Developing the Social Ecology of Occupational Zoonoses Instrument: A Comprehensive Tool for Measuring Social and Behavioral Factors in Agricultural Settings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors aims to develop and demonstrate evidence of measurement validity of an instrument measuring social, cultural, and behavioral factors influencing exposure to occupational zoonoses in agricultural settings. 

Specific and very minor comments/suggestions are highlighted in the attached .pdf file.

A high quality manuscript, dealing with a very important topic, an important contribution under the One Health approach.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Only very minor errors are detected, in general terms the manuscript is very well written.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your careful reading and helpful comments on our document. We have incorporated your feedback and revised the manuscript accordingly.

We will submit these changes in a new version that incorporates other reviewers' feedback as well.

Best regards, 

Authors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, your manuscript is very nicely written and you have put a lot of effort into designing the study, preparing all the needed components, making preparational activities, writing the manuscript and then you present your most interesting results only in few paragraphs (Part 3,3).  Please be so kind to reconsider this part. This is not obligative correction, it is just suggestion to make you numerous results more visible to an average scientific reader. This manuscript is written for a narrow scientific community working with SEM. For example, pay more attention to some singular questions (answers), like what does it mean when the question Zoonotic diseases from cattle can harm workers permanently? has a mean score of 0.5 and question How do you grade your quality of work has mean score 8.63? I just suggest that for a general scientific audience this should be more clarified. Otherwise, very interesting hard work. You have recognized the gaps in the study yourself in the last paragraph of the discussion, so I will not repeat that. Is there anything you could have done from today's point of view, to get more participants - maybe you can mention that.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive feedback you provided.

Your point about making the numerous results more visible to a broader scientific audience is well-taken.

Specifically, to clarify the implications of specific question scores and scales we have added the following text below Table 1A, in Appendix A.

The majority of the scores presented in this table are based on the average responses to Likert-type questions, which used a 5-point scale (ranging from 1 to 5). For other scores, they adhere to specific scales as follows:
† Bivariate answer question: Each correct answer is assigned a score of 1, while an incorrect answer receives a score of 0.
* True/false question: A true answer is scored as 1, a false answer as -1, and when unsure, a score of 0 is assigned.
‡ Scale question: Responses to scale questions are measured on a scale from 1 to 10.

Furthermore, we acknowledge the importance of addressing the gaps in the study. We have captured your suggestion about discussing potential strategies for increasing participant numbers from today's standpoint into account. This aspect could greatly enhance the practical implications of the research.

Once again, thank you for your time and valuable input.

Best regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

 

This article introduces a novel tool to assess the impact of social, cultural, and behavioral factors that the influence exposure to occupational zoonotic diseases associated with agricultural environments. The development of this tool was guided by the Social Ecological Model (SEM) and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing to ensure its reliability. The content of the tool was formulated by merging insights from a comprehensive literature review and a qualitative study conducted by experts in the field.

The study from a scientific point of view seems to be well done and presents good results, from where to derive valid conclusions. The paper is original and contains certain novelties.

Abstract includes introductory statement that outlines the background and significance of the study.

Introduction summarizes relevant research to provide context and clearly state the problem.  The topics are well developed and confronted to other publications.

The interpretation of the results is correct. The figures and tables have clear structure.

The discussion section interprets the findings in view of the results obtained in this and in past studies on this topic.

Minor corrections

Some references used in the paper were very old. Therefore, authors need to add updated references.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback regarding the references used in our paper. We acknowledge the importance of ensuring the currency of our sources and have updated some references to include more recent and relevant literature.