Employee Well-Being Evaluation and Proposal of Activities to Increase the Level of Health’s Area—The Czech Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Frankly there is much to like about this paper.

However I have an abiding feeling that the authors have approached their work without having a strong grasp of the essential neurophysiology which underpins the total core of their concerns for Czech workers. 

I refer to the essential stress response mechanism and its activation and consequences as outlined by Lazarus and Volkman (1984) and the Conservation of Resources model by Hobfoll. 

The dilemma of ALL 21st century workers is the management of increasing and consistent exposure to stress, notably at work, and its consequences as outlined by McEwen in the Allostatic Load Theory. 

Chronic stress exposure leads to molecular level changes which underpin ALL of the negative factors in worker's lives which the authors identify. AND these effects are inevitably going to tend to be greater in older rather than younger workers (who are yet to be 'worn down' by their stress exposure). 

I really think it is important for the authors to be able to place their results within the context of this "larger picture' of worker pressures , and possibly to show, or at least indicate, how the changes in work practice might particularly address this stress exposure problem. 

I think the authors have done well with their work and I would really like to see it placed within the larger context I have outlined for it to have greater relevance. 

I also think their conclusion would benefit from having the suggestion that the issues they have identified are sufficiently important for the work to be applied on a much larger (possibly nationwide) study. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for the review and your comments and suggestions. Based on your recommendations rows 474-514 has been supplemented (row numbers correspond to the manuscript version with open revisions).

 

Best regards,

Hana Štverková, on behalf of all authors

 

 

 

6. 2. 2021

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The paper must be revised, and I strongly recommend the next lines in accordance to improve the quality of the research:

1. The abstract must be revised. The key words are not well formulated.
2. Row 66-67 – revise, there is no scientific style.
3. Row 176 – revise the sentence.
4. Row 181 – in 2020 the biggest problem is based on the people’s health. Why do not mention and research nowadays problems connected with the pandemic? The research is not up-to-day because the lifestyle and health observation changed lots after the pandemic circumstances.
5. Hypotheses are not well formulated.
6. Include more information about the object of the research.
7. Include limitations of the research. Why you chose this specific company?
8. It will be better briefly to explain the paper structure in the Introduction section. The Literature review must be excluded from the Introduction section and be part from point 2. Literature review.
9. What kind of experts participated in the Focus Group? Why did you include the exact group of people? What is their expertise, competencies, etc.?
10. What was the duration and how proceeded with the Focus Group?
11. Row 240-241- the word “informed” is used 3 times in 1 sentence.
12. Row 309 - revision
13. What are the working conditions in the company? What kind is the production process? Which category are the examined employees?
14. I suggest paying more attention on the HR structure of the company, i.e. workers, specialists, managers, because just the age and sex are not enough to evaluate their attitude toward the five research areas.
15. The second research question does not sound scientifically, it is not even necessary to be proven, it is a well-known fact, historically confirmed by different sciences (psychology, sociology, etc).
16. The analyses and discussions are poor, based only on the age and sex. Unfortunately, there are more important factors as a position in the company hierarchy, qualification level, competencies, etc. The discussion and Results section must be enriched.
17. Table 4 is not connected with the text, it is not yours but a citation, it will be better to exclude the table or otherwise explain its importance to the discussion.
18. Reference list must be given in the same style.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Based on your recommendations we made the following amendments (row numbers correspond to the manuscript version with open revisions).

1. The abstract must be revised. The key words are not well formulated. The abstract was revised (rows 17, 18, 20 and 26). The key words were reformulated (rows 32-34).
2. Row 66-67 – revise, there is no scientific style. Rows 66-67 were revised (now 211-213).

1. Row 176 – revise the sentence. Row 176 was revised (now 203).
2. Row 181 – in 2020 the biggest problem is based on the people’s health. Why do not mention and research nowadays problems connected with the pandemic? The research is not up-to-day because the lifestyle and health observation changed lots after the pandemic circumstances. We do not mention problems connected with the pandemic, because at the time of the research there were not enough researches corresponding to the research object.
3. Hypotheses are not well formulated. Hypothesis was reformulated (row 277).
4. Include more information about the object of the research. Rows 252-257 were supplemented.
5. Include limitations of the research. Why you chose this specific company? The reason for selecting a specific company was supplemented (rows 257-260, 629-631).
6. It will be better briefly to explain the paper structure in the Introduction section. The Literature review must be excluded from the Introduction section and be part from point 2. Literature review. In the Introduction section the structure is explained now (rows 109-113 and the continuation of the paragraph). The Literature review was excluded from the Introduction section and was included in Literature Review (rows 127-149, 207-241).
7. What kind of experts participated in the Focus Group? Why did you include the exact group of people? What is their expertise, competencies, etc.? Rows 310-315 were adjusted.
8. What was the duration and how proceeded with the Focus Group? Row 311 was adjusted.
9. Row 240-241- the word “informed” is used 3 times in 1 sentence. Rows 240-241 were reformulated (now 329-331).
10. Row 309 – revision. Row 309 was revised (now 396 and 399).
11. What are the working conditions in the company? What kind is the production process? Which category are the examined employees? Rows 252-257 and 351 were supplemented.
12. I suggest paying more attention on the HR structure of the company, i.e. workers, specialists, managers, because just the age and sex are not enough to evaluate their attitude toward the five research areas. The reason why attention was not paid to the HR structure of the company, i.e. workers, specialists, managers was explained (rows 365-368).
13. The second research question does not sound scientifically, it is not even necessary to be proven, it is a well-known fact, historically confirmed by different sciences (psychology, sociology, etc). The research questions was reformulated, related to the specific company for which research was carried out (rows 264, 278-279, 416-417 and 423-425).
14. The analyses and discussions are poor, based only on the age and sex. Unfortunately, there are more important factors as a position in the company hierarchy, qualification level, competencies, etc. The discussion and Results section must be enriched. The reason why analysis and discussion was focused only on age and gender was explained (rows 365-368).
15. Table 4 is not connected with the text, it is not yours but a citation, it will be better to exclude the table or otherwise explain its importance to the discussion. The text dedicated to IiP and related Table 4. were removed (rows 551-564).
16. Reference list must be given in the same style. The reference list was corrected to strictly follow the journal style policy (we used MDPI_references_guide_v5). (rows 653-776).

 

 

 

Best regards,

Hana Štverková, on behalf of all authors

 

 

 

6. 2. 2021

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The paper is much better. You can check the spelling and specify the punctuation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

thank you for the helpful comments we have included them in the paper.