Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0254643. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254643

Perceived transcultural self-efficacy and its associated factors among nurses in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Robera Demissie Berhanu 1,*, Abebe Abera Tesema 2, Mesfin Beharu Deme 2, Shuma Gosha Kanfe 3
Editor: Paola Gremigni4
PMCID: PMC8297891  PMID: 34292989

Abstract

Background

Transcultural self-efficacy is a nurse’s perception of his or her own ability to accomplish activities effectively for culturally diverse clients. This self-efficacy may be affected by different factors, either positively or negatively. Quality care can be improved significantly when nurses provide patient-centered care that considers cultural background of the patients. Thus, this study aimed to assess perceived transcultural self-efficacy and its associated factors among nurses working at Jimma Medical Center.

Methods

Facility-based cross-sectional study with both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection was conducted among 244 nurses and 10 key informants from 20 May to 20 June 2020. Bivariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with transcultural self-efficacy. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed thematically. Quantitative results were integrated with qualitative results.

Results

A total of 236 nurses participated in the study making the response rate 96.7%. The mean transcultural self-efficacy score was 2.89 ± 0.59. Sex, work experience, intercultural communication, cultural sensitivity, interpersonal communication, and cultural motivation were significantly associated with transcultural self-efficacy. Ten in-depth interviews were conducted and the findings of qualitative data yielded four major themes.

Conclusion

The level of perceived transcultural self-efficacy was moderate among nurses. Transcultural self-efficacy of nurses varies with several factors including sex, experience, intercultural communication, cultural sensitivity, interpersonal communication, and cultural motivation. This calls for the need to offer transcultural nursing training for nurses.

Introduction

Self-efficacy is one’s own belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task as defined by psychologist Albert Bandura. One’s self-efficacy perceptions can have an important role in how one deals with challenging situations [1]. Transcultural self-efficacy (TSE) is defined as the perception or expectation of a nurse regarding his or her own ability to accomplish activities effectively in the conditions characterized by cultural diversity [2]. It is a nurse’s confidence in delivering care to patients coming from different cultural backgrounds or it indicates nurses’ degree of confidence to provide both culture-general and culture-specific care [3,4].

The history of culture is as old as the history of human beings but it was during the time of Madeline Leininger that culture became the central concept in the transcultural nursing theory (TNT) and evidence-based area of study. The goal of the theory is to develop a body of knowledge to establish nursing care that is sometimes culture-specific and sometimes culture-universal. This helps researchers and clinicians discover and explain the interdependence of care and culture while understanding cultural similarities and differences [5,6]. In our today’s world, globalization has resulted in a new way to approach clients considering their cultural background. The ability to recognize and embrace cultural diversity is of utmost importance to all health care providers, particularly to nurses since they come into very intimate contact with health care seekers of different cultures. Nurses are required to understand the cultural care beliefs, values, and lifeways of patients and then they need to immerse themselves in the culture of all patients to deliver care that is parallel to what the patient believes suitable according to his or her cultural expectations [79]. Therefore, nurses must be prepared to recognize clients’ desires that are derived from their culture and to develop skills that will help facilitate their achievement [10].

Literature reveals that culture is central to the human condition, and nurses who are transculturally confident in understandings of health and disease held by patients are needed for today’s multicultural population. Quality care can be improved significantly when nurses provide patient-centered care that considers the cultural background of the patients. Accordingly, nurses should possess the cultural knowledge required to deliver effective and satisfactory care that is congruent with the culture of the patient [1114].

Nursing is a profession that relies on a holistic approach to delivering health care. This includes taking into account patients’ cultural needs [11]. Globally, health care is becoming more culturally and ethnically diverse over the last 20 years [15]. Diversity has increased in many countries due to wars, discrimination, political strife, and worldwide socioeconomic conditions. There are also national concerns about health disparities since the cultural diversity of the population is increasing. Numerous studies indicate that health disparities continue to demonstrate evidence for health care providers to pay attention to cultural diversity [1618]. Since nurses lie at the front line of health care providers, they have the opportunity to stand out as the ones who can understand and are sensitive to the cultures of patients by helping patients with their particular lifeways and in their environmental context [9,19].

However, researchers identified that working with culturally diverse patients can be challenging due to differences in ideas, beliefs, thoughts, norms, customs, and traditions. If poorly managed, this can result in miscommunication, maladaptive behaviors, and interpersonal conflicts [15,2022]. Even if nurses are educated in Ethiopia with the curriculum adapted from the international curriculum, they provide care for patients unique in culture from those of patients where transcultural self-efficacy is well studied. Therefore, the finding from this study is useful to provide evidence-based nursing care to culturally and ethnically diverse clients. Thus, this study aims to assess perceived transcultural self-efficacy and its associated factors among nurses working at Jimma Medical Center.

Materials and methods

Study design

This study employed a cross-sectional study design with a mixed method of data collection.

Study site, study population, and recruitment criteria

This study was conducted at Jimma Medical Center (JMC). Geographically, it is located in Jimma town which is found at 352km from Addis Ababa, the Capital city of Ethiopia. It has outpatient and inpatient services, maternal and child health services, referral and follow-up services, physiotherapy and rehabilitative services, intensive care, and recovery services. Approximately, it provides service for 15,000 inpatients, 160,000 outpatient attendants, 11,000 emergency cases, and 4500 deliveries in a year coming to the hospital from the catchment population of about 15 to 20 million people. The hospital had 628 nurses and midwives currently. Among these, 553 were diploma nurses, B.Sc. nurses, and M.Sc. nurses. Out of these, 518 nurses were currently working at JMC while 35 attending education. The study was conducted from 20 May to 20 June 2020.

The study population for this study was all nurses working at JMC who fulfilled eligibility criteria. Nurses who had at least 6-month work experience at JMC were included in the quantitative strand of the study. Nurses who had greater than 2-years of work experience were included purposely in the qualitative strand of the study for they could provide detailed information. Nurses who were not found during the data collection period due to annual leave, maternal leave, or some other social problems were excluded.

Sample size determination

Quantitative sample size was calculated using a formula for a single population proportion considering confidence interval of 95% (Z = 1.96), margin of error 5% (d = 0.05), and population proportion of 50% (p = 0.5) since there is no study on transcultural self-efficacy of nurses or predictor of transcultural self-efficacy in Ethiopia. The initial calculated sample size was 384. Since the total number of nurses in JMC is 518, which is less than 10,000; and also since the ratio of initial sample size calculated to the total number of nurses in JMC (N) is greater than 0.05, correction formula was used and the minimum sample size required became 221. The final sample size was 244 after 10% non-response was added.

The total number of in-depth interviews was determined by the level of data saturation and a minimum of eight in-depth interviews were conducted.

Sampling and data collection

Simple random sampling technique was used to recruit participants in the quantitative part of the study. First, the list of all nurses was taken from the matron office of JMC with their corresponding wards or departments. This list was used as a sampling frame. Then, simple random sampling using lottery methods was employed to select the nurses from the hospital. Purposive sampling technique was used to recruit participants for in-depth interviews. Qualitative data were collected based on specified criteria throughout the interviews. Participants were willing and who had greater than 2 years of experience were selected for in-depth interviews. Four B.Sc. nurses were recruited from Agaro General Hospital for facilitating quantitative data collection. Continuous monitoring was made by the principal investigators during data collection. Before actual data collection, the data collection tools were pretested on 25 nurses working at Agaro General Hospital to measure the internal consistency of the tools, to estimate data collection time, and to make modifications as needed. The internal consistency was tested using a reliability scale. Qualitative data were collected by the principal investigators.

Operational definitions

Transcultural self-efficacy

Nurse’s confidence when providing care for patients from different cultural backgrounds measured using 25 items on a 5-point Likert scale with the value ranging from 25–125. The higher the value, the higher the confidence of nurses in providing care to patients of different cultural backgrounds. The overall mean score of TSE was divided by 25 (the total number of items) giving the value ranging from 1 to 5. Then TSE level was divided into low, moderate, and high based on this score. A low level is a mean score between 1 and 2.33, a moderate level is a mean score between 2.34 and 3.67, and a high level is a mean score between 3.68 and 5 [23].

Intercultural communication

Nurses’ communication effectiveness when caring for patients from different cultural backgrounds measured using 5 items on a 5-point Likert scale with the value ranging from 5–25.

Cultural sensitivity

Knowledge, awareness, and acceptance of other cultures measured using 3 items on a Likert scale with the value ranging from 3–15.

Interpersonal communication

Nurse’s communication effectiveness between people measured using 7 items on a 5-point Likert scale with the value ranging from 7–35.

Cultural motivation

Nurse’s actions, desires, and needs to learn about and engage with culture-based care measured using 5 items on a Likert scale with the value ranging from 5–25.

Study instruments

A structured self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data for this study. The questionnaire had six parts: (i) socio-demographic questionnaire, (ii) cultural self-efficacy scale (CSES), (iii) intercultural communication scale (ICS), (iv) cultural sensitivity scale (CSS), (v) interpersonal communication scale (IPCS) and (vi) cultural motivation scale (CMS). The questionnaire was adapted from related studies and was used for data collection [2427]. It was administered in English.

The CSES consists of three subscales. The CSES-Knowledge scale consists of 16 items that ask about knowledge of many health-related domains (e.g., health practices, nutritional patterns, employment patterns). The CSES-Skills scale consists of six items and asks about self-efficacy in performing various skills, such as advocacy and entering an ethnically distinct community. The CSES-Cultural Concepts scale consists of three items and assesses knowledge of cultural concepts (i.e., ability to distinguish inter- from intracultural diversity, ability to distinguish ethnocentrism from discrimination, ability to distinguish between ethnicity and culture). Ratings on all items are made on a 1 to 5 scale standing for the words “very little confidence” for a score of 1, “little confidence” for a score of 2, neutral or noncommittal confidence for a score of 3, “moderate confidence” for a score of 4 and “high confidence” for a score of 5. The total scale score is between 25 and 125 in all subscales. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.97 when it was developed [28] and Herrero Hahn et al. (2017) reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.978 [3].

The ICS consists of five questions that ask nurses to think about how they feel when communicating with patients from different cultural backgrounds from their own and rate their ability to understand feelings, communicate, resolve misunderstandings, comprehend points of view, and empathize with patients. Items were rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses of strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. The total scale score is between 5 and 25.

CSS consists of 3 items that ask to know about patients’ cultures, adapting treatments for patients, and considering culture when making recommendations. The scale is measured on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Ulrey and Amason (2001) reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83 for ICS [27]. The IPCS was used to measure interpersonal communication. The adapted scale consists of 7 items measured with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly disagree. Asurakkody (2019) reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75 for IPCS [29]. Cultural motivation was measured by the cultural motivation scale (CMS) adapted from 5 items subscale of the cultural intelligence scale. The scale consists of Likert-type questions with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The total score of CMS is between 5 and 25. Its’ Cronbach’s alpha was 0.75 [29].

Semi-structured in-depth interview (IDI) guiding questions were used. The questions had two parts: socio-demographic characteristics related questions and questions regarding transcultural self-efficacy. The IDI guiding questions were checked by experts. The IDIs were conducted in the silent and comfortable room (home, workplace) after time and place were decided by the interviewees. The interviews were conducted face to face in the well-ventilated rooms after both interviewers and interviewees sat at 2 meters distance wearing face mask. The principal investigators (RDB and MBD) conducted the interviews in Afaan Oromo and Amharic. Field notes were taken and a tape recorder was used to record the interviews lasting 20–25 minutes.

Data quality management

Quantitative part

Pretest was conducted on 25 (10%) nurses at Agaro General Hospital. The reliability of the data collection tool was measured, data collection time was estimated and some modifications such as logical order and rewriting items difficult to understand were made as well. One-day training was given for data collection facilitators regarding the objective of the study, data collection tools and procedures, how to approach respondents, and how to keep confidentiality. Finally, the collected data were checked for completeness.

Qualitative part

Credibility was assured through long-lasting engagement with IDI participants and by investing sufficient time to become familiar with the setting and context, to test for misinformation, to build trust, and to get to know the data to get rich. Participants who were genuinely willing to take part and prepared to offer data freely were involved in the study. Transferability was assured by describing the behavior and experiences of the participants with their context so that the behavior and experiences become meaningful to an outsider. Dependability and confirmability were assured through transparently describing the research steps taken from the start of a research proposal to the development and reporting of the findings. The records of the research path were kept throughout the study.

Data analysis

Quantitative part

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26. Then data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as mean scores and standard deviations followed by inferential statistics. Mean scores and standard deviations were computed to determine the level of transcultural self-efficacy of nurses. All variables were entered into bivariate linear regression analysis and independent variables with p < .25 were considered candidates for multivariable linear regression analysis. In the multivariable linear regression model, statistical significance was declared at p < .05. Linear regression assumptions were checked before data analysis. Normality assumption was checked by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which was insignificant. The result showed the data were approximately normally distributed. Collinearity assumption was checked to see the correlation between independent variables by using the variance inflation factor (VIF). The results showed that all the variables had VIF less than 5 (Minimum VIF = 1.238 and Maximum VIF = 3.580).

Qualitative part

Interviews were transcribed verbatim into plain text, translated into English, and then imported directly into ATLAS.ti. 7.5.16 for coding and analyzed thematically. Accordingly, each text was read again and again carefully and then codes were generated by two data coders. Data relevant to each code were collected together. Then codes were grouped through constant comparison of concepts, like with like, into four major themes. It was checked whether the themes work with the coded extracts.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was reviewed and approved by Jimma University‘s Ethical Institutional Review Board.

Permission was obtained from JMC where the study was carried out. All participants were provided written informed consent to participate in the study.

Results

Two hundred thirty-six (236) of the 244 invited participants completed the questionnaires making the response rate 96.7%. Additionally, in-depth interview was conducted among 10 nurses. The interview findings were finalized into four major themes: transcultural self-efficacy perception, sociodemographic factors that influence transcultural self-efficacy, cultural factors influencing transcultural self-efficacy, and person-to-person communication skills.

Socio-demographic characteristics

The mean age of the respondents was 27.53 years (SD = ±3.13 years), majority 177(75.0%) of them were in the age group of 25–29 years. More than half 132 (55.9%) of them were female and 138(58.5%) of them were Oromo. One hundred one (42.8%) of the respondents were orthodox in religion. More than three fourth 190(80.5%) of them had B.Sc. degree in nursing. Nearly half 115(48.7%) of them had monthly income which falls in the range of 4,001.00–6,000.00 ETB. Regarding the length of experience, more than two-third 162(68.6%) of them had 2–4 years of experience [Table 1].

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of nurses working at JMC, Oromia Region, Southwest Ethiopia, May to June 2020 (n = 236).

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage (%)
Age (years) <25 17 7.2
 M = 27.53 years 25–29 177 75.0
 SD = ±3.13 years 30–34 36 15.3
≥35 6 2.5
Sex Male 104 44.1
Female 132 55.9
Ethnicity Oromo 138 58.5
Amhara 77 32.6
Dawro 12 5.1
Other* 9 3.8
Religion Orthodox 101 42.8
Muslim 66 28.0
Protestant 68 28.8
Other$ 1 .4
Level of education Diploma 40 16.9
B.Sc. and above 196 83.1
Monthly income 2,000–4,000 ETB 46 19.5
4,001–6,000 ETB 115 48.7
6,001–8,000 ETB 63 26.7
≥ 8,001 ETB 12 5.1
Years of nursing experience <2 years 29 12.3
2–4 years 162 68.6
5–9 years 30 12.7
10–14 years 11 4.7
≥ 15 years 4 1.7
Current role Supervisor nurse 5 2.1
Head nurse 8 3.4
Staff nurse 223 94.5

*Gurage, Kafa, Sidama, Wolayta, Tigrie.

$Wakeffata.

Transcultural self-efficacy level

Descriptive statistics were performed to determine the mean and standard deviation of transcultural self-efficacy. The mean TSE score was 2.89 (SD = ± 0.59) out of the total possible scores ranging from 1 to 5 which indicates a moderate level of transcultural self-efficacy. The mean TSE scores for the knowledge of cultural concepts and specific nursing skills were 3.35 (SD = ± 0.78) and 3.14 (SD = ± 0.88) respectively. The lowest mean score was observed in the knowledge of cultural patterns, which was 2.71 (SD = ± 0.61). Therefore, this study result shows that respondents perceived themselves as having moderate transcultural self-efficacy in working with patients from different cultural backgrounds [Table 2]. This is corroborated by the qualitative finding as one 28-year-old male participant said, “Patients come from different places, like southern region, Gambela, and Sudan. However, I individually have the confidence of medium type though there are some disagreements among some few things” (Participant 1). A 26-year-old female participant also said, “I imagine it to be medium because there are different cultures and different ways of thinking. Thus if you do not accept this, later it would influence your confidence…”(Participant 5).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for each subscale of transcultural self-efficacy and the total TSE scale score of nurses working at JMC, Oromia Region, Ethiopia, May to June 2020 (n = 236).

Variables Possible Scores Mean (Standard deviation) Minimum Maximum
Cultural concepts scale 1–5 3.35 (SD = ± 0.78) 2.00 5.00
Cultural patterns scale 1–5 2.71 (SD = ± 0.61) 1.45 4.42
Cultural skills scale 1–5 3.14 (SD = ± 0.88) 1.17 5.00
Total TSE scale score 1–5 2.89 (SD = ± 0.59 1.65 4.67

Factors associated with transcultural self-efficacy

Both bivariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were carried out to identify factors associated with transcultural self-efficacy. Bivariate analysis revealed that age, sex, level of education, monthly income, years of nursing experience, intercultural communication, cultural sensitivity, interpersonal communication, and cultural motivation were significantly associated with transcultural self-efficacy at p < .25.

All the independent variables with p < .25 in the bivariate linear regression analysis were entered into the multivariable linear regression analysis to identify factors associated with transcultural self-efficacy. Backward elimination was used for selecting variables in the final model. The study results showed that sex, years of nursing experience, intercultural communication, cultural sensitivity, interpersonal communication, and cultural motivation were significantly associated with transcultural self-efficacy. Accordingly, being male increases transcultural self-efficacy by 2.034 times than female (β = 2.034, p = .045). One year increase in years of nursing experience results in 2.096 units increases in transcultural self-efficacy (β = 2.096, p = .001). This finding was corroborated by the qualitative finding as a 25-year-old female participant said, “…my confidence in delivering care to patients of different cultures is increased as I stay longer in caring practice” (Participant 4).

One unit increase in intercultural communication results in 1.163 units increases in transcultural self-efficacy (β = 1.163, p < .001). The qualitative finding from a 30-year-old female participant supported this, “…ability to communicate among patients having different cultures influences confidence for caring” (Participant 7). One unit increase in cultural sensitivity leads to 2.075 units increase in transcultural self-efficacy (β = 2.075, p < .001). The qualitative finding supported this in that a 32-year-old male participant said;…as nurses are more and more culturally sensitive, they tend to have higher confidence in giving care to patients coming from different cultures” (Participant 6).

One unit increase in interpersonal communication results in 2.061 units increases in transcultural self-efficacy (β = 2.061, p < .001). The qualitative finding supported this in that one female participant said, “…when I communicate very well, I can solve the problems quickly. Therefore, having good communication ability is crucial to give care with confidence” (Participant 5). One unit increase in cultural motivation results in 0.635 unit increase in transcultural self-efficacy (β = .635, p < .001). This finding was corroborated by the finding from the qualitative study as one 28-year-old male participant said, “I am willing and motivated to serve these people. Millions of people come to this hospital. But it is not by separating them by race, ethnicity, tradition, value, and belief that you care… therefore, since I am motivated to deliver care in diversity, my perception of confidence in such condition is very good” (Participant 1). Another 27-year-old male participant also said, “…for example patients come from different regions speaking different languages and having different cultures. This expands your motivation and lets you to the way to handle such diversity. When you find the way, your confidence is increased” (Participant 3) [Table 3].

Table 3. Multivariable linear regression results showing factors associated with transcultural self-efficacy among nurses working at JMC, Oromia Region, Ethiopia, May to June 2020 (n = 236).

Predictor variables Unstandardized coefficients p-value 95% C.I.
β SE Upper Lower
Age (in years) .098 .238 .679 -.370 .567
Sex
 Female (Reference)
 Male 2.034 1.008 .045 .048 4.020
Highest level of education
 Diploma (Reference)
 B.Sc. and above 1.170 1.244 .348 -1.282 3.621
Monthly income .000 .000 .567 -.001 .000
Years of nursing experience 2.096 .283 < .001 1.539 2.653
Intercultural communication 1.163 .244 < .001 .682 1.644
Cultural sensitivity 2.075 .288 < .001 1.506 2.643
Interpersonal communication 2.061 .217 < .001 1.633 2.490
Cultural motivation .635 .174 < .001 .293 .978

For final regression: Adjusted R2 = .917, p < .001.

Dependent variable: Transcultural self-efficacy.

Discussion

This study was carried out to assess perceived transcultural self-efficacy and its associated factors among nurses. The study evaluated how nurses perceive their self-efficacy toward patients from different cultures. The finding indicates the mean score of transcultural self-efficacy perceptions to be 2.89. This is a moderate level of transcultural self-efficacy perception. This finding is higher when compared with the finding from the study conducted by Herrero-Hahn et al. (2019) in Columbia in which the mean score was 2.58 [25]. This difference might be due to differences in socio-cultural characteristics and study settings. However, it is lower when compared to the study conducted by Birnbaum (2012) in which the mean score was 3.41 [30]. The discrepancy may be due to the difference in the socio-cultural characteristics of the participants.

The other finding of this study was the identification of factors that are significantly associated with the transcultural self-efficacy perceptions of nurses. Accordingly, sex, years of nursing experience, intercultural communication, cultural sensitivity, interpersonal communication, and cultural motivation were significantly associated with the transcultural self-efficacy perception.

The finding of the present study indicates that being male increases transcultural self-efficacy. This finding is supported by the study of Herrero-Hahn et al. (2019) in which male nurses demonstrated a higher transcultural self-efficacy score than females [25]. However, it is opposite to the study of Asurakkody (2019), in which female nurses demonstrated a higher transcultural self-efficacy score than males [29]. The discrepancy may be because the vast majority (93.1%) of the participants in their study were females. It is also inconsistent with the study of Li et al. (2016), in which there was no significant gender difference in transcultural self-efficacy perception of nurses [31]. The discrepancy might be because they selected study participants using convenience sampling and the vast majority of their sample were females.

The results of the present study also indicate that longer experience predicted higher transcultural self-efficacy. This is consistent with the social cognitive theory, which proposes successful mastery experiences and vicarious experience increase self-efficacy [32]. This finding is also consistent with the study of Herrero-Hahn et al. (2019), in which longer experience positively predicted transcultural self-efficacy, and with the study of Quine et al. (2012), in which experience predicted higher transcultural self-efficacy [25,33]. It is again consistent with the finding from the study of Li et al. (2016), in which nurses who have worked for 15 years or longer had significantly greater TSE scores when compared with other nurses [31].

The finding of the study indicates that intercultural communication is significantly associated with the transcultural self-efficacy of nurses, i.e. as the communication ability of nurses increases amidst different cultures, their transcultural self-efficacy perception increase. This is supported by the findings from studies of Chan and Sy (2016) and Quine et al. (2012), in which intercultural communication was positively associated with cultural self-efficacy [33,34]. This finding is also consistent with the social cognitive theory which suggests individuals with greater mastery tend to have higher self-efficacy [35].

The findings of the present study also indicate that cultural sensitivity, interpersonal communication, and cultural motivation were significantly associated with transcultural self-efficacy. Nurses who were more culturally sensitive had higher confidence among clients of different cultural backgrounds. Nurses who had higher communication ability with people had greater transcultural self-efficacy. Nurses who had higher motivation to work amidst cultural diversity demonstrated higher perceptions of transcultural self-efficacy. These findings are supported by the study of Asurakkody (2019), in which cultural sensitivity, interpersonal communication, and cultural motivation positively and significantly predicted TSE [29].

The study used both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and this maximizes the reliability of the data. However, the study has several limitations. First, the study relied on the self-reported data of nurses that may have introduced a social desirability bias. Second, the study is limited to JMC; therefore, the generalization of its findings may not be for other hospitals and health centers. Finally, causality could not be established because the study was cross-sectional.

Conclusion

The level of perceived transcultural self-efficacy was moderate among nurses. The study showed that transcultural self-efficacy varies with sex, experience, intercultural communication, cultural sensitivity, interpersonal communication, and cultural motivation. The in-depth interview results also supported many of these findings. The finding of this study encourages nursing curriculum makers in Ethiopia to incorporate transcultural nursing education into the present curriculum and it calls for the need to offer transcultural nursing training for nurses. The finding of this study highlights that it is advantageous if nurses struggle to improve their cultural understanding and knowledge of transcultural nursing theories. Nurse researchers are encouraged to conduct further study including nurses working at public health centers. Longitudinal study is encouraged to determine cause and effect relationships.

Supporting information

S1 File. Data.

(SAV)

S2 File. In-depth interview translated.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Data collection tools.

(DOCX)

S4 File. ISSM COREQ checklist.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the nurses who were volunteered to participate in this study. The authors also would like to thank Jimma University health science institute and Jimma medical center for all their help.

Abbreviations

CI

Confidence interval

CMS

Cultural motivation scale

CSES

Cultural self-efficacy scale

CSS

Cultural sensitivity scale

ETB

Ethiopian birr

ICS

Intercultural communication scale

IDI

In-depth interview

IPCS

Interpersonal communication scale

JMC

Jimma medical center

M

Mean

SD

Standard deviation

SE

Standard error

TNT

Transcultural nursing theory

TSE

Transcultural self-efficacy

VIF

Variance inflation factor

Data Availability

All the data underlying this study are provided in the Supporting information file.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Luszczynska A, Schwarzer R. Social cognitive theory. Predicting health behaviour. 2nd ed: UK:Open University press; 2005. p. 127–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Briones E, Tabernero C, Tramontano C, Caprara GV, Arenas A. Development of a cultural self-efficacy scale for adolescents (CSES-A). International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2009;33(4):301–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Herrero-Hahn R, Rojas JG, Ospina-Díaz JM, Montoya-Juárez R, Restrepo-Medrano JC, Hueso-Montoro C. Cultural adaptation and validation of the cultural self-efficacy scale for Colombian nursing professionals. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2017;28(2):195–202. doi: 10.1177/1043659615613419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jimenez JAV, Contreras JLM, Shellman J, Gonzalez MLC, Bernal H. The level of cultural self-efficacy among a sample of Spanish nurses in southeastern Spain. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2006;17(2):164–70. doi: 10.1177/1043659605285417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Leininger McFarland M. Culture care diversity and universality: A worldwide nursing theory: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.McFarland MR, Wehbe-Alamah HB. Leininger’s Theory of Culture Care Diversity and Universality: An Overview With a Historical Retrospective and a View Toward the Future. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2019;30(6):540–57. doi: 10.1177/1043659619867134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Leininger M. Leininger’s theory of nursing: Cultural care diversity and universality. Nursing Science Quarterly. 1988;1(4):152–60. doi: 10.1177/089431848800100408 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tian Y, Wang L, Xu Y, He Z. The Development of Chinese Version of Transcultural Nursing Self-Efficiency Scale: Using Rasch Model Analysis. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2021;32(1):30–40. doi: 10.1177/1043659619896827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Busher Betancourt DA. Madeleine Leininger and the transcultural theory of nursing. The Downtown Review. 2016;2(1):1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Prosen M. Introducing transcultural nursing education: Implementation of transcultural nursing in the postgraduate nursing curriculum. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;174:149–55. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.640 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jeffreys MR, Dogan E. Factor analysis of the transcultural self-efficacy tool (TSET). Journal of Nursing Measurement. 2010;18(2):120–39. doi: 10.1891/1061-3749.18.2.120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Leininger M. Culture care theory: A major contribution to advance transcultural nursing knowledge and practices. Journal of transcultural nursing. 2002;13(3):189–92. doi: 10.1177/10459602013003005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Repo H, Vahlberg T, Salminen L, Papadopoulos I, Leino-Kilpi H. The cultural competence of graduating nursing students. Journal of transcultural nursing. 2017;28(1):98–107. doi: 10.1177/1043659616632046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Papadopoulos I. Transcultural health and social care: development of culturally competent practitioners: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wesołowska K, Hietapakka L, Elovainio M, Aalto A-M, Kaihlanen A-M, Heponiemi T. The association between cross-cultural competence and well-being among registered native and foreign-born nurses in Finland. PloS one. 2018;13(12):e0208761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jackson CS, Gracia JN. Addressing health and health-care disparities: the role of a diverse workforce and the social determinants of health. Public Health Reports. 2014;129(1_suppl2):57–61. doi: 10.1177/00333549141291S211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Purnell L, Fenkl E. Transcultural diversity and health care. Handbook for Culturally Competent Care: Springer, Cham; 2019. p. 1–6. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-21946-8_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Purnell LD. Transcultural health care: A culturally competent approach. 4th ed2013.
  • 19.Leininger M, McFarland M. Transcultural Concepts, theories, research, & practice2002.
  • 20.Van Keer R-L, Deschepper R, Francke AL, Huyghens L, Bilsen J. Conflicts between healthcare professionals and families of a multi-ethnic patient population during critical care: an ethnographic study. Critical care. 2015;19(1):1–3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Klingler C, Marckmann G. Difficulties experienced by migrant physicians working in German hospitals: a qualitative interview study. Human resources for health. 2016;14(1):1–3. doi: 10.1186/s12960-016-0153-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schouten BC, Meeuwesen L. Cultural differences in medical communication: a review of the literature. Patient education and counseling. 2006;64(1–3):21–34. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.11.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Basu S. Re: Can someone suggest me the way to decide the cutoff score for a scale?. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_some_one_suggest_me_the_way_to_decide_the_cut_off_score_for_a_scale/568a7b876143253b738b45a7/citation/download 2016.
  • 24.Campbell JM, Atas Akdemir Ö. The development of interpersonal communication scale: The study of validity and reliability. Electronic Turkish Studies. 2016;11(19). 10.7827/TurkishStudies.11272. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Herrero-Hahn R, Rojas JG, Montoya-Juárez R, García-Caro MP, Hueso-Montoro C. Level of cultural self-efficacy of colombian nursing professionals and related factors. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2019;30(2):137–45. doi: 10.1177/1043659618777047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Johnson RB, Buko S. Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS): testing cross-cultural transferability of CQS in Ukraine. Studies of Changing Societies. 2014;2013(4):52–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ulrey KL, Amason P. Intercultural communication between patients and health care providers: An exploration of intercultural communication effectiveness, cultural sensitivity, stress, and anxiety. Journal of health communication. 2001;13(4):449–63. doi: 10.1207/S15327027HC1304_06 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bernal H, Froman R. The confidence of community health nurses in caring for ethnically diverse populations. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 1987;19(4):201–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1987.tb00008.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Asurakkody TA. Predictors for Transcultural Self-efficacy of Nursing Students: Application of Ecological Model. Health Science Journal. 2019;13(1):1–7. doi: 10.21767/1791-809X.1000625 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Birnbaum L. The Perceived Cultural Self-Efficacy of Respiratory Therapists and Nurses: a Comparative Study. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Li J, He Z, Luo Y, Zhang R. Perceived transcultural self-efficacy of nurses in general hospitals in Guangzhou, China. Nursing research. 2016;65(5):371–9. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review. 1977;84(2):191–215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Quine A, Hadjistavropoulos HD, Alberts NM. Cultural self-efficacy of Canadian nursing students caring for Aboriginal patients with diabetes. Journal of Transcultural Nursing. 2012;23(3):306–12. doi: 10.1177/1043659612441023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chan JC-Y, Sy PY. The relationships among personality, intercultural communication, and cultural self-efficacy in nursing students. Journal of Nursing Research. 2016;24(4):286–90. doi: 10.1097/JNR.0000000000000157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bandura A, Adams NE. Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive therapy and research. 1977;1(4):287–310. doi: 10.1007/BF01663995 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sabeena Jalal

9 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-35734

Perceived Transcultural Self-Efficacy and Its Predictors among Nurses Working at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia: A Cross-sectional Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berhanu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sabeena Jalal, MBBS, MSc, MSc, SM

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

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Furthermore, when reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and please provide the interview guide used.

3.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4.Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"This research was funded by Jimma University. All financial supports for data collection,

supervision of the study analysis and interpretation of the data were covered by Jimma University."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 "The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

The topic of your study is important. It is relevant and timely. However, there are some major revisions that are required.

1. Which checklist did you use for your study? We recommend that authors use the COREQ checklist, or other relevant checklists listed by the Equator Network, such as the SRQR, to ensure complete reporting (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-qualitative-research).

2. Please also mention in the rationale what or how the findings of the study will be useful.

3. The title is too long. A suggestion: Perceived transcultural self-efficacy and its predictors among nurses in Ethiopia.

4. Please provide detailed description of the sampling strategy, why you choose the method that you have described and why not any other method of sampling, including rationale for the recruitment method.

5. Please provide a discussion of potential sources of bias; and

6. Please provide a discussion of limitations.

Specifics as per Reviewer 1:

Abstract

• In order for the reader to understand “transcultural self-efficacy” please revise the first sentence of the background and describe what “transcultural self-efficacy” is.

• Please clarify in the abstract how efficacy and predictors are linked to the working performance or efficiency of nurses’ duties??

• The abstract has to give following key messages:

o What “transcultural self-efficacy is”

o What is its role in dealing with patients effectively

o What does mean score 2.89 mean?

o The results section has to clearly describe perceived self efficacy and its predictors among nurses

o A holistic but succinct conclusion section mentioning the key finding and a key recommendation

Introduction

• Final para: please also mention in the rationale what or how the findings of the study will be useful.

Discussion

• Please add a para on limitation.

Conclusion

• Please limit the conclusion section to one para and make it succinct

[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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: The title is too long. A suggestion: Perceived transcultural self-efficacy and its predictors among nurses in Ethiopia

Abstract

• In order for the reader to understand “transcultural self-efficacy” please revise the first sentence of the background and describe what “transcultural self-efficacy” is.

• Please clarify in the abstract how efficacy and predictors are linked to the working performance or efficiency of nurses’ duties??

• The abstract has to give following key messages:

o What “transcultural self-efficacy is”

o What is its role in dealing with patients effectively

o What does mean score 2.89 mean?

o The results section has to clearly describe perceived self efficacy and its predictors among nurses

o A holistic but succinct conclusion section mentioning the key finding and a key recommendation

Introduction

• Final para: please also mention in the rationale what or how the findings of the study will be useful.

Discussion

• Please add a para on limitation.

Conclusion

• Please limit the conclusion section to one para and make it succinct.

Reviewer #2: Concept is a good however overall execution results in significant secretion bias. This produces a aberrant results. Definition of independent and dependent variables are not clear. Furthermore does the sample size represent the population of Ethiopia proportionality. Sample size of patient interviewed was n=10 which is too small to draw any statistical significance. Why has p<0.25 used in the bivariate analysis

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

This was a well written paper. The topic is relevant especially due to current COVID situation. There is a need for better understanding of patient concerns. The paper highlight the perspective from the developing country. Data from this study would help in improving and developing better patient care. Subject is explained clearly in the introduction however rationale could be improved. Methodology is adequate with clear explanation of questionnaires used in the study. Results are clearly explained and presented in the tables. Discussion is well written and well supported by similar studies. Overall I would support the paper to be accepted and published.

**********

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: Yes: Arshad Altaf

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0254643. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254643.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Feb 2021

Response to academic editor and reviewers

Which checklist did you use for your study?

• COREQ checklist was used and it was attached as an additional information

Please provide detailed description of the sampling strategy, why you choose the method that you have described and why not any other method of sampling, including rationale for the recruitment method.

• Simple random sampling and purposive sampling were used to select nurses for QAUN and QUAL parts of the study respectively.

• We used simple random sampling because we had sampling frame (list of all the nurses at Jimma medical center. When there is sampling frame, it is better to choose participants using simple random sampling because it produces the representative samples. Systematic random sampling could be applied using this sampling frame but it does not produce samples which are representative as with the method we chose.

• We selected nurses for QUAL part of the study using purposive sampling method because our intention was to have nurses who could give us detailed information and we had predetermined criteria mentioned in the manuscript.

Please provide a discussion of potential sources of bias

Researchers work with samples rather than with populations because it is cost-effective to do so. Data from samples can be erroneous and results in sampling bias. Sampling bias refers to the systematic over- or underrepresentation of a population segment. The following is discussion of sources of bias one by one.

• Social desirability bias: This occurs when the study respondents want to place themselves at socially acceptable place. Therefore, the most common source of this bias is respondents’ lack of comfort to reveal their attitudes.

• Recall bias: a systematic error caused by differences in the accuracy or completeness of the recollections retrieved ("recalled") by study participants regarding events or experiences from the past. This occurs when events over the long period of time is asked.

• Self-selection bias or volunteer bias: in studies this offers further threats to the validity of a study as these participants may have intrinsically different characteristics from the target population of the study. Studies have shown that volunteers tend to come from a higher social standing than from a lower socio-economic background.

Please provide a discussion of limitations

• Limitations are provided in the final paragraph of discussion part (Page 18)

Definition of independent and dependent variables are not clear.

• Sorry for its absence in the first manuscript. Dependent and independent variables are operationally defined in the revised manuscript

Does the sample size represent the population of Ethiopia proportionality?

• It does not represent the population of Ethiopia but we used nurses working at Jimma medical center as an accessible population.

• Ten (10) nurses were interviewed to provide data for QUAL part of the study. As it is obvious, small samples are used for qualitative research. Sample size is based on information need in QUAL research

Why has p<0.25 used in the bivariate analysis

• In bivariate analysis, independent variables are entered one by one with dependent variable into the bivariate regression model. Then all variables showing significant association in the bivariate analysis are taken together into the multivariable regression model. Variables having insignificant associations at bivariate analysis may show significant association when they are taken together into the multivariable regression model. Therefore, the level of significance should be broadened for bivariate analysis not to miss variables at multivariable analysis. Therefore, p<0.05 leads to missing of variables if used for bivariate analysis. So we used p <0.25 in the bivariate analysis because must literatures recommend this.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Paola Gremigni

3 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-35734R1

Perceived Transcultural Self-Efficacy and Its Predictors among Nurses in Ethiopia: A Cross-sectional Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berhanu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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: http://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,

Paola Gremigni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

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

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #4: 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: Thank you for addressing the comments. It would have been better if a sentence in the abstract was added describing what the score meant. The revised manuscript is okay from my end.

Reviewer #4: There is a great improvement in the revised manuscript as compared with the first one. However, some part of the revised manuscript requires a minor modification.

Title: requires modification. Hence the study was conducted at one Hospital (JMC), is it possible to say “nurses in Ethiopia”?

The word “predictor” is not appropriate for a cross-sectional study. it indicates a great causal association specially used in case of cohort study.

Sample size: there is no any statement in the method part of your manuscript which describe the way of sample size determination for appropriate representation of the general population.

Operational Definitions: what is your reference for your cut of point to say low, middle, or high for TSE?

**********

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

Reviewer #4: 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.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0254643. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254643.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Jun 2021

Response to Academic editor and Reviewers?

Response to academic editor

I have added some references (Number 16 & 23), Number 16 has been added because I got important information. Number 23 has been added to cite operational definition which was wrongly left.

Another changes to the reference list is that it has been made complete and correct as per Vancouver referencing style. Some of the references lacked journals, some lacked page numbers, and some lacked volume and issue number. For some, authors’ last name was wrongly written. I reviewed these things and have corrected them. In addition, I have added DOI for many references.

Response to reviewers

It would have been better if a sentence in the abstract was added describing what the score meant

I hope this was raised for the statement which talks about transcultural self-efficacy score in the abstract (The mean transcultural self-efficacy score was 2.89 ±0.59). Even if the result part of the abstract lacked this, it has been described in the conclusion part of the abstract that the score means moderate level of self-efficacy.

Title: requires modification. Hence the study was conducted at one Hospital (JMC), is it possible to say “nurses in Ethiopia”?

The title was originally “among nurses working at Jimma medical center.” But there was suggestion to say “nurses in Ethiopia” upon previous review. People served at this medical center is very heterogeneous in culture and ethnicity as is the population of Ethiopia. Ethiopia is multi-ethnic country and there is a lot of diversity in culture. People treated at this medical center is also multi-ethnic and diversified in culture. Therefore, we discussed and considered that suggestion because nurses working here at this medical center can represent nurses working in other parts of the country.

The word “predictor” is not appropriate for a cross-sectional study. it indicates a great causal association specially used in case of cohort study

I changed this word to the word “associated factors” in the revised manuscript

There is no any statement in the method part of your manuscript which describe the way of sample size determination for appropriate representation of the general population.

Sorry for the absence. Now I have added sample size determination in the revised manuscript

Operational Definitions: what is your reference for your cut of point to say low, middle, or high for TSE?

I have added reference in the revised manuscript

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Paola Gremigni

1 Jul 2021

Perceived transcultural self-efficacy and its associated factors among nurses in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-20-35734R2

Dear Dr. Berhanu,

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,

Paola Gremigni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Paola Gremigni

15 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-35734R2

Perceived transcultural self-efficacy and its associated factors among nurses in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Berhanu:

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

Prof. Paola Gremigni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Data.

    (SAV)

    S2 File. In-depth interview translated.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Data collection tools.

    (DOCX)

    S4 File. ISSM COREQ checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All the data underlying this study are provided in the Supporting information file.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES