Sir,
We read with interest the article by Gupta et al.[1] While the topic is timely given the important health awareness in India, we would like to raise some questions related to the methodology.
Initially, questions arise about the sampling strategy used to select fourth-year nursing students from a single institution, which limits external validity and hampers reproducibility. The exclusion of students absent on the survey day may introduce selection bias, as absenteeism could reflect differences in health, motivation, or academic engagement that influence attitudes and enrollment intentions, thereby potentially skewing the results.[2,3]
Although a “structured questionnaire” is reported, the manuscript provides no details on its development, pilot testing, or validation. The absence of information on content validity, reliability, scoring methods, and cut-off criteria for terms such as “good knowledge,” “awareness,” and “attitude” introduces subjectivity, limits reproducibility, and weakens confidence in the measurement of key outcomes.
The manuscript indicates that verbal consent was obtained, although the rationale for not securing written consent in the context of ethics approval is not detailed. The inclusion and exclusion criteria could also be outlined more comprehensively, particularly regarding prior occupational health exposure or work experience. Additionally, the abstract reports 124 respondents, whereas 82 participants are presented in the results analysis.
The reported percentages appear to be calculated based on the total number of responses rather than the total number of participants (n = 82). For example, 60 students selected ‘Private’ employment, which is presented as 42.6%. When considered in relation to the total number of participants, this corresponds to 73.2% (60/82). The method used for percentage calculation may influence interpretation, including the abstract’s statement that ‘about 43%’ perceived private-sector opportunities.
Under ‘Reporting authority for OHN,’ 68 of the 82 students are indicated as selecting ‘Don’t know,’ which would suggest that 14 students identified a specific authority. However, the total number of responses listed under the named authorities exceeds this figure. This pattern may indicate that multiple responses were permitted or that ‘Don’t know’ could be selected alongside other options. As these categories would typically be considered mutually exclusive, a brief clarification regarding the response structure and data presentation may assist readers in interpreting the findings accurately.
The conclusions extend beyond the data by implying national-level awareness gaps despite sampling from a single nursing college, and by using causal language (“urgent need,” “fast-forward their career”) in a cross-sectional design. In addition, no analytical link is examined between knowledge levels and career intent, weakening arguments for curriculum integration. Nevertheless, the study draws attention to occupational-health nursing as an emerging option and provides preliminary insights that may inform future research and educational initiatives.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Gupta R, Nishant N, Sankhe L. Occupational health nursing as a prospect for nursing students—A cross-sectional study. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2025;29:265–8. doi: 10.4103/ijoem.ijoem_55_25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kiani AK, Naureen Z, Pheby D, Henehan G, Brown R, Sieving P, et al. Methodology for clinical research. J Prev Med Hyg. 2022;63((2 Suppl 3)):E267–8. doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Chen SW, Keglovits M, Devine M, Stark S. Sociodemographic differences in respondent preferences for survey formats: Sampling bias and potential threats to external validity. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2022;4:100175. doi: 10.1016/j.arrct.2021.100175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]