Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Psychosocial, emotional and professional challenges faced by female
healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 outbreak in Lahore, Pakistan: A
qualitative study
Version: 
2 
Date: 
15 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Comments
- The article is much improved through the revisions. I have a much clearer
understanding of the specific circumstances facing HCPs in Pakistan and how
they were experienced by women in particular. The added theme on confidence
in government and hospital administrations is powerful, and shares important
insights about the unfair treatment of female HCPs, and HCPs in general. The
data selected for use is compelling. As a paper, this makes a significant
contribution to understanding the day-to-day challenges navigated by female
HCPs in Pakistan and makes useful suggestions for how these can be mitigated
at a system and individual level. 
- The same issue stands for me around the use of the term phenomenological.
My recommendation is that either a clearer explanation of in way the approach
of this study can be considered phenomenological is offered (for instance
engaging more directly with the phenomenology papers cited, such as Sundler et
al or Irarrazaval), or the study is referred to more simply as a qualitative study
that employed thematic analysis. 
- While the quality and readability of writing is much improved, I would
nonetheless recommend a final proof read for grammar and clarity of expression.
Specific edits 
Line 178 However, they had no quarantine period during or after their COVID-
19 duties
Does this mean they didn't implement the quarantine period or they weren't
required to do one? This paragraph could be clarified to show that everyone was
subject to the same quarantine period, but some people found it harder to
implement. 
Line 276
Can you add more detail about why males HCPs were allowed to stay in hotels
or private facilities for quarantine but women were not allowed to, or were made
to leave if they tested positive? The rationale for this difference was not clear to
me. 
360 - more than 70% - I recommend putting this is 'most' to maintain consistency
in style with the rest of the article 
395 - remove the percentage 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes