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.
Dear Authors,
I believe you have addressed all the issues raised by the Reviewers when they fell within the scope of your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors,
I have received the comments of the Reviewers. I do agree with them regarding the validity of the manuscript, and I appreciate your discussion on the limitations of the study. However, I believe the manuscript can benefit some minor revisions. Specifically, I would like you to acknowledge in the discussions the interesting points raised by R3.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Researchers need simple editing in academic writing rules, for example, do not write abbreviations in the abstract, and also write the abbreviation in the form of full words in the introduction.
Tables: Include a legend or footnote below the table to explain any abbreviations used in the table headers, columns, or rows.
Figures: Add a legend to the figure caption to explain any abbreviations used in the figure labels or text.
The article aligns with the journal's scope, is well-written, and makes a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge. Figures, tables, data, and the trial protocol are in order. However, the manuscript requires some minor revisions before acceptance.
The materials and methods are explained clearly. However, as per the inclusion criteria, the HCWs enrolled in the study were 18 years or older and provided care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. There was no threshold for years of practice. In my opinion, this could impact the results since there may be HCWs who had just started their careers (essentially with zero years of experience), who may or may not have higher/lower PSS scores. How did the authors account for such cases, if present?
Line 22: “The global COVID-19 pandemic…” instead of “… endemic” perhaps
Line 30: Please clarify whether the abbreviation should be “HCWs” or “HWCs.”
The introduction is well-written and cites appropriate references.
A GLM model for repeated measures was used for analysis, which is an appropriate choice. However, please mention the full list of covariates, including any potential confounders.
There was no significant difference in the PSS score, the primary outcome, as hypothesized. The authors attribute this to the GLM model being unable to assess differences due to the small sample size. I agree with this explanation.
In Figure 3, I assume the model had PSS as the response variable and time and group as covariates. Similarly, in Figure 4, NIH HEALS was likely the response variable, with time and group as covariates. Explicitly stating this in the manuscript would help the reader better understand the models.
Overall, the manuscript requires only minor revisions and has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge in the domains of stress scales and mindfulness-based interventions. With the suggested clarifications and additions, it will enhance understanding and provide meaningful insights for addressing stress and wellbeing among healthcare workers.
NA
The study is well-written, supported by relevant bibliographic references, and appropriately acknowledges its limitations, demonstrating transparency in the presentation of results.
This research demonstrates its relevance by highlighting the subjectivities inherent in social psychology studies. Even investigations conducted with high technical and ethical standards, using detailed methods and with sufficient information for replication, may yield distinct results. The study presents the complexity of human behavior and the influence of various contextual, cultural, and individual factors that interact with the social phenomena studied.
The article could more critically analyze the influence of online activities (common during the pandemic) on patients' health. Given that the pandemic was a significant driver of emotional stress, it seems logical that activities reminiscent of the pandemic, such as online activities, could contribute to the psychosocial suffering experienced by healthcare professionals and others affected by it.
Furthermore, what if the defining factor of stress is related to the work environment itself, rather than the worker's mental state? This raises a question about the locus of stress and its potential sources.
A further consideration that I believe the authors could explore more critically is whether the provision of psychological support outside the professional setting, decoupled from peer interactions and associated with activities disassociated from pandemic-related reminiscences, might enhance therapeutic efficacy.
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.