“It Makes a Difference!” Religion and Self-Assessed Health among Healthcare Support Professionals of Asian-Indian Origin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors studied a group of 16 health care workers of Asian Indian origin, performing in-depth interviews. The main forcus was the influence of the religion on their life, including immigration process and work. The outcome is that this influence is, in general, positive.
It is possible that the research made by the Authors may turn out to be publishable, but the present form of the text needs a substantial revision.
First of all, "Data analysis" has to presented in much more detail. The Authors write about very careful coding of all interviews but none of that is visible in the paper. Please present some extract from all answers, together with basic characteristics of corresponding respondents (especially including their religious engagement, year of the immigration, geneder and profession).
There is a definite lack of concretes and details in the paper, or, there are given some details, here and there, in the text. One has an impression that this a single narrative about this group and the Authors choose arbitrarily suitable examples.
I wonder also about the sample chosen. Is it just a good lack that literally all of them are religious? Please present some data about religious engagement in the USA or in Detroit region, or among health care workers. By the way, did your method preferred religious people in this "snowball" procedure?
The engagement of Authors with the sources and literature is Qweird. On the one hand they present enormous literature (full 4 pages, 95 items), but, on the other hand, the literature is hardly linked to the findings of the Authors. Very often the Authors say that some authors reported something, and other authors reported just the opposite, and that is all. No discussion, no details. A typical example is at the beginning: (lines 24 and 27). There are cited two papers where both positive and negative influence of religion on health are reported (in the same paper). Please provide more details and link them to your finding.
There are 4 pages of introduction with a lot of literature involved but then there are no links to the further text. This is unacceptable. The bibliography should be shorter but more linked to the presented research. Please add discussion about a correlation of your findings with exisiting literature, including your opinion on why some of it agree and other disagree with them. This could be very importent for your conclusions. Now they are rather superficial, and, to some extent, obvious. If this is not the case - please provide suitable arguments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
See attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors presented a new version of the paper which is essentially improved. All my comments are taken into account. The revision is satisfactory. The paper can be published as it is.
