Migraine-Friendly Workspace: A Swiss Brain Health Initiative

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Gantenbein et al. presented the Migraine Friendly Workspace (MFWS), an initiative created on behalf of the Swiss Headache Society.

Initiatives like this are always welcome as they help to create an inclusive environment for people with migraine.

The reviewer has no particular comments on the article, which is fine as is, except to ask that the extended version of the MFWS acronym be included not only in the abstract but also in the main text.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Gantenbein et al. presented the Migraine Friendly Workspace (MFWS), an initiative created on behalf of the Swiss Headache Society.

Initiatives like this are always welcome as they help to create an inclusive environment for people with migraine.

The reviewer has no particular comments on the article, which is fine as is, except to ask that the extended version of the MFWS acronym be included not only in the abstract but also in the main text.

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and we thank for highlighting to use the extended version again. We have amended this in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Migraine Friendly Workspace - A Swiss Brain Health Initiative, which I received for review, talks about an important topic related to migraine sufferers and their work environment. Although the selection of topics is a significant work, it has a lot of shortcomings. The paper is written in a rather general way, so an important and complex topic is not documented with sufficient scientific explanations, but seems like a campaign. The abstract is short, general and unstructured.

No keywords specified.

The table and picture with the description of E3 are well designed, understandable, meaningful, and give a clear insight into the essence of the topic described in the paper. The quality of the article would be improved if the main text explained on which scientific knowledge the content of text E3 was formed.

After the main text of the article and the conclusion, the following are not listed: Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest   

References are not written according to the requirements of the journal (the example given in the instructions for authors clearly shows how to referencing the papers - for example Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range). It can be observed that the month should not be written, which is stated in this paper for each reference, while the month of publication is incorrectly (it's not in english) written in the references: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17. Reference 9 is not a scientific paper

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Migraine Friendly Workspace - A Swiss Brain Health Initiative, which I received for review, talks about an important topic related to migraine sufferers and their work environment. Although the selection of topics is a significant work, it has a lot of shortcomings. The paper is written in a rather general way, so an important and complex topic is not documented with sufficient scientific explanations, but seems like a campaign. The abstract is short, general and unstructured.

 

Thank you very much for these comments. Indeed the intention of the manuscript was rather to contribute a brief description of the MFWS initiative for the special collection on the Swiss Brainhealth Plan. This may explain the short-comings, as this invited article was not intended to cover this complex topic, as a full review does. We hope that this is acceptable.

 

No keywords specified.

 

We have amended the keywords, to enlarge the accessibility, we have used keywords not mentioned in the title.

 

The table and picture with the description of E3 are well designed, understandable, meaningful, and give a clear insight into the essence of the topic described in the paper.

 

Thank you for this comment.

 

The quality of the article would be improved if the main text explained on which scientific knowledge the content of text E3 was formed.

 

Many thanks for this comment. We have added a sentence to explain the process.

 

After the main text of the article and the conclusion, the following are not listed: Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest.

 

We have added this.

 

References are not written according to the requirements of the journal (the example given in the instructions for authors clearly shows how to referencing the papers - for example Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range). It can be observed that the month should not be written, which is stated in this paper for each reference, while the month of publication is incorrectly, (it's not in English) written in the references: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17.

 

We thank the reviewer to point on this, and we excuse us to have submitted, this preliminary reference list. Still the CTN journal refers to the Free Format Submission, with references in any style. We used one of the recommended bibliography softwares (i.e. Zotero). We have now smooth lined the bibliography.

 

Reference 9 is not a scientific paper.

 

We believe that the reference 9 a review from an author, who also has published in headache journals, which was published in a highly appreciated economy journal serves as a valuable contribution to our article. Also a Cephalagia article has already cited this one. We would therefor ask to keep it.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Migraine is a neurological disease with very high prevalence.  It is a highly disabling disease, affecting mainly the young women. It is a very costly disease, causing high financial costs with imagistic examination and medication but also a great economic burden due absenteeism or to lack of productivity at the work place (indirect costs).

In order to reduce the indirect costs and to improve the quality of life of people suffering of migraine the employer could organize special work-places, in order to avoid trigger factors for migraine.

The authors propose a plan several actions in order to develop migraine friendly workspace (MFWS).

They offer practical recommendations from who will benefit both the employers and employees.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Migraine is a neurological disease with very high prevalence.  It is a highly disabling disease, affecting mainly the young women. It is a very costly disease, causing high financial costs with imagistic examination and medication but also a great economic burden due absenteeism or to lack of productivity at the work place (indirect costs).

In order to reduce the indirect costs and to improve the quality of life of people suffering of migraine the employer could organize special work-places, in order to avoid trigger factors for migraine.

The authors propose a plan several actions in order to develop migraine friendly workspace (MFWS).

They offer practical recommendations from who will benefit both the employers and employees.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and summary.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript made most of the requested changes. For those suggested changes that they did not make, they gave an acceptable explanation.