Management Support for Healthcare Workers’ Mental Health and Burnout during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cohort Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review this work. I will now comment according to the different sections. The article sounds good, although unfortunately it needs significant improvements to be relevant to the scientific community.
- Introduction
· The literature review becomes difficult to understand. The literature review becomes difficult to understand. Attempt to focus the discourse in three parts: 1) pandemic contextualization and study population, 2) narrative discourse by order of the variables studied, 3) and current study.
· Line 31. What is psychological well-being?
- Materials and methods
· What inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied for sample selection?
· Was the study approved by the ethics committee?
· Please create a section “measures”.
- Results
· The statistical analyses are very basic for a journal of this category. Have you considered the possibility of a structural equation model to explain the relationship between the variables?
- Discussion and conclusion
· What is new in this study?
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
Please find attached our revised manuscript » Management support for healthcare workers’ mental health and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study «.
We thank to the reviewers for their feedback on our manuscript. We have prepared the revised manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. We have revised our paper in accordance with each point which was raised and have carefully considered all the reviewers' comments. Major corrections have been performed.
In the paragraphs below, we list each reviewers’ comment, followed by our responses and pointers to the sections of the manuscript that have been revised to address a specific comment.
The changes in the revised manuscript are made by track changes. We hope that this will improve the value of our paper to readers.
Best regards,
Mojca Dobnik, Mateja Lorber
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper has some contribution. However the topic of COVID has been covered from many perspectives and it is hard to find true innovation in the paper. To merit publication improvement are required in literature Review: A more thorough literature review would be beneficial. You could incorporate studies like:
Xie, X., Jin, X.,(2023). "Monitoring and Early Warning of SMEs’ Shutdown Risk under the Impact of Global Pandemic Shock". This paper provides insights into the broader impact of the pandemic.
Wang, D. (2020). "The influencing factors of career adaptability of newcomers: Based on multiple perspectives of individual, family and school". This source can provide a unique perspective on factors influencing adaptability during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hu, F., Qiu, L., Xia, W., Liu, C., Xi, X., Zhao, S.,... Su, N. (2022). "Spatiotemporal evolution of online attention to vaccines since 2011: an empirical study in China". This study could offer comparative insights into attention towards health-related issues during the pandemic.
Li, Q., et al(2020). "Prevalence and factors for anxiety during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic among the teachers in China". The findings of this study can add context to your discussion of healthcare workers' mental health.
Li, X., Zhang, X., & Jia, T. (2023). "Humanization of nature: Testing the influences of urban park characteristics and psychological factors on collegers’ perceived restoration". The potential mitigating strategies suggested in this paper, such as exposure to nature, could be an interesting aspect to consider in your work.
Visual Elements: Incorporate figures, tables, or charts to aid comprehension. Visual elements are often useful for summarizing complex data, demonstrating trends or patterns, and enhancing the overall readability of the paper.
Highlight the innovative aspects of your study. Clarifying what makes your research novel or unique within your field will help readers understand its value and importance.
Discussion and Limitations: Improve the structure of your discussion. It would be beneficial to clearly outline the limitations of your study and suggest avenues for future research. Addressing limitations gives credibility to your research and guides future studies in the same area. Also, suggestions for future research could foster scholarly conversation and pave the way for subsequent investigations.
proofread it please
Author Response
Dear Editor and reviewers,
Please find attached our revised manuscript » Management support for healthcare workers’ mental health and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort study «.
We thank to the reviewers for their feedback on our manuscript. We have prepared the revised manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. We have revised our paper in accordance with each point which was raised and have carefully considered all the reviewers' comments. Major corrections have been performed.
In the paragraphs below, we list each reviewers’ comment, followed by our responses and pointers to the sections of the manuscript that have been revised to address a specific comment.
The changes in the revised manuscript are made by track changes. We hope that this will improve the value of our paper to readers.
Best regards,
Mojca Dobnik, Mateja Lorber
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
are there some illustrations that would help better depict the research concept to the reader?
minor modifications, overall is ok
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
