Work Stress as a Consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting article. I do not have any methodological concerns. However, please have the text checked for grammar and spelling, maybe by a copy editor. Thank you.

Author Response

Saludos estimado revisor 1.
Para mantenerte informado de que los comentarios que realizas han sido tenidos en cuenta para mejorar el artículo.
Espero que puedas firmar tu informe para poder continuar con el pago por la publicación del artículo.
Bendiciones

Greetings dear reviewer 1.
To keep you informed that the comments you make have been taken into account to improve the article.
I hope you can sign your report in order to continue with the payment for the publication of the article.
Blessings

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Introduction:

Point 1:

Line 33: The first letter of "covid-19" should be capitalized and needs to be checked and corrected in full.

 

Point 2:

Line 48-49: “The general response…” Suggest adding a reference regarding this statement.

Point 3:

Line 54: “WHO”, the corresponding abbreviation should be given when the full name first appears

 

Point 4:

Line 54-56: “In a general context, …face a situation.” Suggest adding a reference regarding this statement.

Point 5:

Line 65-67: “In this sense, …new health risks.” Suggest adding a reference regarding this statement.

Point 6:

Line 79: “For [11], covid-19 brought an unprecedented fight that continues today.” Suggest rephrasing this sentence to be more meaningful.

Literature Review

Point 7:

Line 131-169: "Origins of stress" corresponds to too much content and needs to be streamlined.

 

Point 8:

Line 206-225: This section of "2.3 The Causes of work stress" should take into account the needs of different ages and populations.

 

Materials and Methods

Point 9:

Line 428: The search procedure in the selected databases was carried out using the keywords "work stress" and “pandemic”. The keywords used to search are not comprehensive enough.

 

Point 10:

Line 468: The information in Table 2 is not highly relevant to the topic of this study and is recommended for deletion.

 

Results

Point 11:

Line 485: It is not necessary to list all the authors in Table 3, only the first author and the year of publication are required.

 

Point 12:

Line 527: Table 4 is the same as Table 3, and the results should be concise

 

Discussion

Point 13:

The discussion section should be combined with the results of the in-depth analysis and discussion.

Author Response

Saludos estimado revisor 2.
El siguiente archivo pdf proporciona una respuesta punto por punto a cada comentario.
Espero que pueda dar su informe favorable para continuar con el pago por la publicación del artículo.
Bendiciones

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

Thanks for the opportunity to review this interesting work. I have some queries:

1) The authors mention that the objective of the study was to synthesize evidence of work stress. How did the authors differentiate work stress from other confounding factors such as depression and anxiety ? 

2) In the discussion, the authors write lines such as :

Similarly [8], points out that the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 virus represented an example of an abrupt stressor for workers, which can go from chronic to acute, depending on the duration of the pandemic. For [12], working during the COVID-19 pandemic is a particular challenge for health workers, especially for nurses, since in their regular work they are exposed to the physical and social consequences of different diseases. 

The authors are suggested to clarify the reference in sentences, and not place the reference to signify content without explanation.

Author Response

Greetings dear reviewer 3.
The attached pdf provides a point-by-point response to each of your comments.
I hope you can sign your report to be able to continue with the payment for the publication of the article.
Blessings

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 18-21: The purpose of the abstract is too cumbersome and it is recommended that the main purpose be stated briefly.

Line 21-28: The methodological content of the abstract is unclear.

Line 28-30: Main results are not reflected in the abstract and conclusions are missing.

Introduction - The Introduction is overloaded, but does not focus on the study and is not logical.

Literature Review- Some changes have been made to this section, but overall there is still too much content in this section and it is recommended that it be further streamlined to highlight the main elements relevant to this study.

Materials and Methods- According to the PRISMA diagram there should be a quality assessment of the included literature, which was not seen in the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2.
He attached the article in its final version with the suggestions that
did.
I want to take this space to thank you for your professionalism as a peer reviewer, as it helped us improve our article.

Estimado revisor 2.
Adjuntó el artículo en su versión final con las sugerencias que
hiciste.
Quiero aprovechar este espacio para agradecerle su profesionalismo como revisor de pares, ya que nos ayudó a mejorar nuestro artículo.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf