimental research, are needed in the future to explore nursing students’ PI.

Limitations of the study

Our review has two limitations: 1) The intern nursing students or stakeholders did not examine the review findings. According to Arksey and O’Malley [24], a consultation exercise should be conducted with the stakeholders so that the findings of scoping reviews can be practically helpful. The researchers of the review study are planning a qualitative study with intern nursing students, and they have decided to incorporate the findings of the review into their following study. 2) The researchers only included the studies that explicitly claimed to explore the PI of intern students and might have missed those that implicitly explored PI in nursing, such as self-concept, sense of career benefits, burnout, intention to leave nursing, etc.

Conclusion

Our review study revealed some interesting findings on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the PI status of intern nursing students who are on clinical studies. The elevated social image of nurses post-pandemic had influenced the self-perception of the intern students on nursing and nurses. However, the positive self-perception was not reflected in the students’ PI levels. Negative impacts of the pandemic on students’ PI were also observed, including psychological distress and disturbance in clinical study arrangements. China is still taking a zero-COVID health policy, and the impacts of the pandemic on intern students may continue. It may be unrealistic for nursing schools and healthcare institutions to use the positive effects of COVID-19 to elevate intern students’ PI. Continued efforts from nursing professionals and policymakers are needed to address some long-them problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

PRISMA-ScR checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Quality appraisal of the articles.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The results of included studies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

18 Aug 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianguo Wang, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper on the potential impact of COVID-19 on the professional identity of nursing students in China. Much discussion has been given to the role of the pandemic on the essential healthcare workforce, potentially contributing to burnout, anxiety, and perceptions of a lack of support from the general public. Overall the concept of the study is novel and contributes to the literature. The methods of the scoping review are sound and the approach is justified. The introduction and background is largely unsupported and many statements are made without citation or evidentiary support. It is confusing why there are two sections when a more traditional introduction section of a scientific paper would suffice. Regardless as to whether it is a unified or separate approach, however, there are too many statements made without citation. The results needs substantial revision as the presented findings do not fully reflect the objectives of the study.

Introduction

- Replace “has posed” to “pose” to avoid passive voice

- Line 107, replace “past two years” with the actual years, because if this paper is published and someone reads it 5 years from now, it is now inappropriate.

- Line 108, “It may also affect the …intern nursing students…” Is this a declaratory statement? It does not have a citation. If it is something you are trying to prove, then that is acceptable but should be listed in objectives instead. If it is just a declaratory statement, it needs citation or needs removal

- Line 108, similarly without citation and superfluous

- Citation needed for sentence ending on line 112

- Statements from line 113 – 117 reference studies but these are not cited.

- Please define what an intern nursing student is.

- Related to above, be clear that if this study uses international citations, whether the intern nursing student definition is context-specific

Background

- Why is there a background section and this not part of the introduction? Much of this seems to share similarity with the Introduction. If this is an editorial requirement of PLOS One then please ignore my comment. If it is not, these two sections (intro and Background) should be combined, trimmed, and revised for ease of reading.

- Page 7, line 134: “alternations” is a confusing word choice

- Page 7, lines 137-142. This is an uncited, un-referenced paragraph. The “up to down” governance in China may be familiar to the author but it will not be to any reader outside of China. Additionally, there is no evidentiary support given for these statements. Especially lines 141-142.

- Line 143-145, again, no citation for a statement that needs it

- Line 145-156, studies are mentioned but not referenced

Methods

- The first research question on line 162 is not clear. “How was the PI status?” is there a word missing?

- Please include the entire PubMed/MEDLINE search strategy, not broken into boxes as shown in Figure 1. The search must be able to be replicated exactly.

- Lines 181-190 need a rewrite for clarity and cohesion

-

Results

- As presented, Table 1 is illegible. Half of the first column is missing, as is the last column

- Table 2 needs some kind of massive revision. As presented, Table 2 is 19 pages long. The authors should consider a shorter, summary Table 2 and putting much of the rest of the information in the Appendix

- Related to the above comment about Table 2, the Results section needs revision. With a scoping review, much information is generated. It is unclear why the section on the instrumentation is needed, as it does not seem to provide much in regards to the selected research questions.

- Much like the issue with instrumentation, if the paper is focused on nursing PI in response to COVID-19, then the entire sections on personal and social factors is superfluous. It is not relevant to discuss gender, family, or interpersonal impacts on PI if these are completely unrelated to COVID-19, which they seem to be.

o Based off these large pieces of this review, it is recommended that the authors substantially revise the Results section. Table 1 and 2 need to be revised. As well, the authors have presented some interesting findings on the nurse PI/COVID dynamic, and this can (and should) be expanded further. By removing the unnecessary findings on non-COVID PI findings, the authors can then spend much more time synthesizing and summarizing the study findings on PI/COVID, which is the point of the paper.

- The results, as presented, do not match the theoretical framework for the qualitative approach described by the authors in Methods.

Discussion

- Line 359-363 are unsubstantiated

- The discussion on the instrumentation largely reflects the confusion and mis-placement of the instrumentation of Results. The study is on the impact of COVID-19 on nurse professional identity. It seems unsupported by the results to connect changes in this PI based on instrumentation, when the studies themselves were not reflective of COVID-19

- Line 436-440, “wishful thinking” is not a scientific statement

-

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Aug 2022

we are required a revision by the reviewer and we had made the suggested revision. The revised manuscript, together with responses to reviewer's comments, have been submitted. Please see the attachments.

In addition, we checked our manuscript against the additional requirements from the editorial office.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Sep 2022

Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on professional identity development of intern nursing students in China: A scoping review

PONE-D-22-18945R1

Dear Dr. Luo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jianguo Wang, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article is much improved. I still disagree with results focusing so heavily on non COVID PI factors, since the authors state definitively that it is the impact of COVID on PI that is their research focus. For such a considerable effort that went in to the scoping review, it is therefore surprising that only 1.5 double-spaced pages of the Results is dedicated to how COVID impacted nursing PI. I feel like this could be far more descriptive. But, that is left up to the editors to debate. The tables are also now far easier to read and wonderfully presented.

Some small editorial comments are listed for suggestion:

1. There are some issues with grammar in occasional places, but overall the writing is much improved

2. Some of the methods could be pushed to appendices, such as the full list of quality appraisal questions

Some needed corrections prior to publication:

1. Line 330 is missing in Discussion, so the sentence is not finished

2. Line 343 I am assuming the 67-80% PI score is from social dimension, given the previous sentence, but this should be reiterated. As written it can be confusing, as if PI scores are 80% of total PI score, which is nonsensical

3. Line 360 of discussion, this finding seemingly came completely out of the blue. How does the review of nurse PI imply that recruitment difficulties resulting in officials forcing students to enter nursing? Perhaps I missed this!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

29 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-18945R1

Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on professional identity development of intern nursing students in China: A scoping review

Dear Dr. Luo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jianguo Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE