Title: Maintaining work life under threat of symptoms: A grounded theory study of work life
experiences in persons with Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Salaazar Luke Joshua
Reviewer's report:
I  would like to commend the authors on the efforts they have made in conducting the  research
and preparing this manuscript.
In general, the paper  is technically sound and utilizes the appropriate study design to address
a relevant research question. The findings are supported by the experimental data and are
adequately discussed in light of the extant literature. However, the paper does require a more
detailed description of the methods employed, to enhance the 'trustworthiness' of the qualitative
analysis. I suggest the authors use the COREQ reporting standards as a framework to address
these issues. I present more specific comments below.
The major issues that require to be addressed are:-
1. In the "Data collection" section:
-What was the relationship between the interviewers and the respondents? Were the respondents
known to the interviewers prior to the commencement of the study?
-Did the interview proceed as per an Interview Guide (IG)? What were the questions in the IG?
What were the specific probes used to elicit answers to questions on particular aspects? Was
the IG pilot tested?
-What language were the interviews conducted in? Were the transcripts translated prior to
analysis?
-Were transcripts returned to the respondents for correction/comment?
2. In the "Data analysis" section:
-Who generated the codes? Who generated the categories? How were differences in coding
structure and categories resolved?
-Did participants provide feedback on the findings?
The minor issues are:-
In the "Results section":
1. In the "Results" section of the Abstract, in the interest of clarity, begin by mentioning the four
categories of processes for balancing work life, then add a sentence or two on the relationship
between them.
2. In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, the word "knowledge" may be replaced by
the word "data", and the words "not focused" must be replaced by the words "focused neither".
3. Under "Balancing work life while being under threat of symptoms", in the sentence
"Reconciliation of work and IBS was understood as a successful outcome from being prepared
and restricting impact and was influenced by outlook on life.", a comma must be inserted after
the word "impact", for clarity. In the same paragraph, the word "challenge" must be changed
to plural- "challenges".
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the paper may be accepted after the revisions have been
made.
Title: Maintaining work life under threat of symptoms: A grounded theory study of work life
experiences in persons with Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Salaazar Luke Joshua
Reviewer's report:
I  would like to commend the authors on the efforts they have made in conducting the  research
and preparing this manuscript.
In general, the paper  is technically sound and utilizes the appropriate study design to address
a relevant research question. The findings are supported by the experimental data and are
adequately discussed in light of the extant literature. However, the paper does require a more
detailed description of the methods employed, to enhance the 'trustworthiness' of the qualitative
analysis. I suggest the authors use the COREQ reporting standards as a framework to address
these issues. I present more specific comments below.
The major issues that require to be addressed are:-
1. In the "Data collection" section:
-What was the relationship between the interviewers and the respondents? Were the respondents
known to the interviewers prior to the commencement of the study?
-Did the interview proceed as per an Interview Guide (IG)? What were the questions in the IG?
What were the specific probes used to elicit answers to questions on particular aspects? Was
the IG pilot tested?
-What language were the interviews conducted in? Were the transcripts translated prior to
analysis?
-Were transcripts returned to the respondents for correction/comment?
2. In the "Data analysis" section:
-Who generated the codes? Who generated the categories? How were differences in coding
structure and categories resolved?
-Did participants provide feedback on the findings?
The minor issues are:-
In the "Results section":
1. In the "Results" section of the Abstract, in the interest of clarity, begin by mentioning the four
categories of processes for balancing work life, then add a sentence or two on the relationship
between them.
2. In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, the word "knowledge" may be replaced by
the word "data", and the words "not focused" must be replaced by the words "focused neither".
3. Under "Balancing work life while being under threat of symptoms", in the sentence
"Reconciliation of work and IBS was understood as a successful outcome from being prepared
and restricting impact and was influenced by outlook on life.", a comma must be inserted after
the word "impact", for clarity. In the same paragraph, the word "challenge" must be changed
to plural- "challenges".
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the paper may be accepted after the revisions have been
made.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Maintaining work life under threat of symptoms: A grounded theory study of work life
experiences in persons with Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 1 Date: 21 Dec 2021
Reviewer:  Salaazar Luke Joshua
Reviewer's report:
I  would like to commend the authors on the efforts they have made in conducting the  research
and preparing this manuscript.
In general, the paper  is technically sound and utilizes the appropriate study design to address
a relevant research question. The findings are supported by the experimental data and are
adequately discussed in light of the extant literature. However, the paper does require a more
detailed description of the methods employed, to enhance the 'trustworthiness' of the qualitative
analysis. I suggest the authors use the COREQ reporting standards as a framework to address
these issues. I present more specific comments below.
The major issues that require to be addressed are:-
1. In the "Data collection" section:
-What was the relationship between the interviewers and the respondents? Were the respondents
known to the interviewers prior to the commencement of the study?
-Did the interview proceed as per an Interview Guide (IG)? What were the questions in the IG?
What were the specific probes used to elicit answers to questions on particular aspects? Was
the IG pilot tested?
-What language were the interviews conducted in? Were the transcripts translated prior to
analysis?
-Were transcripts returned to the respondents for correction/comment?
2. In the "Data analysis" section:
-Who generated the codes? Who generated the categories? How were differences in coding
structure and categories resolved?
-Did participants provide feedback on the findings?
The minor issues are:-
In the "Results section":
1. In the "Results" section of the Abstract, in the interest of clarity, begin by mentioning the four
categories of processes for balancing work life, then add a sentence or two on the relationship
between them.
2. In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, the word "knowledge" may be replaced by
the word "data", and the words "not focused" must be replaced by the words "focused neither".
3. Under "Balancing work life while being under threat of symptoms", in the sentence
"Reconciliation of work and IBS was understood as a successful outcome from being prepared
and restricting impact and was influenced by outlook on life.", a comma must be inserted after
the word "impact", for clarity. In the same paragraph, the word "challenge" must be changed
to plural- "challenges".
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the paper may be accepted after the revisions have been
made.
assistant