Experiences of Young Australians with Intellectual and/or Psychosocial Disabilities Sharing Disability-Related Information to Gain Workplace Adjustments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors examined a very important topic on factors affecting disability-related information sharing among Australian youth. The topic is important and timely. The authors provided detailed findings in their study.  However, I can’t recommend publishing this manuscript until they resolve the following concerns.

1.     Intro

There is a need for a more well-rounded literature review on workplace adaptions/accommodations for people with disabilities. May consider integrating the following recent relevant literature.  

Dong, S., Eto, O., Liu, L., & Villaquiran, A. (2023). Examining psychosocial factors associated with receiving workplace accommodations among people with disabilities. Work, 30. doi:10.3233/WOR-220230

2.     Method

1.     The authors need to include steps and procedures to reduce bias and increase validity and trustworthiness in the coding process.

2.     Need to provide more explanation for Table 1

3.     How do you define four levels of control over disclosure

4.     How do you set the criteria for the intersectionality of the narrative positions and the key factors in Table 1

3.     Results

1.     May consider re-organizing the result section by factors rather than narrative positions since you aim to examine factors affecting disclosure.

4.     Discussion

1.     Need to add the limitation section.

2.     The implication section should be expanded by adding the practical and research implications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Comment 1. The authors examined a very important topic on factors affecting disability-related information sharing among Australian youth. The topic is important and timely. The authors provided detailed findings in their study.  However, I can’t recommend publishing this manuscript until they resolve the following concerns.

Intro

There is a need for a more well-rounded literature review on workplace adaptions/accommodations for people with disabilities. May consider integrating the following recent relevant literature.  

Dong, S., Eto, O., Liu, L., & Villaquiran, A. (2023). Examining psychosocial factors associated with receiving workplace accommodations among people with disabilities. Work, 30. doi:10.3233/WOR-220230

Response 1: Thank you for this recommendation. We have incorporated more evidence on the processes, advantages and disadvantages on disclosure and workplace adjustments, including on the research by Dong and colleagues in relation to improved job satisfaction attained through access to workplace adjustments. Please see tracked-changes throughout the introduction (Lines 39-122).

Comment 2.     Method

1. The authors need to include steps and procedures to reduce bias and increase validity and trustworthiness in the coding process.
2. Need to provide more explanation for Table 1
3. How do you define four levels of control over disclosure
4. How do you set the criteria for the intersectionality of the narrative positions and the key factors in Table 1

Response 2: We have provided more detail of each step of our analysis including examples of the initial codes and emerging categories of themes; how various factors influenced the relationships between different themes; and the mapping of the extent to which participants experienced key themes, supporting the identification of the four narrative positions. In doing so, we hope we have enhanced the trustworthiness in the validity of our analysis and allowed greater understanding of Table 1. 

Comment 3.     Results

1. May consider re-organizing the result section by factors rather than narrative positions since you aim to examine factors affecting disclosure.

Response 3: Thank you for this consideration. We feel that the narrative approach presents a more integrated representation of the results and highlights how different factors integrate more holistically to influence disclosure processes and outcomes. We have therefore not re-organized the results by themes but opted to keep the findings as narratives.

Comment 4.     Discussion

1. Need to add the limitation section.
2. The implication section should be expanded by adding the practical and research implications.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now included a specific strengths and limitations section. (Please see Lines 528-547). We have now included a specific section of future research and practice recommendations (Lines 549-556).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important study with relevant findings for the world of work and disability employment generally. I enjoyed discovering your findings, but think that the manuscript can be improved for higher impact as follows:

- The introduction section should culminate in the expression of the research aim, objectives, and overarching research question. 

- The methodology section requires some development, e.g. clearer reporting on the research paradigm and design is needed; include information about approach to analysis/analysis design, etc. I have left several in-text comments to guide the restructuring of this section.

- Information should be added about how trustworthiness/veracity of the research was promoted.

- A section should be added on how ethical research principles were applied in the research.

- Some restructuring is required of the findings section (see in-text comments), e.g. the placement of Table I.

- Authors should engage with and then reflect in the manuscript how the participatory aspect of the research (i.e. persons with disabilities as co-researchers) informed/impacted/directed the interpretation and essence of findings. I believe this is a hugely important aspect of the research that should be explicated somewhat.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good use of English, with some grammar comments left in text.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: This is an important study with relevant findings for the world of work and disability employment generally. I enjoyed discovering your findings, but think that the manuscript can be improved for higher impact as follows:

The introduction section should culminate in the expression of the research aim, objectives, and overarching research question. 

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this. We have moved the research question to the end of the introduction, clarifying where this specific narrative analysis on disclosure experiences sits within the broader YES project. Please refer to lines 115-122 in the introduction.

Comment 2: The methodology section requires some development, e.g. clearer reporting on the research paradigm and design is needed; include information about approach to analysis/analysis design, etc. I have left several in-text comments to guide the restructuring of this section. Information should be added about how trustworthiness/veracity of the research was promoted.

Response 2: Thank you so much for the very helpful guidance of how we can better present our methods. We have taken onboard all of the recommendations and in-text comments to restructure our methods. This includes providing more detail of the steps involved and how we engaged with the co-researchers and research team to enhance the veracity of the findings. Please refer to track-changes throughout the introduction and methods

Comment 3: A section should be added on how ethical research principles were applied in the research.

Response 3: We have included more information about the Ethics processes including informed consent within the main body of the manuscript. Please see Lines 136-139 and 166 to 188.

Comment 4: Some restructuring is required of the findings section (see in-text comments), e.g. the placement of Table I.

Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. We reviewed the placement of the Table and considered moving it to the findings section. However, after revising the methods section, we feel it is best positioned within its current position. Please see the tracked changes throughout data analysis section (lines 207 to 244).

Comment 5: Authors should engage with and then reflect in the manuscript how the participatory aspect of the research (i.e. persons with disabilities as co-researchers) informed/impacted/directed the interpretation and essence of findings. I believe this is a hugely important aspect of the research that should be explicated somewhat.

Response 5: Thank you for recognising and acknowledging this key strength of the project and for recommending we reflect on the invaluable contribution of our young co-researchers. We have enhanced our strengths and limitations section to reflect this.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction - are there any disadvantages to disclosure that are reported in the literature? You have mentioned perceptions of risks.

Line 215 "Some participatns appeared reluctant to disclose ..." and Line 224 "Several participants..." neither of the quotes appear to support the points being made.

Line 245 - typo remove 's'

Line 323 - when you mention 'disability confident organizations' are you referring to ADEs or open employment conident organizations?

Conclusion - Final sentence - not sure what is meant by " Finally, researchers may be encouraged by ...."

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 215 "Some participants appeared reluctant to disclose ..." and Line 224 "Several participants..." neither of the quotes appear to support the points being made.

Response 1: Thank you for this consideration. We have reviewed the quotes and feel the highlighted sections support the points being made in this paragraph and have therefore left the quotes as is. Please see lines 311-327.

Some participants appeared reluctant to disclose, which may have been influenced by their insufficient knowledge of their rights and responsibilities related to disclosure and workplace adjustments. Even when other participants articulated such knowledge, this did not translate into their decision to disclose. Reasons for their hesitancy included previous personal or witnessed negative disclosure experiences and their fear that disclosure would result in adverse outcomes. PWPSD-3’s response typified this sentiment:

I had the idea that my first job was going to be bad, that most people’s first jobs are bad and that I shouldn’t expect too much out of [their employer] to help me in any way. So I think that’s why I felt really hesitant to disclose that kind of stuff.

Several participants also doubted their employers’ disability awareness and their capacity to support their needs or to provide workplace adjustments. As PWPSD-3 elaborated further:

It's not something that I felt like I could really talk about with my team leader because I wasn’t sure if they knew about it, or if by finding out about my diagnosis they’d think that I wasn’t suited for the role. At that time my priority was to not get fired from the job because I really needed it for financial reasons. … I kind of get the feeling that at a job like that there isn’t really room for people like me.

Comment 2: Line 245 - typo remove 's'

Response 2: Thank you for picking up the typos and grammatical errors that have now been corrected.

Comment 3: Line 323 - when you mention 'disability confident organizations' are you referring to ADEs or open employment confident organizations?

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting the need to clarify this. We are referring to open employment organisations, albeit mainly disability representative and advocacy organisations. We have included an example to make this clearer in lines 422 to 424.

Comment 4: Conclusion - Final sentence - not sure what is meant by " Finally, researchers may be encouraged by ...."

Response 4: Good point! We are not quite sure how the intended meaning was lost in the editing and reviewing by the authors. We have edited this sentence and re-framed lines 567-571 as:

Finally, the positive contribution of young people with disabilities in the design and implementation of this research, will hopefully encourage other researchers to adopt co-design approaches. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for addressing my comments.

Response 1: Our pleasure. Thank you again for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for engaging with and incorporating the feedback effectively. With the addition of information and reformulation in certain instances, your process and all other aspects of the research are now clear, and I think, even more impactful. I've left only very minor editorial changes, which will in all probability be checked by the editor anyway.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for engaging with and incorporating the feedback effectively. With the addition of information and reformulation in certain instances, your process and all other aspects of the research are now clear, and I think, even more impactful. I've left only very minor editorial changes, which will in all probability be checked by the editor anyway.

Response 1: Thank you so much again for your very helpful review to improve our paper. We have addressed the editorial changes as suggested. Much appreciated.