The Healthy Workplaces Ecosystems and Professionals’ Stress Management during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: ok

Abstract:

Words with different text color

There should be no citation of reference in the abstract.

Explain the method better

Summarize the results in the main findings

Conclusion must be redrafted so as to respond directly to the objective

Introduction

Fix Words with different text color

Present studies that have analyzed similar, or equal, variables in other parts of the world

Method:

A large age range cannot interfere with the findings¿

The results must be presented in the proper section

Present the sample selection criteria

Explain how the final scores of both questionnaires used are calculated

How were the companies selected to participate in the study¿ companies of which size, public or private¿NGOs¿universities¿which branch of the companies¿

Results

Table 1 should indicate the result of the Comparison analysis according to sex, age and educational level, revealing which gender, age and educational level had the lowest (or highest) score

New analyzes are suggested, taking into account the issues mentioned above, as well as their discussion and presentation of conclusions.

Discussion

Must review the above points

Conclusion

This is very extensive presenting items that fit the discussion. It must be redone seeking to respond directly to the objective, pointing out the weaknesses and difficulties of the study.

No coments

Author Response

Revision 1

Revisions Paper

“The Healthy workplaces ecosystems and professionals’ stress management during the COVID-19 pandemic”

Dear Editor and Reviewer

I greatly appreciate the careful analysis and recommendations indicated by the reviewers. I have made the requested changes; in the response I indicate in yellow the changed text and in the manuscript, I indicate in track changes. I made substantial changes that greatly improved the paper, thank you very much. If you have any further questions or if needed any additional changes, please just let me know best regards Tania

Abstract:

Words with different text color (it has to do with the automatic broker, in the pdf version it will disappear)

There should be no citation of reference in the abstract.

Reference removed

Explain the method better

Data was collected online from professionals in the organisations who agreed to participate in the study

Summarize the results in the main findings

Conclusion must be redrafted so as to respond directly to the objective

The results confirm that an organizational culture that values the well-being and health of the organization's professionals has a positive relationship with the psychosocial environment, the physical environment, the relationship with the community and more resources for the professionals' health. Also was found that an organizational culture mediated by the psychosocial environment is associated with more effective stress management.

Introduction

Fix Words with different text color (it has to do with the automatic broker, in the pdf version it will disappear)

Present studies that have analyzed similar, or equal, variables in other parts of the world

Several studies have been conducted to understand the impact of COVID-19 on the work environment and on personal and organisational health. We found an increase in psychosocial risks at work, an increase in difficulties in reconciling work and family life, a greater perception of stress and pressure, aggravated by social and gender inequalities [5,21,22].

Method:

A large age range cannot interfere with the findings¿

Sentence inserted in limitations “We have chosen to include professionals throughout their working life, from the age of 18 to retirement age. This aspect may be considered a limitation due to the wide age spectrum but it also enriches having information from the entire working life. We will continue to increase the sample in order to reduce this limitation and enhance its opportunity.”

The results must be presented in the proper section

socio-demographic information was included in the results

Present the sample selection criteria

A convenience sample was included. Professionals who agreed voluntarily to participate in the study were included.

Explain how the final scores of both questionnaires used are calculated

The sentence was included in “data analysis” section “To calculate the final scores of the questionnaires, the results of the items per dimension were summarised and divided by the respective number of items. This procedure was used in order to obtain comparable values since the different dimensions have different number of items.”

How were the companies selected to participate in the study¿ companies of which size, public or private¿NGOs¿universities¿which branch of the companies¿

Participants work in companies from different sectors of activity: 19.3% work in the transport and storage sector; 18.7% in the education sector, 13.5% in the health sector, 6.7% in the social sector, 3.9% in the commerce and retail sector, 2.6% in the financial area and the rest in other areas of activity such as agriculture, industry, construction, catering, hotels, real estate activities, insurance, etc. We included large and medium-sized organisations from various sectors of activity. Public, private and social organisations were invited to participate.

Results

Table 1 should indicate the result of the Comparison analysis according to sex, age and educational level, revealing which gender, age and educational level had the lowest (or highest) score

New analyzes are suggested, taking into account the issues mentioned above, as well as their discussion and presentation of conclusions.

Summarising the results we find that women have more positive perceptions in relation to the different healthy working environments when compared to men. The same is true for younger professionals (aged between 18 years and 40 years). Older professionals (aged between 41 years and 67 years) reveal more stress management skills. With regard to education, professionals with higher education (university education) showed more positive perceptions about the different healthy working environments when compared to professionals with less education (up to 12 years of schooling - compulsory education).

Discussion

Must review the above points

In a complementary way, the study allows us to understand the perception of the working environments during the pandemic of some specific groups and it is possible to identify differences linked to gender, age and education of the workers. Women, younger professionals and those with higher education reveal a more positive perception of healthy working environments.

The results in relation to women contradict the results found in the literature which argue that women were more negatively affected by the pandemic. We can hypothesise that women are less assertive and demanding in relation to the expectations of the responsibility of work organisations to look after their health and promote healthy environments [65].

The results related to age and education are consistent with results found in other studies conducted during the pandemic [5, 66, 67,68]. Professionals with less education generally have jobs with lower pay, less job stability, and greater risk of losing their jobs.

Regarding age, on the one hand, younger professionals may have jobs associated with greater digital literacy and a greater ability to carry out their work remotely.

Conclusion

This is very extensive presenting items that fit the discussion. It must be redone seeking to respond directly to the objective, pointing out the weaknesses and difficulties of the study.

Some of the information was integrated into the discussion, the response to the objective, limitations and implications were presented

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Contributions: This paper mainly analyzes the healthy workplaces ecosystems and professionals’ stress management during the COVID-19 pandemic. By utilizing the 2022 including organisations from different sectors and at national level, the paper reports that organizational culture has a strong relationship with the other components of a healthy work environment. thereby contributing to the enhancement of value chain division of labor empirically. Investigate whether and how professionals’ stress management, marginal contribution made in considering the policies and practices for occupational health resources and stress management.

conmments:

1.      This manuscript needs extensive proofreading. A lot of expressions are incorrect, and revise words and phrases which are generally used in the academia. There are lots of grammatical errors.

2.      More literature support in related fields is necessary. Furthermore, the author also needs to highlight the contribution of your paper, which is the most important of one paper.

3.      I find that the data the authors used is not panel data. I think the authors need to use panel data to do empirical analysis. Moreover, how to deal with the possible endogeneity problem?

4.      The author needs to give a more introduction of your solution methodology. For example, what’s the advantages and disadvantages of this method.

5.      There are no sufficient comparisons with the previous literatures when the authors interpret the results. I suggest the author conduct a more detailed analysis and explanation in conjunction with relevant literature. A good empirical result section not only requires the author to explain the empirical findings in detail, but also requires the author to explain the reason for the result and the difference with the existing literature.

6.      Sample collected: The paper selects 460 participants, 231 (50.3%) were female. The workers' age 153 ranged between 18 and 67 years, with a mean of 44 years and standard deviation of 11.36. It would be reasonable if the reasons could be explained clearly.

Formats:

1.       Unify table format on font, thickness, and table size, etc. When there are not many tables reported, this problem will be obvious. For example Table 2 is in a messy format

2.       The format of references is not uniform and messy.

Author Response

Revision 2

Revisions Paper

“The Healthy workplaces ecosystems and professionals’ stress management during the COVID-19 pandemic”

Dear Editor and Reviewer

I greatly appreciate the careful analysis and recommendations indicated by the reviewers. I have made the requested changes; in the response I indicate in yellow the changed text and in the manuscript, I indicate in track changes. I made substantial changes that greatly improved the paper, thank you very much. If you have any further questions or if needed any additional changes, please just let me know best regards Tania

Contributions: This paper mainly analyzes the healthy workplaces ecosystems and professionals’ stress management during the COVID-19 pandemic. By utilizing the 2022 including organisations from different sectors and at national level, the paper reports that organizational culture has a strong relationship with the other components of a healthy work environment. thereby contributing to the enhancement of value chain division of labor empirically. Investigate whether and how professionals’ stress management, marginal contribution made in considering the policies and practices for occupational health resources and stress management.

conmments:

1. This manuscript needs extensive proofreading. A lot of expressions are incorrect, and revise words and phrases which are generally used in the academia. There are lots of grammatical errors.

The document has been revised and improved, any other specific changes required please indicate 

2. More literature support in related fields is necessary. Furthermore, the author also needs to highlight the contribution of your paper, which is the most important of one paper

the following information and new references have been included.

The main contributions of the study are: on the one hand, it is the only study that analyses work organisations from a systemic perspective, integrating all the dimensions advocated by the WHO [1] as fundamental for a comprehensive understanding of healthy work environments. Other studies carried out only include some of the dimensions and systems. A second contribution is to understand the role of stress management in its relationship with healthy work environments and how it can be considered a protective factor against the covid-19 pandemic. The findings suggest that promoting stress management skills among workers will be a priority if they are to cope more effectively with daily challenges, as well as more global challenges such as other health crises, war and economic recession.

3. I find that the data the authors used is not panel data. I think the authors need to use panel data to do empirical analysis. Moreover, how to deal with the possible endogeneity problem?4.      The author needs to give a more introduction of your solution methodology. For example, what’s the advantages and disadvantages of this method.

A convenience sample was included. Professionals who agreed voluntarily to participate in the study were included

Sentence inserted in limitations “We have chosen to include professionals throughout their working life, from the age of 18 to retirement age. This aspect may be considered a limitation due to the wide age spectrum but it also enriches having information from the entire working life. We will continue to increase the sample in order to reduce this limitation and enhance its opportunity.”

5. There are no sufficient comparisons with the previous literatures when the authors interpret the results. I suggest the author conduct a more detailed analysis and explanation in conjunction with relevant literature. A good empirical result section not only requires the author to explain the empirical findings in detail, but also requires the author to explain the reason for the result and the difference with the existing literature.

the following information and new references have been included

Several studies have been conducted to understand the impact of COVID-19 on the work environment and on personal and organisational health. We found an increase in psychosocial risks at work, an increase in difficulties in reconciling work and family life, a greater perception of stress and pressure, aggravated by social and gender inequalities [5,21,22].

In a complementary way, the study allows us to understand the perception of the working environments during the pandemic of some specific groups and it is possible to identify differences linked to gender, age and education of the workers. Women, younger professionals and those with higher education reveal a more positive perception of healthy working environments.

The results in relation to women contradict the results found in the literature which argue that women were more negatively affected by the pandemic. We can hypothesise that women are less assertive and demanding in relation to the expectations of the responsibility of work organisations to look after their health and promote healthy environments [65].

The results related to age and education are consistent with results found in other studies conducted during the pandemic [5, 66, 67,68]. Professionals with less education generally have jobs with lower pay, less job stability, and greater risk of losing their jobs.

Regarding age, on the one hand, younger professionals may have jobs associated with greater digital literacy and a greater ability to carry out their work remotely.

6. Sample collected: The paper selects 460 participants, 231 (50.3%) were female. The workers' age 153 ranged between 18 and 67 years, with a mean of 44 years and standard deviation of 11.36. It would be reasonable if the reasons could be explained clearly.

Sentence inserted in limitations “We have chosen to include professionals throughout their working life, from the age of 18 to retirement age. This aspect may be considered a limitation due to the wide age spectrum but it also enriches having information from the entire working life. We will continue to increase the sample in order to reduce this limitation and enhance its opportunity.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Formats:

1. Unify table format on font, thickness, and table size, etc. When there are not many tables reported, this problem will be obvious. For example Table 2 is in a messy format
2. The format of references is not uniform and messy.

 The format of tables and references was corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review. Admittedly, the subject has been addressed many times but I still think it is possible to cultivate these issues.
At first glance, some of the texts are highlighted in red, suggesting improvements on the previous version.
Quoting on the basis of pointing to a biger number of authors touching on certain issues (lines 108 and 109 [4,5,20,29,31], without giving specific issues is a bit too general in the context of the topic of the work undertaken.
I would suggest that the literature is more oriented around a hypothesis that is admittedly quite obvious, but could be supported by the findings of other researchers.  Then, too, its very introduction, which seems ungrammatical, would fit better: Are propose as hypotheses that (1) an organisational... - maybe We propose hypotheses.... The hypotheses has been proposed: ...

Also in the Materials section the sentences seem ungrammatical e.g.: Was developed a cross-sectional, exploratory study, using quantitative methodology. (There was...

In Methods the information is also disorganised. They alternate between the participants surveyed, the method of conducting the survey and again the characteristics of the companies employing the surveyed.  It seems that the respondents would be better characterised in a table.
In abtract it is stated that The study was carried out in 2022 while in p. 3.3 it is April to June 2021. In contrast, the conclusion states that it was the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. These times are not the same.

Table 1 through justification AND font size is difficult to read
Evaluated as a whole of organisations during COVID-19 pandemic, the article seems to have potential, but needs refinement and reference to uncertainties about the period in which they were performed.

Author Response

Revision 3

Revisions Paper

“The Healthy workplaces ecosystems and professionals’ stress management during the COVID-19 pandemic”

Dear Editor and Reviewer

I greatly appreciate the careful analysis and recommendations indicated by the reviewers. I have made the requested changes; in the response I indicate in yellow the changed text and in the manuscript, I indicate in track changes. I made substantial changes that greatly improved the paper, thank you very much. If you have any further questions or if needed any additional changes, please just let me know best regards Tania

Thank you for the opportunity to review. Admittedly, the subject has been addressed many times but I still think it is possible to cultivate these issues.
At first glance, some of the texts are highlighted in red, suggesting improvements on the previous version.

Quoting on the basis of pointing to a biger number of authors touching on certain issues (lines 108 and 109 [4,5,20,29,31], without giving specific issues is a bit too general in the context of the topic of the work undertaken.

The paragraph has been amended as follows:

The Covid-19 pandemic brought changes at the individual, workplace, and societal levels [29,30]. Organizations and professionals both experienced the direct and devastating impact of COVID-19, it is therefore essential to understand the changes that have taken place and to identify needs and practices that are fundamental for the recovery, of both management and quality and healthy improvement in organizations and work environments, including the impact on mental health [20], some more complex professional contexts such as the health area[29], challenges of working at a distance [31].

I would suggest that the literature is more oriented around a hypothesis that is admittedly quite obvious, but could be supported by the findings of other researchers.  Then, too, its very introduction, which seems ungrammatical, would fit better: Are propose as hypotheses that (1) an organisational... - maybe We propose hypotheses.... The following hypotheses has been proposed: ...

The references used have been further detailed and added more specific

65. Zinn, I. & Hofmeister, H. The gender order in action: consistent evidence from two distinct workplace settings, Journal of Gender Studies, 2022, 31:8, 941-955, DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2022.2115019
66. Davis, O., Quinby, L., Rutledge, M., & Wettstein, G.. How did COVID-19 affect the labor force participation of older workers in the first year of the pandemic? Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 2023, 1-15. doi:10.1017/S1474747223000045 67. OECD, The unequal impact of COVID-19: A spotlight on frontline workers, migrants and racial/ethnic minorities 2022 https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/the-unequal-impact-of-covid-19-a-spotlight-on-frontline-workers-migrants-and-racial-ethnic-minorities-f36e931e/
67. Sigahi TFAC, Kawasaki BC, Bolis I, Morioka SN. A systematic review on the impacts of Covid-19 on work: Contributions and a path forward from the perspectives of ergonomics and psychodynamics of work. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. 2021 Jul;31(4):375-388. doi: 10.1002/hfm.20889. Epub 2021 Feb 12. PMID: 33821126; PMCID: PMC8013766.

Section the sentences seem ungrammatical e.g.: Was developed a cross-sectional, exploratory study, using quantitative methodology. (There was...

The document has been revised and improved, any other specific changes required please indicate 

In Methods the information is also disorganised. They alternate between the participants surveyed, the method of conducting the survey and again the characteristics of the companies employing the surveyed.  It seems that the respondents would be better characterised in a table.

socio-demographic information was included in the results

Participants work in companies from different sectors of activity: 19.3% work in the transport and storage sector; 18.7% in the education sector, 13.5% in the health sector, 6.7% in the social sector, 3.9% in the commerce and retail sector, 2.6% in the financial area and the rest in other areas of activity such as agriculture, industry, construction, catering, hotels, real estate activities, insurance, etc. We included large and medium-sized organisations from various sectors of activity. Public, private and social organisations were invited to participate.

In abtract it is stated that The study was carried out in 2022 while in p. 3.3 it is April to June 2021. In contrast, the conclusion states that it was the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. These times are not the same.

error corrected, data collection took place in 2021

Table 1 through justification AND font size is difficult to read

the tables have been improved

Evaluated as a whole of organisations during COVID-19 pandemic, the article seems to have potential, but needs refinement and reference to uncertainties about the period in which they were performed.

the analysis and discussion of the comparison of groups (age/gender and schooling) was developed and the contributions of the study were reinforced

In a complementary way, the study allows us to understand the perception of the working environments during the pandemic of some specific groups and it is possible to identify differences linked to gender, age and education of the workers. Women, younger professionals and those with higher education reveal a more positive perception of healthy working environments.

The results in relation to women contradict the results found in the literature which argue that women were more negatively affected by the pandemic. We can hypothesise that women are less assertive and demanding in relation to the expectations of the responsibility of work organisations to look after their health and promote healthy environments [65].

The results related to age and education are consistent with results found in other studies conducted during the pandemic [5, 66, 67,68]. Professionals with less education generally have jobs with lower pay, less job stability, and greater risk of losing their jobs.

Regarding age, on the one hand, younger professionals may have jobs associated with greater digital literacy and a greater ability to carry out their work remotely.

The main contributions of the study are: on the one hand, it is the only study that analyses work organisations from a systemic perspective, integrating all the dimensions advocated by the WHO [1] as fundamental for a comprehensive understanding of healthy work environments. Other studies carried out only include some of the dimensions and systems. A second contribution is to understand the role of stress management in its relationship with healthy work environments and how it can be considered a protective factor against the covid-19 pandemic. The findings suggest that promoting stress management skills among workers will be a priority if they are to cope more effectively with daily challenges, as well as more global challenges such as other health crises, war and economic recession.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This study tries to understand and characterize the importance of healthy work environment of organizations during a COVID-19 pandemic and the relationship between several core principles related to content such as organizational culture, psychosocial work environment, physical work environment, social responsibility engagement and so on. And the results demonstrate that organizational culture has a strong relationship with the other components of a healthy work environment. It is good that the paper concerns about the meaningful research question regarding COVID-19 pandemic, but there still exists some problems needed to be considered.

1.       The introduction part is too short and it doesn’t not present the background of the issue the paper is about to discuss and at the same time the research question is not clearly shown in this section.

2.       There are too may long sentences in the paper which make the illustration opaque. For instance, the sentence from line 26 to line 32. It is suggested to punctuate the long sentences to make the expression clearer.

3.       The hypotheses usually do not appear in the literature review section. The hypotheses should be proposed after theoretical explanation.

4.       In the conclusion part, the contributions and the limitations are suggested to show separately rather than mixing together in several paragraphs.

5.       “would be important to increase the sample and study different sectors of activity and different professions separately” (line 553-554) is this a complete sentence?

6.       It is not appropriate to discuss the model construction in the data analysis part. Consider to put the procedure of dealing with the data and the model construction section separately.

There are too may long sentences in the paper which make the illustration opaque. For instance, the sentence from line 26 to line 32. It is suggested to punctuate the long sentences to make the expression clearer.

 “would be important to increase the sample and study different sectors of activity and different professions separately” (line 553-554) is this a complete sentence?

Author Response

Revisions Paper

“The Healthy workplaces ecosystems and professionals’ stress management during the COVID-19 pandemic”

Dear Editor and Reviewer

I greatly appreciate the careful analysis and recommendations indicated by the reviewer. I have made the requested changes; in the response I indicate in yellow the changed text and in the manuscript, I indicate in track changes. If you have any further questions or if needed any additional changes, please just let me know best regards Tania

  The introduction part is too short and it doesn’t not present the background of the issue the paper is about to discuss and at the same time the research question is not clearly shown in this section.

The introduction and literature review section have been redrafted to better fulfil the journal's indications for the "introduction" section* and to match the reviewer's indication.

*1. Introduction

The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be carefully reviewed and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions. As far as possible, please keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists outside your particular field of research. References should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6]. See the end of the document for further details on references.

instance, the sentence from line 26 to line 32. It is suggested to punctuate the long sentences to make the expression clearer.

All text has been revised and long sentences reworded, no sentence was longer than 4 lines, following response to the example indicated “

… Our results show that organizational culture has a strong relationship with the other components of a healthy work environment. Values, policies and practices related to leadership engagement and professional involvement are related to the psychosocial work environment, the physical work environment, the social responsibility, heath and stress management resources… “

3. The hypotheses usually do not appear in the literature review section. The hypotheses should be proposed after theoretical explanation.

The Hypotheses were placed at the end of the theoretical explanation

4. In the conclusion part, the contributions and the limitations are suggested to show separately rather than mixing together in several paragraphs.

The text has been reorganised and divided into two separate subsections: 5.1. limitations and c.2. contributions

5. “would be important to increase the sample and study different sectors of activity and different professions separately” (line 553-554) is this a complete sentence?

Reworded sentence

“The results obtained do not incorporate in-depth analysis of the behavior of specific risk groups, such as women, older workers and workers with a lower level of education. It would be important to increase the sample and study different sectors of activity and different professional groups separately in order to identify and implement specific measures to mitigate these higher risks and promote health and well-being in those groups and organizations. “

6. It is not appropriate to discuss the model construction in the data analysis part. Consider to put the procedure of dealing with the data and the model construction section separately.

The section has been reorganised and divided into two sections: 2.4 data analysis and 2.5 model construction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are too may long sentences in the paper which make the illustration opaque. For instance, the sentence from line 26 to line 32. It is suggested to punctuate the long sentences to make the expression clearer.

All text has been revised and long sentences reworded, no sentence was longer than 4 lines.

 “would be important to increase the sample and study different sectors of activity and different professions separately” (line 553-554) is this a complete sentence?

Reworded sentence

“The results obtained do not incorporate in-depth analysis of the behavior of specific risk groups, such as women, older workers and workers with a lower level of education. It would be important to increase the sample and study different sectors of activity and different professional groups separately in order to identify and implement specific measures to mitigate these higher risks and promote health and well-being in those groups and organizations. “

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept

Minor editing of English language required