The Role of Fulfilment and Disillusion in the Relationship between Burnout and Career Satisfaction in Italian Healthcare Workers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your interesting paper. Despite this topic is well-studied, as you mentioned in the beginning, still there is room for new mechanisms to be revealed. Overall, the paper is very detailed. I believe that even those who are not quite familiar with mwthods you used will be able to understand your statistics.

I have just some minor comments:

1. In section 1.5 (lines 188 - 192) you use present tense, though it is supposed that the study is finished. So it would be more consistent to put it in the past tense.

2. You use term "average seniority" - could you add a little explanation what is that?

3. When you describe your sample you say that participants were aged 25 - 66, but you never mention job experience. And you never analyze job experience in your study although it is obvious that it has to be related to burnout. You slightly mention it in limitations, but still, as an important factor for your analysis, I believe you need to give more information on their length of service, it's possible effects and maybe some rationalle why you did not include it into your model.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#1, please see the attachment.

Kind Regards

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title of the manuscript: The Role of Fulfilment and Disillusion in the Relationship Between Burnout and Career Satisfaction in Italian Healthcare Workers

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2727641

 

Comments from the reviewer:

1.      Line 210: You should mention how the sample size was determined: what statistical criteria were used to determine it? You should clarify this.

2.      Line 248: I understand you refer to mean and standard deviation when you write M and SD, but you should write these complete words before using abbreviations for the first time.

3.      Lines 343 to 349: it says, “Table 4”, referring to the hypotheses, the established effects, the reported values, and the beta coefficients, but this information appears in the table 5. Please, correct it.  

4.      Line 350: It says, “The F2 index…”; do you mean F² index? It seems to need a superscript. Also, the line 352 mentions the Table 5 referring to the effect size, but this information appears in the Table 4. Please, correct it.

5.      In concordance with the order of your hypotheses, the relationships in the current Table 4 should be ordered equal to lines 193-202.

6.      Conclusions: all the text that appears in this section actually belongs to the Discussion. Here you should only be concise by answering all the research questions posed and emphasizing the importance and implications of the possible association between the constructs of burnout and career satisfaction.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#2, please see the attachment.

Kind Regards

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well designed and presented articles. The hypothesis are proposed by good reference close to the healthcare area. The data collection is via effective methods and the data presentation is clear. The conclusion and managerial suggestions is good. It is suggested to add the content of the comparison of the current study with previous ones. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#3, please see the attachment.

Kind Regards

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article presents a very important topic of burnout and job satisfaction and commitment to one's profession today. This issue is particularly relevant in the health sector, where there are more stressors than in other professions.

The aim of the study is to  evaluate the effects of different dimensions of burnout (specifically Psychophysical exhaustion, Relational deterioration, Professional inefficacy) related to the Career satisfaction of healthcare workers. These relationships are evaluated by considering the direct and mediated effects of Disillusion. The concepts are explained based on literature and other research results.

Comments:

Introduction: The article contains a very thorough and relevant literature review and references to theory. The hypotheses are based on an observed research gap.

Research results: The research methodology and results are presented in a very thorough and accurate manner. Figures and tables are appropriate.

Discussion: The discussion contains references to the most recent studies.

Conclusions: Final conclusions are drawn from the research conducted.  The limitations are well formulated. Please elaborate on this point with future research directions and practical suggestions/applications of the results.

The article was very carefully prepared and contains all the necessary elements. The topic of the study stems from the needs of practice and science. Congratulations on the idea and on such an interesting study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#4, please see the attachment.

Kind Regards

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the section 3.3, it is incorrect that Table 5 is mentioned before Table 4 in the text. All tables and figures must be mentioned in consecutive ascending order in the text and, therefore, appear in that order. Correct it.

Author Response

 

Comment - "In the section 3.3, it is incorrect that Table 5 is mentioned before Table 4 in the text. All tables and figures must be mentioned in consecutive ascending order in the text and, therefore, appear in that order. Correct it".

Answer - We apologize to Reviewer#2 for this inaccuracy; we have edited sub-section 3.3 and inserted the correct sequence of tables and figures in the text of the article (marked with red color). We thank Reviewer#2.