Reviewer’s report
Title: 
An exploratory analysis of work engagement among women with and
without disordered eating
Version: 
0 
Date: 
25 Jan 2021
Reviewer: 
Michèle Dramaix-Wilmet
Reviewer's report:
This article deals with a very interesting topic but I have some comments and
questions mainly about methodology and results.
A first question: why having chosen to compare work engagement in women
with and without disordered eating and not compare disordered eating in women
with low and high work engagement? 
Abstract
Methods: it seems that linear regression was also applied and should perhaps be
mentioned.
Results: it would interesting to have some values (means (SD) and p-value) for
the most interesting result(s). 
Introduction
p. 4, lines 80-82: could you explain "although uncertainties remain regarding the
causality and directions"? Does it means that all the studies included in the
review are cross-sectional ones? How many studies were included in the review
and were these surveys performed in general or specific populations? This
review dates back to 2000; are the results still relevant? Hasn't the working
environment changed since?
Methods
p. 6, UWES-9 and EDE-Q: what are the ranges of these scores? 
P. 7, lines 156-7: Is the choice of the cut-off for EDE-Q usual and found in the
literature? Is the distribution of EDE-Q a normal (Gaussian) one, or at least a
symmetrical one? 
P. 7, lines 159-161. Why was "education" the only potential confounding
variable taken into account? How were the assumptions of linear regression
checked?
Results
p. 7: Lines 164-166: the categorization of education level should be described in
the methodology and these lines should be moved in the methodology. Marital
status: should also be described in the methodology. What's the meaning of
"Särbo"? More generally, all variables should be cited and categorizations
described in the methodology.
p. 8, Table 1: The number of divorced women is small and this category should
be grouped with another one (single for example). If it's possible, it's better that
"Särbo" be included in one of the two main categories. The units of "Age"
(years) are missing.
p. 8, line 176. A detail: as the test is two-tailed, the "minus sign" is not
necessary.
P. 8-9, Table 2. Given the SD of the EDE-Q score, nearly equal to the mean, the
distribution of this score seems to be skewed. A Percentile is perhaps a better
choice as cut-off. The SD of UWES in HE group is very small compared to that
observed in DE group. F ratio (variances ratio) is equal to 6.76; was t-test for
unequal variances used? But when I try to check your t-test, I don't find the same
result as yours (t=30.2). I wonder if the SD that figure in the table are not in fact
SE (Standard errors). Considering that the "SD" in the table are "SE", I obtained
a value for the t-test (t=2.9) close to that presented in the text p.9, line 182. The
difference may perhaps be explained by the fact that the values in the table were
probably rounded. Cohen's D should also be mentioned in the methodology.
p.9, Table 3: the table is not clear. The footnote indicates that the models include
mean scores on EDE-Q and UWES (and education level in model 2). Why
"mean scores"? And what's the dependent variable (UWES I suppose) and what's
the independent variable (EDE-Q)? Why change the form of EDE-Q for this
analysis? The variable could also be included as dichotomous variable in the
model and so, the regression would be the logical next step after the means
analysis of table 2. The crude difference between the UWES means according to
EDE-Q being equal to 0.36, the regression model including education would
allow to obtain an adjusted means difference. It would perhaps be clearer for the
reader and easier to interpret than the "b coefficients". Education is a categorical
variable with 3 categories, was it transformed into indicators before being
included in the model? Why were the two other women's characteristics (age and
marital status) not included in the regression model as potential confounders?
Are there other women's characteristics available in the database, such as for
example, number of children? It would also perhaps be interesting to test some
interactions; to see for example, if the association between UWES and EDE-Q is
the same or different in education categories. A table showing the associations
between women's characteristics and UWES and EDE-Q scores would also
perhaps be useful to better understand regression models.
Discussion
A brief discussion on the values observed for UWES and EDE-Q scores could
prove useful for those who are not familiar with these scores. Are these values
similar to those found in other studies, in general or specific populations?
p. 10, lines 206-11, King et al. The reference number (10) in the bibliography is
not mentioned. I am not convinced by the comparison between the prevalence of
eating disorders. The King et al.'s eating disorder % correspond to frequency of
subjects reporting eating disorders whereas in the present study, this percentage
was obtained by choosing an arbitrary choice of cut-off. Moreover, the title of
King et al.'s publication indicates that the study was performed among nurses, a
sample perhaps not exactly comparable to a sample of women selected in the
population.
p. 11, lines 226-228. The reference number of Ball and Lee (12) in the
bibliography is not mentioned. Are the studies included in this review, cohort
studies, so that it was possible to know what happened first (disordered eating or
life stress)?
p. 11, lines 230-233: the sentence is not clear. The two studies "failed to show an
association" but between which variables? Work engagement and education? 
p. 12, line 246: study by King et al.: the reference number in the bibliography is
not mentioned.
p. 13, Strengths and limitations: the authors address the problem of the
difference between the women who remained and those who dropped but even if
the response rate is high, differences between respondents and non-respondents
may also exist. Is it possible to compare some variables such as age, education…
between these two groups?
References
Many references dates back from 5 years or more; aren't there more recent
publications about disordered eating and work? 
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 publish my name with my
report.
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?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes