Occupational Health Risks at Truck Stops: Evaluating Service Gaps and Safety Needs for Long-Haul Drivers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper closely focuses on the issue of truck drivers' health, and the research results have direct reference value for improving the working environment of high-risk occupational groups. However, there are still some issues that need to be revised.
(1) The depth of the discussion can be enhanced. For instance, the author only proposed "investment and structural changes" regarding "lack of physical activities", but did not provide any feasible solutions, nor did they explain the causes and constraints of the current situation. Suggestions such as increasing clinics and remote medical services were made, but the service model (whether there is insurance coverage, driver's willingness to pay?) was not discussed.
(2) The conclusion is somewhat general. Suggestions such as changes in the supply and demand structure and environmental optimization are too broad. More specific and quantified suggestions would be more valuable for reference.
Author Response
Dear editor,
We would like to thank you and the reviewers. The reviewers' comments, suggestions, and corrections were essential to improving the quality of the manuscript.
We have made all the corrections suggested by the reviewers. Detailed responses have been provided individually for each comment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The reviewer appreciated the opportunity to review this manuscript focused on the work environment experienced by long-haul truck drivers, particularly regarding truck stops and rest areas. This is a critically important topic area for an underserved working population in the U.S. and globally. Overall, this is a really well-written manuscript and sound study. The reviewer, however, does have a couple of minor suggestions (below) for strengthening the manuscript.
- The reviewer would recommend strengthening the section focused on the Design of the Study. This section had some areas where it repeated information and was not the easiest to follow. In sum, this section could be organized and structured more effectively.
- It is recognized that the author team is made up of researchers/students from the U.S. and Brazil, however, the reviewer would recommend making those connections more clear as it relates to the connections with the current manuscript. All of the data/observations took place in Oregon, which is the focus of the current research, but it seems the article does try to make the connections with how it can translate to Brazil. The reviewer suggests either just focusing on Oregon, or restructure the manuscript some as it relates to the rationale for translating for purposes in Brazil - this also could lead to a title change based on the direction that is taken.
Author Response
Dear editor,
We would like to thank you and the reviewers. The reviewers' comments, suggestions, and corrections were essential to improving the quality of the manuscript.
We have made all the corrections suggested by the reviewers. Detailed responses have been provided individually for each comment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The aim of the manuscript entitled "Truck Stop and Rest Areas: Lessons from Oregon to Brazil to Serve Long-Haul Truck Drivers" is to present services offered in truck stop and rest areas and determine their implications for the health of long-haul truck drivers. The topic addressed in the paper is both very interesting and important from the public health perspective. Noteworthy, the paper has been prepared with great care. Nevertheless, I have a few comments about the text itself:
- The title of the paper is missing a hyphen in the word "long-haul".
- In the Keywords section, I suggest adding the term "truck drivers". Although the study was not conducted directly on humans, the practical implications of the results are closely related to the health of truck drivers.
- In the Introduction section, in the justification for the chosen topic, the Authors mention a certain gap identified in the literature (lines 42-43), but this should be clarified, i.e., has this type of analysis been carried out before? In this place? All in all, the innovative aspect of this research definitely needs to be emphasised.
- In the Research Team section, lines 68-69, the Authors state that: "A male researcher who observed and recorded the personal hygiene services of men's restrooms and bathrooms". However, it is not clear to me who this sentence refers to, given the number of Authors of the paper and the previous text. If this is an additional researcher, this should be clarified.
- In the Limitations section, the Authors state that "the study was not funded" (line 414). Meanwhile, at the end of the paper, the source of its funding is provided (lines 456-457). Hence, this would require some clarification.
I hope the above-mentioned comments and suggestions will help to improve and complete the paper.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear editor,
We would like to thank you and the reviewers. The reviewers' comments, suggestions, and corrections were essential to improving the quality of the manuscript.
We have made all the corrections suggested by the reviewers. Detailed responses have been provided individually for each comment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have sufficiently addressed the reviewer's previous comments and suggestions. The reviewer now recommends this manuscript for publication in its current form. The reviewer commends the authors for their good work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I thank the Authors for making corrections to the paper in accordance with the suggestions contained in the review. I have no further comments and accept the paper in its current form for publication.
Best regards,
Reviewer
