Self-Efficacy, Resilience and Distress: Challenges in Education for Sustainable Entrepreneurship in a Health Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider this study addresses a pertinent theme and aligned with the scope of this journal. The manuscript is well organized but especially in the methodological component there are some gaps and doubts that should be clarified. Below I present several proposals for improvement:

1. The concept of sustainable entrepreneurship is not explicitly presented. Only its context and relevance are mentioned. However, its main characteristics are not presented in order to tell if an entrepreneurial activity is sustainable or not. This is a key point given the objective of the study.
2. The first paragraph of the introduction section is excessively long and not easy to read. It also mixes several ideas. It would be better if the authors divide it and organized better their ideas.
3. The difference between intrapreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship is not properly addressed and explored. I recommend the authors to briefly discuss their main differences.
4. Authors note “The present work is part of an observational study that was conducted between April and August 2021. The aim was to characterize the work context of "formal health caregivers", I recommend two changes: (i) end the sentence with “.” (ii) give more details about this study, namely exploring better the concept of “observational study” and “characterize the work…”
5. I recommend the authors to contextualize the concept of formal caregivers, which is not totally equal in all countries.
6. Authors state “Considering the error of 5% and the confidence level of 95% (1.96), the representative sample should be about 383 participants”. It is a minimal value considering the error assumed by the authors. The used of minimal expression is fundamental.
7. Authors state “At an early stage, besides descriptive statistics and internal consistency of the scales, several Pearson’s correlate analyses were conducted to assess the relation between Self-efficacy and distress, Resiliency and the PRFs.”. Avoid colloquial expressions like “several”. Characterize it with more scientific rigor.
8. Authors indicate that the sample is representative. I have some methodological doubts mainly because none of this is proven in the article considering the sample. What should be the proportion of respondents for each control variable? This is a point that the authors ignore.
9. The quantitative exploration of the results is relatively basic. The role of control variables is not explored. Is this not done because it was forgotten or because the representativeness of the sample by size is too sparse?
10. Table 1 should be placed in the methods section and not in the results section.
11. The conclusions section is relatively weak. Some important components are missing: (i) theoretical and practical contributions; (ii) limitations; and (iii) future work.
12. The impact of COVID-19 should be better explored in the discussion section.
13. There is little discussion of the results considering the context of Portugal and the challenges posed to formal health caregivers. The discussion is too general and does not take into consideration specific local challenges.
14. There is potential to improve the number and quality of references. The theoretical contextualization work is relatively scarce.
15. I think it would be desirable to present the survey in attachment. Authors can place it as annex.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general it is a good work and very interesting. From a scientific perspective, it addresses the different variables that are part of training. I think it will be a very useful job for the implementation of new educational models and taking into account the current market demand. However, from my point of view, I think it is necessary to create a division between introduction and literary review or theoretical framework.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Some suggestions to improve the quality of the article:

- The abstract should highlight the results of the research. Please rewrite.

- Rows 204-206: Can you explain how did you comply to the Code?

- Is the marital status a criteria in your research? Please explain.

- Are average numbers relevant? I think a distinction between age, or level of education should be made. Studies show that younger people are more open to intrapreneurship than elder.

- The authors often use the expression "it is verified" (e.g. rows 399-401). By whom? By this study? How? Please explain.

- How can the authors validate their study?

- Which are the limitations of the research?

- References are outdated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the review work done by the authors. I believe that there have been significant improvements that make its future publication possible. I raise only a few issues that should be clarified. For me the last question is very relevant and, therefore, my decision is a major revision.

1. Authors consider two types of work shift that it isn’t easy to realize the differences: rotative and flexible. Explain their differences would be relevant.

2. Strangely the first paragraph of the Results section is empty. Please check the file in the lines 232 and below.

3. The legend of Figure 2 and Figure is not properly aligned. It should be aligned to left or right, but don’t change it between the two figures.

4. Authors should provide future research directions in the Conclusions section. Authors only note “For future studies, we propose focusing on a long-term investigation, with larger samples, which may help to create a more integrated understanding of the phenomena.” This is totally unclear and obvious. More concrete research directions should be provided.

5. The scientific exploration of the theme around education for sustainable development is weak. Some very important references are missing. This would contribute to improve both the Introduction and Discussion sections:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1797998

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1795101

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8872572/

https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/8/e002273

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042816305213

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11365-021-00761-7

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf