<p>Karine Andrade Santos, Joilson Pereira da Silva, Leonor María Cantera Espinosa, Leonor María Cantera Espinosa:<br><br>We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Revista Interamericana de Psicologia/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, "English Portuguese".<br><br>Our decision is to:<br><br>Dr. Fernando Andres Polanco<br>Universidad Nacional de San Luis<br>Phone +0542664313012<br>fernando.polanco@sipsych.org</p>
<p><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer C:<br>Recommendation: Decline Submission<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Please provide a narrative</p>
<p>Suggested guidelines for narrative review:</p>
<ul>
<li class="show">Do not indicate recommendation for publication</li>
<li class="show">Do not include reviewer-identifying information</li>
<li class="show">Narrative should serve as constructive guidance for author, serve a mentoring function to help author identify ways to improve/orient the paper appropriately for this journal</li>
<li class="show">Suggested structure:
<ul>
<li class="show">Summarize paper (1-2 sentences)</li>
<li class="show">Overall strengths and areas for improvement and recommendations including what excites or interests the reviewer, what the paper might potentially contribute to the literature</li>
<li class="show">Specific recommendations (this section should be clearly organized and allow the author to specifically address the concerns) for example, how the manuscript could be more relevant to the Interamerican Psychology.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>Algumas questões do formulário não podem ser respondidas com maior especificidade, pois trata-se de um estudo de revisão de literatura em que questões do formulário sobre o método não se adequam. O estudo é uma revisão de literatura em um conjunto amplo de bases de dados sobre, focalizando pesquisas realizadas com trabalhadores que lidam em sua rotina de trabalho com situações de violência. A proposta do estudo era realizar uma análise da literatura, considerando o que esses estudos tem abordado sobre a temática, em termos de formas de adoecimento, fatores de risco e auto cuidado e, a partir disso, discutir o que escapa a essas pesquisas, no sentido de aprofundar essa problemática. O que ocorre é que o texto não indica porque há uma possibilidade de lacuna nesses estudos que justificasse fazer esse levantamento; também não explora nas considerações o porque esses estudos não são suficientes, apenas indica que são insuficientes na abordagem do auto cuidado; também não indica o modo como problematiza em termos teóricos esses estudos analisados, a única referência teórica é feita na introdução de forma pouco aprofundada. Em razão disso, trata-se de um texto que apresenta uma temática relevante e atual, porém não aprofunda a produção de conhecimento.</blockquote>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Recommendation: Reject</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Reviewer E:</p>
<p>Revisión del manuscrito “Uma revisão da saúde dos profissionais de assistência a vítimas de violencia”</p>
<p>El trabajo se presenta como una revisión sistemática sobre el impacto en la salud de los profesionales que atienden a las víctimas de la violencia. La afectación de la salud física y psicológica de los cuidadores formales, en este caso los profesionales que trabajan con víctimas de la agresión y la violencia, es un campo de interés para la psicología aplicada y, en este sentido, la revisión puede ser de interés para profesionales y académicos.<br>La revisión se plantea adecuadamente con una pregunta de investigación, se indican las bases de datos consultadas, los términos de búsqueda y la sintaxis, y se explicitan los términos de inclusión y exclusión. Se describe el proceso de selección (flow chart), se relatan los artículos seleccionados, mezclando los resultados y la discusión. Como tal, considero que se hace un esfuerzo notable, pero adolece de una falta de ajuste a lo que debe ser un protocolo de una revisión sistemática. La declaración PRISMA puede ser un buen modelo para llevarla a cabo. En ese sentido, a continuación, se mencionan los aspectos críticos de esta revisión:<br>- Se seleccionan tres bases de datos relevantes, sin embargo, se echa en falta otras tan destacadas como medline/pubmed o WoS. La probabilidad de dejar fuera artículos relevantes es elevada.<br>- Se indica en la pregunta de investigación que se va a revisar las implicaciones en salud de los profesionales cuidadores, pero en los términos de búsqueda esas implicaciones se reducen a cuatro efectos sobre la salud. Es conveniente utilizar inicialmente términos más amplios (como salud mental). Es probable que con los términos utilizados no puedan conocer el impacto sobre aspectos tan relevantes como la ansiedad o la depresión. <br>- Por otro lado, se utiliza un único término para relacionar: ‘violencia’. Existen sinónimos y términos afines que sería adecuado incluirlos (como agresión, intimidación). De nuevo es posible que se queden fuera artículos relevantes.<br>- En los términos de inclusión no se menciona el tipo de diseño, lo que da pie a todo tipo de trabajos (ensayos clínicos, transversales, casos-controles, cohortes…). En todo caso, en los resultados sería interesante indicar los resultados en función del diseño.<br>- Una amenaza importante es que, en los términos de exclusión, se van a excluir los trabajos a los que no se tenga acceso a texto completo. Este no es un buen criterio y puede invalidar la búsqueda. No todos los artículos relevantes están en Open Access y existen vías para acceder a los trabajos que no tienen acceso abierto. Este es un criterio a revisar.<br>- Se indica que la selección se hizo por pares de dos investigadores. ¿cómo se resolvieron los dudosos?<br>- ¿Se aplicó alguna escala para determinar la existencia de sesgo en los estudios seleccionados? Esto es especialmente relevante porque no está clara la naturaleza de los trabajos a seleccionar y sería adecuado conocer su calidad científica.<br>- Los resultados se presentan bajo cuatro epígrafes: tipo de trastornos, factores de riesgos y autocuidado. Puede ser una clasificación adecuada, pero se echa en falta, en primer lugar, una tabla resumen con las características principales de los estudios seleccionados, y separar la exposición de los resultados de la discusión. <br>- Las conclusiones son interesantes, pero no se tiene claro que se hayan seleccionado todos los artículos relevantes.<br>- En definitiva, considero que se debe repetir la búsqueda de acuerdo a lo mencionado en relación con las bases de datos, los términos de búsqueda, incluir artículos sin Open Access y delimitar los diseños y su calidad, incluir una tabla resumen y separar los resultados de la discusión.</p>
<p>Recommendation: Reject<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p><br/>The following message is being delivered on behalf of Interamerican Journal of Psychology.
_____________________________________________________________