All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Authors have revised the manuscript according to reviewers comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The changes were done.
The changes were done.
The manuscript improved.
The reporting is clear and unambiguous. Literature references are sufficient.
Research is within aims and scope of the journal.
Research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful.
Methods are described sufficiently
All data look robust and conclusions are well stated
Please remember that It is relevant to give sufficient details of the data analysis process, including at least, the tests used. Also, make sure to include more information about how data collection and recruitment were done. A very relevant question is to indicate if the questionnaire was validated, if so, please indicate the reference.
Authors are not encouraged to include all citations suggested by reviewers. Only if authors consider that those citations are really necessary or relevant, you can include them. My final decision will not be based on suggested citations but on the quality of the work.
Manuscript with a relevant theme in the current context.
Methods:
-The authors do not detail the data analysis process, such as the tests used.
More detail is needed on how data collection and recruitment was done.
-Was the questionnaire validated?
Results
- It is suggested to divide the characteristics of the results by the outcome and present relevant statistics.
-Present the study flowchart.
-Review the discussion and present strengths.
-The conclusion is beyond the objectives.
No comment.
Statistical analysis data do not support discussion.
Manuscript with a relevant theme in the current context.
Methods:
-The authors do not detail the data analysis process, such as the tests used.
More detail is needed on how data collection and recruitment was done.
-Was the questionnaire validated?
Results
- It is suggested to divide the characteristics of the results by the outcome and present relevant statistics.
-Present the study flowchart.
-Review the discussion and present strengths.
-The conclusion is beyond the objectives.
References are insufficient in introduction and methods.
Cite the following: Magnavita N, Chirico F, Garbarino S, Bragazzi NL, Santacroce E, Zaffina S. SARS/MERS/SARS-CoV-2 Outbreaks and Burnout Syndrome among Healthcare Workers. An umbrella Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(8):4361. Doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084361.Chirico F, Magnavita N. The Crucial Role of Occupational Health Surveillance for Health-care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Workplace Health & Safety. 2021;69(1):5-6. doi:10.1177/2165079920950161. Chirico F, Ferrari G, Nucera G, Szarpak L, Crescenzo P, Ilesanmi O. Prevalence of anxiety, depression, burnout syndrome,and mental health disorders among healthcare
workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews. J Health Soc Sci. 2021;6(2).doi: 0.19204/2021/prvl7.Chirico F, Nucera G. Tribute to healthcare operators threatened by COVID-19 pandemic. J Health Soc Sci. 2020;5(2):165-168. 10.19204/2020/trbt1, Chirico F, Nucera G, Magnavita N. Protecting the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 emergency. BJ Psych International. 2020. 1-6. Doi: 10.1192/bji.2020.39
English should be largely improved
Research question should be reformulated
The association between socio-demographic characteristics and levels of anxiety and depression should be defined in terms of predictors, by using ORs.
In methods the authors do not report important ethical aspects and do not describe how they use dependent variable.
I suggest using multivariate regression logistics where dependent variable (yes/no) is anxiety or depression and individual and occupational predictors are independent variables
Conclusions are supported by results
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.