Bouncing Beyond Adversity in Oncology: An Exploratory Study of the Association Between Professional Team Resilience at Work and Work-Related Sense of Coherence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I think your study is interesting and deals with an important topic. I have some suggestions that might, in my view, make the paper easier to understand.

Introduction

Even if it is supposedly clear (and is mentioned in section 2.2), it would nonetheless be useful to list the different professions that are usually part of a oncology care team here.

p. 2, lines 89 et seq.: Just to understand it correctly - is this the first time that team resilience in the context of oncology care has been analyzed in terms of its relations (as a "generalized resistance resource") with the sense of coherence components? And the research questions are thus exploratory?

Methods

p. 3, line 130: Please spell out GFI.

p. 3, line 142: Why was data collection carried out in two waves (T0, T1), i.e., part of the sample was included during T0 and the other during T1?

Results

p. 6, line 210: Minor comment - please write "rates" instead of "rate".

pp. 7, 8: Readers may have difficulty understanding why different values for T0 and T1 are given (table 3) if they have overlooked the information referring to the two waves of cross-sectional data collection. And wouldn't it have been feasible to present the aggregated scores of T0 and T1 (instead or additionally)?.

p. 9, 3.4 Model fit: I wonder if it would be more appropriate to describe the model fit as "acceptable" rather than "good" (e.g., RMSEA is 0.09 - there are recommendations that classify a good fit as  <.06 or <.05).

p. 9, lines 256 et seq.: Please check this sentence ("Correlation of..."), to me there seems to be something missing.

Discussion

p. 9, line 270: A formulation like "...across measurement points" suggests a sort of longitudinal data collection and is thus misleading.

In general, it appears that the correlations of the TR@W and Work-SoC scales are discussed in more detail than the SEM findings. I think it would be helpful to put a stronger focus on these results, too.

Moreover, it would be interesting to learn what - in the authors' view - the practical implications of the study results are for promoting health, resilience, and cooperation of interprofessional teams in oncology.

p. 11, line 339: A reference seems to have been forgotten here ("ref").

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study topic is interesting and valuable. You can see my comments before.

Abstract:

-            Line 20 should be the results “showed”

Introduction

-            Well-written. The introduction is organized and clear to raise a knowledge gap.

-            Authors should be aware of the use of tenses.

Materials and methods

-            Authors should be aware of the use of tenses. Past tense should be used because the study was completed.

-            Line 127, 20 h should be “20 hours”?

-            Any reliability test was conducted before for the instruments?

-            In 2.5 Statistical Analysis section, SEM, abbreviation of Structural Equation Modeling) should be blanketed after the full term.

Results

-            How to treat the missing data?

Discussion

-            This part should interpret your results in more detail and give suggestion how to make your results be implemented in the current practice. For example, what is your suggestion to promote or facilitate the teamwork and create a better working environment? “This would suggest that there may be different levels of GRR under the health salutogenic umbrella (e.g. individual, group, organizational).” Should be further elaborated

-            Cronbach’s alpha results should be reported in each instrument.

-            Limitation and conclusion should be separated into individual sections.

- please check the tenses 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for revising your manuscript and addressing my comments and suggestions. Specifically, thank you for adding a detailed section on practical implications of your findings in the discussion section. My comments have all been appropriately considered.

Just a minor note: On p. 10, line 272, may I suggest to write "Analysis revealed a positive correlation between TR@W and female gender (R = 0.20)...."?

Author Response

Thank you for this in-depth reading. 

Comment 1: Analysis revealed a positive correlation between TR@W and female gender (R = 0.20)

Response 1: Added "a" page 10 line 272 using track change into the text. A revised document is download:  curroncol-3273019 (v6).