Escrever um comentário

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction provides a generally clear rationale and leads logically to the research objectives.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

1. First, the sampling strategy needs greater transparency. The authors estimated a target population of approximately 100 workers and used Slovin's formula to obtain a minimum sample of 80, while subsequently targeting 90 respondents. However, the manuscript does not adequately explain how the 90 participants were proportionally distributed across the eight occupational categories in the study 2. The PWS-10 requires stronger validation. The instrument was developed by the researcher with Cronbach's alpha of 0.81 during pilot testing involving only 15 participants. While this provides preliminary evidence of internal consistency, it does not demonstrate that the ten items adequately measure a coherent psychosocial wellbeing construct. The manuscript would benefit from more detailed information about instrument development, expert review, item selection and scoring. 3. The statistical analysis requires clarification as the manuscript does not clearly explain whether adjustment for multiple omnibus comparisons was considered specifically for the Fisher’s Exact tests and the Spearman correlations. 4. The ethics section information is incomplete. The manuscript lists the ethics approval number as PSU-IREC Approval No: PSU-IREC-2024-XXX and the approval date as [Date]. These appear to be placeholders and should be replaced with the actual approval details before moving forward.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The authors describe educational attainment and years of service as significant predictors of wellbeing. However, the analyses reported are associations, not multivariable predictive modelling. The term predictors should therefore be used cautiously or replaced with "variables significantly associated with wellbeing". The authors interpreted the relatively low score for mental health service access (M=3.99) and the lower frequency of professional help-seeking (40.0%) as evidence of structural and attitudinal barriers. These findings raise an important concern, but the study does not directly measure the reasons for not seeking professional help. The conclusion should therefore be framed as a possible indication of access challenges rather than confirmation of specific barriers. In general, the conclusions should be more closely aligned with the measured variables and statistical findings. The authors should distinguish between observed associations, possible explanations and policy recommendation.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

- The existing visualizations are generally appropriate. But the main priority is to improve the explanation of statistical measures

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The discussion should more clearly separate findings from interpretation and proposed explanations. The authors should also develop a more specific research agenda that addresses the limitations of the present study. In particular, the recommendation for role-differentiated programmes should reflect the fact that only one wellbeing dimension demonstrated a statistically significant difference across occupational categories.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The preprint addresses an important and relatively underexplored area of occupational mental health. Its multisectoral approach to studying frontline local government personnel is valuable, and the findings have potential relevance for workplace mental health policy and psychosocial support programs.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The study requires improvements in measurement validity, sampling transparency, statistical reporting and the interpretation of findings. The incomplete ethics approval details also need to be corrected. In particular, the authors should avoid presenting associations as predictors, avoid attributing explanations to findings that were not directly investigated, and ensure that policy recommendations remain proportionate to the evidence.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.