E-Health Psychological Intervention for COVID-19 Healthcare Workers: Protocol for its Implementation and Evaluation
, Reyna JazmÃn MartÃnez-Arriaga 2,*, Paulina Erika Herdoiza-Arroyo 3, Eduardo Bautista-Valerio 4, Anabel de la Rosa-Gómez 4, Rosa Olimpia Castellanos Vargas 5, Laura Lacomba-Trejo 6, JoaquÃn Mateu-Mollá 1, Miriam de Jesús Lupercio RamÃrez 7, Jairo Alejandro Figueroa González 7 and Flor RocÃo RamÃrez MartÃnez 8Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. This is an important area for research in mental health in the current climate. You have presented a clear rationale for the study and described your methods and intervention clearly and identified the limitations of the study. However, please review the overall spelling, grammar and sentence structuring throughout your manuscript as this takes away from your writing in places. I have provided some comments and suggestions that might help you improve your manuscript:
Line 26: insert apostrophe e.g. change multicomponent to multi-component.
Line 30: change 'consists in ..' to 'consists of...' for sentence readability.
Line 47: change 'some of them' to 'some healthcare workers...'.
Line 49: re-phrase sentence here for readability e.g. change copying to coping e.g. 'some risk factors for healthcare workers coping with...'.
Line 60: re-structure sentence for readability e.g. change 'being the physicians..' to with physicians and...most effective'.
Line 74: Replace the word 'refers' with 'highlights' e.g. 'the literature highlights..'.
Line 85: Delete 'on the other hand' and I suggest replacing with 'in addition...' as too many phases used at start of sentence in this paragraph and takes away from the content.
Check ordering/numbering of references are in sequence throughout manuscript.
Line 129: I suggest replacing 'being the CBT' with 'with CBT..' as this will read better.
Line 149: I suggest deleting the word 'although' and rephrase the wording of sentence for better readability.
Line 151: Sentence structure too long here, I suggest revising this.
Line 179: Address spacing error after 'it is important..'.
Line 200: I suggest changing 'moments' to 'stages or points of the study'.
Line 209: I suggest deleting the word 'the' implementation.
Line 214: I suggest re-structuring sentence here e.g. 'the study was registered in the..'.
Line 218: Spelling error in figure 1 e.g. internet connection instead of internet conexion. Also I would suggest re-wording dissemination in Figure 1 under recruitment or provide clarification on meaning.
Line 221: Clarify numbers for control and experimental group e.g. 49 for each group or in total?
Line 231: Inclusion criteria 1) should this be engaging in 1) active substance use 2)..'
Line 236: I suggest re-wording 'the participants..' instead of 'the participants.
Line 246: Consider re-phrasing corresponding condition to group (e.g. experimental and control). The same comment applies re: conditions on line 248.
Line 250: I suggest including the word 'the' e.g. 'participants of the experimental group..'.
Line 266: I suggest re-wording 'answer questionnaires' to 'complete questionnaires'.
Line 269: I suggest re-phrasing the wording of sentence here for readability.
Line 289: I suggest re-phrasing the word 'impact in' with 'impact on healthcare workers'.
Line 289: 'Taught' instead of 'thought' here.
Line 292: It would have been helpful to provide more detail on the UX process in this paper in order to provide context to the study protocol.
Table 2: I suggest re-phrasing the word contingency with 'COVID-19'.
Line 337: Capitals for 'Personal COVID' to ensure consistency throughout your manuscript.
Line 357: I suggest re-phrasing this sentence for readability e.g. 'where it includes the section of team...'.
Line 368: Insert the word 'it' e.g. 'from here it is possible..'.
Line 372: Watch plural of participant not participants.
Line 383: Insert comma after 'on the first option..'.
Line 389: Insert comma after 'on the second option..'.
Line 392: Insert comma after 'on the third option..'.
Line 398: content instead of contents here.
Social demographics - Did you consider looking at role/qualifications, length of time working in role or experience as this may provide further context to your findings.
Line 429 - I suggest replacing 'adequate reliability' with 'good reliability'.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very wel designed study and very clearly presented to the audiance. It is an approved study protocol. The merits are clear and the message is important. The only part I was missing were some thoughts and statement about cost. Although the study is not powered on costefficiacy, it could be an important message to show that both approaches are effective,and probably the complete digital part comes with less costs. It will attract more readers from western europe where healtcare is always embedded in cost discussions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
