153

views

Comment

recommends

Review: found

Is Open Access

Review of 'Psychosocial risks in the working environment : Approaches to formative risk assessment'

Reviewer: Roghieh Nooripour

Inviter role(s): AUTHOR

Publication date of review: 2023-03-30

Bookmark

Roghieh Nooripour4

Psychosocial risks in the working environment : Approaches to formative risk assessmentCrossref ScienceOpen

Average rating:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of importance:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of validity:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of completeness:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Competing interests:	None

Reviewed article

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Psychosocial risks in the working environment : Approaches to formative risk assessment

Stefan Paulus, Alexander Scheidegger, Jasmin Rabensteiner … (2023)

The following explanations are based on the central reference points and results of the basic research project on psychosocial risks in the world of work, which was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). The aim of this project was to develop a formative risk assessment of psychosocial risks in the world of work with a special focus on the dynamic interdependencies between gainful employment and care work as well as structural work stress and subjectively perceived work stress. The result of this project is a theoretical-generic model of a formative risk assessment, which can be specifically configured for different stakeholder groups and was operationalized as a psychotherapeutic medical product via the Innosuisse project "SELBA" (Self Recognize, Understand, Change and Monitor Work Stresses and Strains).

0 comments Cited 1 times     Rated -3 of 5. – based on 2 reviews

Preprint version 1

Bookmark

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.APWS63S.v1.RXRAKE

License:

This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

ScienceOpen disciplines: Sociology,Psychology,General social science,Mathematical modeling & Computation

Keywords: Risk assessment,psychosocial risks,transactional stress model,subject science, system dynamics,blended therapy

Review text

At the beginning of the introduction, start with the study group, the dependent variables, and finally, the independent variables are explained. There should be content coherence between paragraphs, and they should be linked like links. The research background should be such that the research gap and unanswered questions are identified for the reader. At least in the last paragraph, state the unresolved issues and research gaps and direct and indirect applications of this study. It is important to note how the results of this study can help resolve ambiguities.
To express the purpose, problem statement, the definition of specialized terms or scientific abbreviations, information provided in other similar research, the necessity of research and research innovation compared to previous research, unanswered questions that this research answers, and explain how the results of this study can help resolve ambiguities.
Please state the ethical considerations of the research.
Sampling needs further explanation and clarification.
Materials and methods is unclear.
Before presenting the tables, the demographic characteristics of the participants should be fully expressed in the form of a paragraph.
In the Discussion, a summary of the findings is mentioned, and their interpretation is described. The alignment and non-alignment of the findings with the findings of previous similar researches are compared and examined and explained, the result then practical overview and generalizability of the results and in general, what has been added from this research to the existing theoretical and applied knowledge, has been written and in line with it, has expressed the limitations of the study and provided analysis and used suggestions for future studies.
In the Limitations section point out the factors that have restricted your research's internal and external credibility state the methodological limitations. Make research suggestions based on these limitations and write practical recommendations based on the findings. Avoid making general suggestions such as holding and explaining what the findings are based on the results of the hypothesis.

Comments

Stefan Paulus wrote:

Many thanks Roghieh Nooripour for the appreciative and detailed review. We have addressed the suggestions for improvement as follows:

With regard to points 1-5, we have added two subchapters in the introduction that address the topics of research questions, study design, ethics, and methods. In addition, reference is made to the Clinical Evaluation Report (which is also in the publication) for further information on these topics.

Unfortunately, we cannot deal with point number 6 in its entirety due to the protection of personal rights (see subsection on ethics). We have deliberately chosen an ideal-typical risk constellation of a fictional patent, because we want to focus on the aspect and process of the risk assessment. However, we have included this point in the last chapter on outlook and future research aspects. Here, a future research question would be how different organizational and occupational settings differ.

For point number 8, we developed the subchapter "outlook and future research aspects" in the last section. Here, practical recommendations based on the findings of the projects and future research questions are included.

2023-05-31 12:06 UTC

One person recommends this

Comment on this review

Version and Review History

Published Version

Preprint version 2

Preprint version 1

Reviewed by Roghieh Nooripour Reviewed by Chinchu Chithrangathan