Work-Family Conflict and Mental Distress of Black Women in Employment in South Africa: A Template Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

From my point of view the article presents the case study method based on 20 interviews and it is well defined but I would find some similar research in the world to enrich the content - just to compare the knowledge about the topic.

Author Response

Many thanks for the comments provided for improvement.  We have revised the manuscript in line with the comments.  Below are the comments and a summary of our responses. The revisions made are highlighted in the manuscript.

 

Comment	Response
There is a breach of anonymity. The authors mentioned PS in the data collection and under author contributions sections, and based on references, it is easy to figure out this is Peter Sandy.	This has been attended. PS has been removed from the “data collection” and “study settings and recruitment” sections.  PS has been replaced with “first author”.   Please see section 4.4 “Data Collection” page 5, and section 4.3. “Study Settings and Recruitment” page 4 in the manuscript.   The revisions are highlighted

 

 

 

I am thanking you in advance and looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper explores the parameters that affecting mental health issues in the content of work-family conflicts in Africa. There are few concerns, please see below.

 

Minor:

1.         Reference style is not with MDPI format.

2.         Format issue e.g. Line 197 and 486, and Table 1

3.         The bottom edge of table 1 was hidden in the current issue.

4.         Subheadings style like 5.1.1.1.1 is very poor, please revise.

Major:

1.         There is no figure in the paper. I encourage you to add few figures, especially in the result section or the method section. This would improve the quality of the paper and also would better for audience to understand the work.

2.         Line 493 to 510 should be move to the introduction section, as it discussed why the work is necessarily discussed.

3.         Semi-structured question examples should be given.

4.         The discussion section is too long for audience to catch the key points, please use subheadings.

5.         The illustration style of Results - Section 5, is very poor which need improve. E.g. Line 248-251, and Line 270 to 284. If you report the answers from the participants, quotation marks should be used.

Author Response

19/06/2022

 

Dear Editor.

Re: Submission for Publication

 

Many thanks for the comments provided for improvement.  We have revised the manuscript in line with the comments.  Below are the comments and a summary of our responses.

Comment 1:There is a breach of anonymity. The authors mentioned PS in the data collection and under author contributions sections, and based on references, it is easy to figure out this Peter Sandy.

Response 1: This has been attended. PS has been removed from the data collection section.

Comment 2: The title suggests the paper will focus on mental distress, but the findings cover so much. Given the need for more background/literature review and connections, I would suggest focusing the paper throughout on mental distress and just these findings and really going deeper into the findings.

Response 2: The issues mentioned have been attended to. The background has been expanded with more literature review. The results have also been expanded with more excerpts. The focus is now on mental distress and its antecedents.

Comment 3: There is very limited background for this paper when we know that work-family conflict is a very large area of research and even with many qualitative studies. There needs to be more building to the current study.

Response 3: The background has been expanded with more literature review.

Comment 4: The introduction can be better about making the research question clear and the contributions of the study. I agree a study of Black women in South Africa would be a nice contribution.

Response 4: The introduction has been revised in line with comment made. The aim of the research has been revised, made clearer in line with the comment.

 

I am thanking you in advance and looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours Sincerely.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Congratulations for your interesting paper.

However, although its interest, this paper needs some improvements, namely:

- The main aims of this study need to be clearly presented in the Introduction section.

- Background section should be more complete and improved. Work-family conflict issues should be deeper highlighted.

- Conclusion section should be improved.

- Authors should highlight the main theoretical and practical contributions of the study to this research field. Political and social implications need to be highlighted.

Author Response

Dear Editor.

Re: Submission for Publication

 

Many thanks for the comments provided for improvement.  We have revised the manuscript in line with the comments.  Below are the comments and a summary of our responses. The revisions made are highlighted in the manuscript.

 

Comment	Response
There is very limited background for this paper when we know that work-family conflict is a very large area of research and even with many qualitative studies. There needs to be more building to the current study.	The background has been expanded with more literature review that included clear arguments for the need for the study.   See pages 2 and 4. The revisions are highlighted in brown.
The introduction can be better about making the research question clear and the contributions of the study. I agree a study of Black women in South Africa would be a nice contribution.	The introduction has been revised in line with comment made.  The need for the study is made clearer.   See pages 1 and 2. The revisions are highlighted in brown.   The aim of the research has been revised, made clearer in line with the comment.   See section 4.1 “aim of the study” page 4.

 

I am thanking you in advance and looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

There are many format issues in the current work. And some of my previous concerns are not well addressed in the responses. Table 1 needs rework, as the current quality of illustration is very poor. 

Author Response

19/06/2022

 

Dear Editor.

Re: Submission for Publication

 

Many thanks for the comments provided for improvement.  We have revised the manuscript in line with the comments.  Below are the comments and a summary of our responses. The revisions made are highlighted in the manuscript.

Comment 1:There is a breach of anonymity. The authors mentioned PS in the data collection and under author contributions sections, and based on references, it is easy to figure out this Peter Sandy.

Response 1: This has been attended. PS has been removed from the data collection section.

Comment 2: The title suggests the paper will focus on mental distress, but the findings cover so much. Given the need for more background/literature review and connections, I would suggest focusing the paper throughout on mental distress and just these findings and really going deeper into the findings.

Response 2: The issues mentioned have been attended to. The background has been expanded with more literature review. The results have also been expanded with more excerpts. The focus is now on mental distress and its antecedents.

Comment 3: There is very limited background for this paper when we know that work-family conflict is a very large area of research and even with many qualitative studies. There needs to be more building to the current study.

Response 3: The background has been expanded with more literature review.

Comment 4: The introduction can be better about making the research question clear and the contributions of the study. I agree a study of Black women in South Africa would be a nice contribution.

Response 4: The introduction has been revised in line with comment made. The aim of the research has been revised, made clearer in line with the comment.

 

I am thanking you in advance and looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours Sincerely.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The Table 1 is still very poorly presented. I did not find the responses from the authors to my comments. 

Author Response

Many thanks for the comments provided for improvement.  We have revised the manuscript in line with the comments.  Below are the comments and a summary of our responses. The revisions made are highlighted in the manuscript.

 

Comment

Response

The title suggests the paper will focus on mental distress, but the findings cover so much. Given the need for more background/literature review and connections, I would suggest focusing the paper throughout on mental distress and just these findings and really going deeper into the findings.

The issues mentioned have been attended to. The background has been expanded with more literature review. The results have also been expanded with more excerpts. The focus is now on mental distress and its antecedents.   See the following sections: Abstract (page 1): Mental distress is now the focus.   Aim of the study (page 4): Mental distress is now the focus (page 1)   Results (pages 5-14: mental distress emphasised and more excerpts added.   Background (pages 2 & 3): More literature is added with arguments for the need for the study   The revisions are highlighted

 

 

I am thanking you in advance and looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in the present form