Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand

Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560" }, "headline": "Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand", "datePublished": "2022-12-22T15:05:01", "dateModified": "2025-10-07T14:55:33", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ek-uma Imkome" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kamonchanok Moonchai" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background This study explores the lived experiences of individuals recovering from COVID-19, aiming to deepen understanding and inform supportive measures in future health crises. Methods Fifteen participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and non-aggregated behavioral observations. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) guided the analytic process, allowing for in-depth exploration of participants’ meaning-making. Reporting adhered to the COREQ qualitative research guidelines. Results Five superordinate themes emerged: stress, economic and social disruption, social stigma, social support, and the reappraisal of adversity (“finding meaning in misfortune”). Participants’ narratives revealed complex adaptive processes shaped by contextual challenges and relational resources. Conclusion The findings highlight the need for multidisciplinary care approaches that attend to psychosocial and economic dimensions of illness. Insights from this study may inform post-COVID-19 recovery policies, including targeted psychosocial training for health and community workers, and the development of integrated response frameworks for future public health emergencies. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560", "name": "Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19..." } } ] } Home Browse Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Imkome Eu and Moonchai K. Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.6 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Ek-uma Imkome https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5714-4249 1 , Kamonchanok Moonchai 2 Ek-uma Imkome https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5714-4249 1 , Kamonchanok Moonchai 2 PUBLISHED 07 Oct 2025 Author details Author details 1 Mental Health and Psychiatrics Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, Pratumtane, 12120, Thailand 2 Mental Health and Psychiatrics Nursing, Srisavarindhira Thai Red Cross Institute of Nursing, Pratumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand Ek-uma Imkome Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Kamonchanok Moonchai Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway. This article is included in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) collection. Abstract Background This study explores the lived experiences of individuals recovering from COVID-19, aiming to deepen understanding and inform supportive measures in future health crises. Methods Fifteen participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and non-aggregated behavioral observations. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) guided the analytic process, allowing for in-depth exploration of participants’ meaning-making. Reporting adhered to the COREQ qualitative research guidelines. Results Five superordinate themes emerged: stress, economic and social disruption, social stigma, social support, and the reappraisal of adversity (“finding meaning in misfortune”). Participants’ narratives revealed complex adaptive processes shaped by contextual challenges and relational resources. Conclusion The findings highlight the need for multidisciplinary care approaches that attend to psychosocial and economic dimensions of illness. Insights from this study may inform post-COVID-19 recovery policies, including targeted psychosocial training for health and community workers, and the development of integrated response frameworks for future public health emergencies. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords COVID-19, Mental health, lived experiences, phenomenological-hermeneutic approach, stress, economic impact, social stigma, social support, multidisciplinary treatment strategies, multidisciplinary treatment teams Corresponding Author(s) Ek-uma Imkome ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Ek-uma Imkome Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Imkome Eu and Moonchai K. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Imkome Eu and Moonchai K. Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.6 ) First published: 22 Dec 2022, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.1 ) Latest published: 07 Oct 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.6 ) Revised Amendments from Version 5 This revised manuscript addresses key reviewer concerns to enhance methodological clarity and interpretative rigor. We confirm that Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is the sole analytic framework used throughout the study. All references to alternative methodologies such as the phenomenological-hermeneutic approach , content analysis , and thematic analysis have been removed to avoid confusion. The novelty of this study is justified by its focus on COVID-19 survivors in Thailand, a population underrepresented in existing qualitative research. Unlike prior studies that emphasize healthcare workers or students, this research applies IPA and integrates the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) to interpret adaptive responses, offering a unique contribution to the Thai and Southeast Asian context. RAM was not appended post hoc but systematically integrated into the interpretative phase of IPA. Themes such as stress and stigma were analyzed as focal and residual stimuli, while coping mechanisms like social support and meaning-making were mapped onto RAM’s domains of self-concept and interdependence. We have exercised caution in drawing policy implications, ensuring that recommendations are grounded in participants’ narratives and adaptive challenges. Broad generalizations have been avoided, and conclusions reflect the depth and scope of the findings. This revised manuscript addresses key reviewer concerns to enhance methodological clarity and interpretative rigor. We confirm that Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is the sole analytic framework used throughout the study. All references to alternative methodologies such as the phenomenological-hermeneutic approach , content analysis , and thematic analysis have been removed to avoid confusion. The novelty of this study is justified by its focus on COVID-19 survivors in Thailand, a population underrepresented in existing qualitative research. Unlike prior studies that emphasize healthcare workers or students, this research applies IPA and integrates the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) to interpret adaptive responses, offering a unique contribution to the Thai and Southeast Asian context. RAM was not appended post hoc but systematically integrated into the interpretative phase of IPA. Themes such as stress and stigma were analyzed as focal and residual stimuli, while coping mechanisms like social support and meaning-making were mapped onto RAM’s domains of self-concept and interdependence. We have exercised caution in drawing policy implications, ensuring that recommendations are grounded in participants’ narratives and adaptive challenges. Broad generalizations have been avoided, and conclusions reflect the depth and scope of the findings. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Chomphunut Srichannil See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jyoti Sharma and Mohammad Sidiq See the authors' detailed response to the review by Cheah Phaik Kin READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has exerted a profound impacted global health, with over 219 million cases and 4.55 million fatalities reported as of October 10, 2021. Despite advancements in vaccine development and therapeutic interventions, the virus continues to evolve, posing ongoing challenges for public health systems worldwide. Governments have rapidly implemented containment strategies, including lockdowns and movement restrictions, leading to significant socio-economic disruptions and shifts in daily life. As a result, individuals have adopted various coping mechanisms to manage the uncertainty and instability caused by the pandemic ( Nurunnabi et al., 2020 ). By May 2022, COVID-19 cases had surged to 512 million globally, with a death toll exceeding 6.25 million (World Meter, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ ). Beyond the immediate morbidity and mortality associated with the virus, healthcare systems have struggled to maintain continuity of care, particularly for non-COVID-19 conditions. The pandemic has altered chronic illness management, disrupted emergency services, and contributed to a significant increase in mental health concerns, including stress, depression, and anxiety ( Sing Joo, et al., 2021 ). Studies indicate that approximately 20% of COVID-19 cases require oxygen therapy, while 5% develop severe symptoms necessitating intensive care ( Wu & McGoogan, 2020 ). Although much of the existing literature has focused on acute symptoms, there is growing recognition that COVID-19 has lasting psychosocial consequences. Patients report experiencing persistent symptoms such as fatigue, dyspnea, muscle pain, nausea, and heightened fear, all of which impact their overall well-being and recovery ( Davis et al., 2019 ; Huang et al., 2020 ). The mortality rate of COVID-19 has been estimated to range from 1% to 5%, but this varies depending on patients’ age group and the presence or absence of underlying diseases. The epidemiological distribution of mental health problems and associated factors are heterogeneous among COVID-19 patients. The current evidence suggests that a psychiatric epidemic is co-occurring with the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitates the attention of the global health community ( Hossain, 2020 ). In Thailand, the pandemic has led to widespread psychological distress, financial instability, and healthcare disruptions. Anxiety, loneliness, and fear of infection have been particularly prevalent, affecting individuals across various demographics ( Chutipattana et al., 2022 ). Psychological resilience has played a crucial role in mitigating these negative effects, with evidence suggesting that individuals with stronger coping mechanisms experience lower levels of stress and anxiety ( Ruengorn et al., 2022 ). However, the crisis has also exposed disparities in mental health care accessibility, emphasizing the need for effective interventions that support vulnerable populations ( Srichannil, 2020 ). Between January 2020 and August 2023, Thailand reported over 4.7 million confirmed cases and 34,459 deaths, with more than 139 million vaccine doses administered ( WHO, 2023 ). To date, Thailand’s research response has largely focused on epidemiological surveillance, vaccine distribution, and healthcare system capacity ( Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al. , 2020 ; Srifuengfung, Thana-Udom, Ratta-Apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021 ; Kerdcharoen, Kirdchok, Wonglertwisawakorn, Naviganuntana, Polruamngern, & Chinvararak, 2022 ). While these studied provide valuable insights into infection rates and systemic challenges, they often overlook the lived experiences of COVID-19 survivors. Existing qualitative research has largely focused on healthcare professionals, students, and individuals with underlying conditions—groups facing occupational burnout, academic challenges, and delayed treatments ( Hossain et al. , 2020 ; Nurunnabi et al. , 2020 ; Rathnayake et al. , 2021 ; Sing Joo et al. , 2021 ). However, the specific psychosocial adaptation process of survivors themselves remain underexplored, particularly in the Thai and Southeast Asian context. This study addresses this critical gap by applying Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) to examine how COVID-19 survivors in Thailand navigate stress, stigma, and social reintegration. By capturing their lived experiences, the research provides a nuanced understanding of adaptive process shaped by contextual hardships and rational resources. The findings aim to inform the development of targeted psychosocial interventions, enhance mental health service delivery, and support policy framework for post-pandemic recovery. In doing so, this study contributes to a more inclusive and patient-centered approach to public health preparedness and resilience. Theoretical perspective The Roy adaptation model (RAM) serves as the theoretical framework for this study, deepening our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. The application of RAM in nursing research provides a structured yet flexible approach that enhances qualitative inquiry rather than limiting creativity. By offering a comprehensive model of adaptation, RAM enables researchers to interpret individuals’ responses holistically, allowing the study to capture diverse perspectives without imposing rigid constraints ( Roy, 2009 , 2011 ). While qualitative research thrives on open-ended exploration, RAM does not stifle creativity, but rather provides an adaptable analytical lens that supports thematic development. The model’s focus on focal, contextual, and residual stimuli aligns naturally with participants’ narratives, ensuring that emerging themes remain participant-driven while maintaining coherence and interpretative depth ( Roy, 2009 ). RAM ( Roy, 2001 , 2009 , 2011 ) describes individuals as adaptive systems composed of interconnected elements that function as a unit, influenced by focal, contextual, and residual stimuli ( Roy, 2009 ). These adaptive responses may result in positive adaptation (improved health and well-being) or maladaptation (prolonged distress and illness). In this study, RAM serves as a guiding framework to analyze how COVID-19 survivors navigate stress, stigma, and social reintegration, ensuring that mental health interventions are tailored to patients’ lived realities rather than predefined categories. Additionally, our use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as the analytic framework, which complements RAM by focusing on participants’ meaning-making processes. IPA’s idiographic and hermeneutic orientatation ensure that interpretations remain grounded in individual lived experiences. While RAM informs the theoretical structure, IPA guides the analytic depth, enabling a dual-layered approach that integrates empirical insight with conceptual rigor. By leveraging RAM and IPA in tandem, the study maintains methodological integrity while enriching the interpretative process. This integration facilitates a nuanced exploration of adaptation, ensuring that findings reflect both the complexity of survivor experiences and the theoretical coherence necessary for advancing nursing and public health research. Methods Design This research employed Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to explore the lived experiences of COVID-19 survivors. IPA’s idiographic and interpretative stance allowed us to examine how individuals made sense of their illness and recovery experiences. Participants Fifteen participants were selected through purposeful sampling. As per the inclusion criteria, participants included COVID-19 survivors who had been discharged from the hospital and provided written consent for participation. COVID-19 cases that experienced stress or mental health problems were prevented from giving informed consent, and their participation was thus excluded. Procedures This study employed interpretative phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as the sole analytic framework to explore the lived experiences of COVID-19 survivors. While the philosophical foundation of IPA is phenomenological and hermeneutic, all data collection and analysis procedures adhered strictly to IPA principles as outlined by Smith & Osborn (2015) and Smith & Nizza (2022) . The research team developed semi-structured individual interview questions ( Imkome & Moonchai, 2025 ), grounded in an extensive review of the literature focusing on adaptation and emotional responses. The question design was informed by previous research and structured around the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM), aiming to investigate how individuals navigated the psychological, social, and economic challenges posed by the pandemic. RAM provided a flexible yet systematic framework for formulating interview questions, enabling the exploration of focal, contextual, and residual stimuli—elements crucial for understanding the adaptation process ( Roy, 2009 , 2011 ). This approach allowed participants to freely express their experiences beyond predefined categories, offering deeper insights into their coping mechanisms and psychosocial responses. To ensure content validity, the interview guide was critically reviewed by three expert validators specializing in phenomenology and adaptation theory. Their evaluations confirmed that the questions maintained conceptual integrity, remained open-ended, and facilitated authentic narratives from participants. The interview questions were aligned with key principles of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM). For example, questions such as “How have you coped with the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak on yourself, your family, and your community?” and “Who or what groups have helped you alleviate stress, and in what ways?” were designed to examine adaptation across physiological, self-concept, role-function, and interdependence domains, consistent with RAM’s core constructs. Data collection Participants were recruited through the nursing offices of a hospital located in a different region of Thailand. Initially, their willingness to participate was assessed via phone calls, after which nurses provided comprehensive information regarding the interview process. Video interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams at times convenient for participants, following a thorough explanation of the research objectives and the acquisition of both verbal and written informed consent. Sampling continued until data saturation was reached, defined as the point at which no new themes emerged across successive interviews. Saturation was confirmed through iterative analysis and peer debriefing sessions, ensuring a comprehensive thematic framework reflective of participants’ lived experiences. All interviews were conducted by the lead researcher, a psychiatric nurse, in a neutral and supportive environment. Interview durations ranged from 25 to 60 minutes, with strict adherence to data anonymization procedures. In the final step, transcripts were returned to participants for review and correction, ensuring accuracy and validation of their narratives. Ethical approval This project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Thammasat University (Science), Thailand (COA No. 119/2563). The research adhered to ethical standards established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Helsinki Declaration (2000). Prior to obtaining informed consent, all participants were informed about the study’s objectives, the safe protection of their data, and the associated risks and benefits. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection commenced. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and the anonymity of participants was maintained throughout the research process. Confidentiality strategies were implemented, and identifying codes were assigned to the initial data collected from observations, interviews, and documentary analyses; access to this data was restricted to the research team. The data were securely stored on the principal investigator’s password-protected computer until the conclusion of the study. After 24 months, all files were permanently deleted using “Secure Deletion Shredder,” a protected deletion program for Windows. Consent The research scope, risks, and benefits were explained to the participants; they were assured that anonymity and confidentiality would be maintained. They were informed that their participation in the research was voluntary ( Imkome & Moonchai, 2022 ). We confirm that we obtained written and verbal consent to use data from the participants included in this study. The interview duration was determined based on the participants’ preferences, patience, and experiences. All interviews were recorded on video via Microsoft Teams of Thammasat University as a host and confidentially. The system automatically deletes data after recording for a month. The record was kept for a year for data checking and reference. Then, the computer of the researcher deleted the data and format. Data analysis Data analysis was conducted using IPA, following its idiographic and iterative principles. Each transcript was examined individually to preserve the uniqueness of participants’ lived experiences before identifying patterns across cases. The IPA analysis proceeded in several iterative stages: initial reading and annotation, development of emergent themes, idiographic, case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. Transcript were read multiple times to foster immersion, with exploratory notes capturing descriptive, linguistic, and conceptual insights. Emergent themes were then developed for each case, grounded in the participants’ narratives and interpreted through their meaning-making processes. Subsequently, patterns across cases were synthesized to construct superordinate themes that reflected both convergence and divergence in experiences. The analysis was guided by IPA’s double hermeneutic — participants made sense of their experiences, and the researchers, in turn, interpreted those sense-making processes. To enrich interpretative depth, RAM was employed as a theoretical lens, RAM provided a structured framework for interpreting adaptive responses across physiological, self-concept, role function, and interdependence domains ( Roy, 2011 ). Throughout the analysis, methodological rigor was maintained through bracketing, researcher reflexivity, and analytic memoing. Peer debriefing sessions supported interpretative consistency, and member checks were conducted by inviting participants to review their transcript summaries. All data analysis was managed manually using IPA procedures to maintain fidelity to the idiographic and interpretative nature of the framework. Trustworthiness of the study This study adopted Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to explore the lived experiences of COVID-19 survivors, ensuring that participants’ perspectives and adaptive responses were interpreted through a structured yet flexible analytic framework. The integration of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) as a theoretical lens further enhanced interpretative depth by contextualizing adaptation within clearly defined psychosocial dimensions. To ensure trustworthiness, we adhered to IPA-relevant quality indicators—sensitivity to context, commitment and rigor, transparency and coherence, and impact and importance—as recommended by Smith et al. (2022). Additionally, we maintained alignment with broader qualitative validity markers through the following strategies: 1. Credibility: Rapport was actively cultivated through empathetic interviewing by the lead researcher, a psychiatric nurse trained in therapeutic communication. Participant validation (member checks) was conducted by returning transcript summaries for feedback, enhancing the accuracy of lived experience representation. 2. Transferability: Rich contextual descriptions were embedded throughout the analysis, enabling readers to assess the relevance of findings to other clinical and cultural contexts. Although not generalizable, the idiographic detail strengthens interpretive applicability to similar public health settings. 3. Dependability: Peer debriefing was embedded across data collection and analysis phases. Weekly review sessions facilitated collaborative scrutiny of emerging themes, while monthly analytic reviews supported reflexive iteration. Researcher triangulation was conducted via independent transcript analysis using IPA procedures ( Smith & Osborn, 2015 ; Alase, 2017 ). Interpretative consistency was reviewed through cross-comparison of coding logs and theme structures. The analysis unfolded through three interrelated levels: • Self-Understanding (Descriptive): The researcher conducted an initial readings focused on preserving participants’ own meaning frameworks. • Structural Understanding (Emergent Themes): Themes were iteratively developed from each transcript before cross-case synthesis. • Theoretical Interpretation (RAM Lens): The Roy Adaptation Model was systematically integrated into the interpret phase of IPA. For example, stress and stigma were analyzed as focal and residual stimuli, respectively, while coping mechanisms such as social support and meaning-making were mapped onto the interdependence and self-concept domains. This theoretical lens enriched the understanding of participants’ adaptive process. 4. Confirmability • A comprehensive audit trail was maintained, including reflective memos, coded transcripts, and thematic frameworks. • Reflexivity was practiced through field notes and analytic journaling to document the research team’s positionality and mitigate potential bias. This dual-layered approach—anchoring interpretation in IPA while integrating RAM—allowed us to remain grounded in participants’ narratives while offering theoretical coherence in mapping adaptation processes. Methodological rigor was upheld through bracketing, triangulated coding, and validation checks, ensuring that findings were both credible and analytically rich. Results This section describes the participants’ understanding through a structural account of the findings, followed by a theoretical interpretation of the results. Level 1: Participants’ demographic data and their self-understanding Out of the 15 participants, 11.33% were unemployed, and 62.5% reported insufficient monthly family income ( Table 1 ). During the interviews, all participants exhibited signs of physical survival; however, they demonstrated low levels of psychological integrity, manifesting as stress, fear, anxiety, communication difficulties, sleep disturbances, and impaired decision-making. Some participants were either unemployed or had recently lost their jobs. Nevertheless, they received social support from family, friends, and healthcare providers. Table 1. Demographic COVID-19 cases of informants (N=15). Demographic data N (15) % Age 1. 60 years 2 13.33 Gender 1. Female 6 40 2. Male 9 60 Marital status 1. Single 5 33.34 2. Couple (living with a partner and/or married) 4 26.66 3. Widow 2 13.33 4. Divorced/Separated 4 26.67 Level of Education 1. Primary school 1 6.67 2. Secondary education 3 20 3. Vocational Certificate/Higher Vocational Certificate/ Diploma 7 46.67 4. Bachelor's degree or higher 4 26.66 Career 1. Government service/state enterprise employee 4 26.67 2. Trading or running a personal business 2 11.33 3. Company employees 3 20 4. Hire 4 26.67 5. Unemployed 2 11.33 The family income per month (estimated) 1. Fair 4 25 2. Not enough 10 62.5 The data analysis revealed four key themes (see Figure 1 ). Respondents’ self-understanding at Level 1 underscores their immediate psychological, emotional, and social responses to the challenges posed by COVID-19. The findings indicate that participants experienced significant distress, characterized by heightened levels of stress, fear, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and difficulties in decision-making. These emotional response reflect the participants’ attempts to make sense of their disrupted realities, aligning with IPA’s emphasis on meaning-making. Economic instability and job loss further exacerbated these challenges, leading to increased uncertainty about their futures. Figure 1. Themes of the study. Despite these adversities, participants demonstrated adaptive coping mechanisms, largely supported by their social networks. Their narratives highlighted a dynamic process of self-awareness: some individuals recognized their personal resilience, while others contended with stigma and feelings of isolation. The data further emphasize the vital role of social support in alleviating emotional strain, contributing to a more stable psychological state for those who actively sought help. These findings offer valuable insights into how individuals perceived and processed their experiences, underscoring the necessity for psychosocial interventions aimed at fostering resilience and facilitating reintegration into society. Level 2: Structural understanding The lived experiences of participants following COVID-19 infection revealed a rich tapestry of meaning centered on survival, adaptation, and redefinition of self within a disrupted social and economic landscape. The following superordinate themes emerged from idiographic analysis: Stress, Economic and Social Impact, Social Stigma, Social Support, and Finding Meaning in Misfortune. While each participant’s narrative was unique, the following interpretative synthesis highlights both convergences and points of divergence across cases ( Figure 1 ). Stress In this context, stress refers to how people with COVID-19 perceive the infection and related circumstances as threatening and challenging to manage. Participants’ narratives revealed existential vulnerability, where isolation and uncertainty disrupted their sense of safety and identity. Through IPA’s double hermeneutic, these experiences were interpreted as focal stimuli within the Roy Adaptation Model, triggering adaptive responses in the domains of self-concept and interdependence. “It is stressful to be alone in the room. It was not easy to go out and find food. The city was locked down; what would happen next? Will our family be okay? Will the people who live in the community hate us?” (Cl. 1) “Going to the hospital, I coughed a lot the first day and felt stressed, and I did not feel better on the third day. The doctor from the hospital called to check my signs and symptoms, and I felt like I would not survive. After being admitted to the hospital, I was completely unconscious for about 40 days.” (Cl. 9) “Covid infection affects health and causes stress.” (Cl. 15) Economic and social impact The economic and social impact here refers to the physical, mental, social, spiritual, and economic situations that people living with COVID-19 experience that affect their daily lives. COVID-19’s ripple effects extended beyond the body, challenging participants’ economic security and social position. “When there was no job, there was no money. I kept saving money until I could not manage it. Shops were closed, so it was not easy to buy food. My salary was reduced when I returned to work because we were expected to help the company financially. Our expenditures remained the same, but our incomes were smaller.” (Cl. 1) “Maybe there are robbers and thieves because they do not have a choice. The whole problem lies in economic and mental health.” (Cl. 3) “A stupid economy. If we get infected, we cannot work; it affects our family.” (Cl. 5) “In health, stress, or unemployment, I have no money to spend like this.” (Cl. 6) “COVID-19 is affecting work. I closed shop; cannot open now; no money.” (Cl. 13) “I am unemployed, and I have no money.” (Cl. 15) Social stigma In this study, social stigma refers to how people with COVID-19 are stereotyped and treated with discrimination, dissociation, and loss of certain status due to association with a perceived disease. Several narratives reflected a painful reconfiguration of social identity as participants were treated with suspicion, exclusion, or fear. “It is stressful that people around you have to be poorly judged by society, such as when someone was evicted from their condo when it was learned that he had infected a friend with COVID-19 even though he had a young child. Some people know that it is my friend in the condo. So many people push them away from their homes. I told him to go elsewhere for 14 days and then return.” (Cl. 5) “An infected friend posted a picture on Facebook. There will be a team to hunt him. This is a true story.” (Cl. 5) “My mother gave them a gift and they returned it as if afraid it was infected with COVID-19.” (Cl. 8) “I had to stop work. I had to take a break from work first. It was too bad. My friend is a football coach, and he has COVID-19. Parents do not let their children learn football from him. The room was locked when he returned to his condo; the owner had kicked him out.” (Cl. 11) “You will be stigmatized by society as an infected person. Let us go together and not live in a normal society.” (Cl. 13). Social support In various fields, social support involves purposeful interactions that bring about help. For those infected with COVID-19, cultivating concrete and abstract assistance, such as recognizing, understanding, and responding to emotions, providing information, giving objects, and being accepted as part of the group, affects how a person perceives social support. Individuals are perceived as being loved, cared for, valued, and positively affected by their physical and mental health. This enables a person to face life-threatening events more effectively. “I call home every day, and I jog to my room to watch television.” (Cl. 2) “During stressful times, listening to music, reciting the prayers, doing housework, and watching TV with my girlfriend can relieve stress.” (Cl. 4) “I was infected, and therefore [my] friends were exposed. They only have sympathy for us. We called to apologize. He said hey, it is okay. You can take care of yourself. It is not a problem. He wanted to encourage us and not make us more stressed.” (Cl. 5) “I have a neighbor who acts as if she is his older sister and consults about dealing with COVID-19.” (Cl. 6) “Luckily, most people are encouraging, and those around sick people are worried. They will never bully or scold.” (Cl. 1) “When stressed, I listen to music and watch TV.” (Cl. 4) “Doctor and his teams were highly qualified, and people received good treatment; they felt confident, and their health status gradually improved.” (Cl. 1) “The health team from the hospital that has taken care of me since I was discharged still contacts me to ask about my symptoms, invite me to work, become a lecturer, and sometimes get a job. Recently, the agency made an appointment for an interview. If anything could help, such as providing information about COVID-19 or others, I would be happy to help. The hospital produces an application called Clinical App to track the symptoms of COVID-19 patients. So we do not have to go to the hospital. You can ask for advice in the app. There will be a team that takes care of coordinating.” (Cl. 1) “Bang Khae Health Center contacted and coordinated care such as home visits and consults. They gave good help.” (Cl. 2) “During the treatment, the medical team was excellent and did not show disgust. The doctors and nurses took good care of the patients, spoke well, cared for them, and encouraged them. They gave us medicines, checked the temperature and pressure, and always called to tell us. They provided detailed treatment care. The medical team is perfect.” (Cl. 4) “At that time, I was in an intensive care unit. The healthcare team provided a PPE gown. All the care and treatment procedure was done quickly so that I could get out of the intensive care unit faster.” (Cl. 5) “I was very well taken care of. The doctor would video call and ask about my condition. Then, a doctor would check the fever in the morning and evening. Everything about the food was good. I got lung x-rays, and they took blood samples. When I came out of the hospital, I called to ask, but I did not come to visit because it was difficult. After all, I was staying at work—I called to ask.” (Cl. 6) “When my symptoms improved and I woke up in the hospital, the doctor took good care and was friendly.” (Cl. 9) “The healthcare team at the Tambon health-promoting hospital providing care is outstanding, so I call and ask about health issues when I get any problem. They support me when I get a problem by providing information and medicine.” (Cl. 10) “During the hospital stay, we would talk on the phone. He would call to check the fever, check here and there, and check every time there was a headache and fever. Ask how we were feeling. Check in the morning and at noon. If we had a fever, we called via Line and told him. There was a blood test and heart rate measurement. Since I coughed a lot, I had many medicines but no side effects. As soon as it got into my lungs, I suffered for 4–5 days, but now my lungs are normal, and I only had medication.” (Cl. 14) “I wish there were a cure for the disease. It is essential for life because it is not only in Thailand; it is worldwide, and I want it to be researched quickly.” (Cl. 11) “At first, I was worried because it was a new case. I do not know what the symptoms of COVID-19 are. Believing in the craftsmanship of Thai doctors and their teams, I felt that it was not scary, and I was fortunate to be taken care of by a hospital that felt that it was a leading hospital, so I was not worried.” (Cl. 1) Finding Meaning in Misfortune Finding Meaning in Misfortune means several participants reinterpreted their suffering as a source of growth or insight. This re-narration illustrates cognitive reframing—a psychological and spiritual coping strategy. Being infected was not merely endured; it became an opportunity for contribution and reflection. “It was good luck in bad luck. We felt lucky because we could not find an experience like this. Advertising for life insurance companies and interviews with other agencies, including this interview and conducted research, is something that other people cannot do because they have not been infected. I am fortunate in the misfortunes that I have to face in this life.” (Cl. 1) “When I found out that I was infected, I felt unlucky. There was a feeling of ’why so unlucky.’ But I was lucky enough to enter the treatment process until finally recovering and going out to live a normal life. I think that COVID-19 also brings good things, such as getting to know the medical system in Thailand. There is a line between the patient group and doctors in the medical personnel and equipment system. I will ask a lot because I want to know and check it out on Facebook. We will ask and check with the doctor. After getting the information, try to share it on Facebook with some friends. This infection was helpful. It is not just a punishment. It allows us to spread good things and benefit others after we are infected with COVID-19. We are lucky to be able to benefit society.” (Cl. 5) Level 3: Theoretical interpretation Adaptation is a concept that has been used to realize participants’ experiences, and further illumination can be gained through the Roy adaptation model ( Roy, 2001 , 2009 ) . Based on this model, the participants’ stress, economic and social impact, social stigma, social support, and a sense that finding meaning in misfortune can be interpreted. This model is based on the four dimensions as the person submitted to a scheme, including the stimulus, which generates the coping mechanisms and results that make up the individual, family, and community response. This scheme focuses on three stimulus types: 1) focal stimuli, which require stimulation, including fatigue, dyspnea, high fever, and cough, i.e., the signs and symptoms of COVID-19; 2) contextual stimuli, which can be defined as comorbidities; and 3) residual stimuli, which are described as internal and external factors, such as stress from unemployment, viral infodemic, financial problems, social stigma, and lack of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Adaptative behavior is assessed in four modes: physiological, self-concept, role function, and interdependence. Additionally, the subdivided models are regulators, including the physiological mode, which we describe as the situation and function of people infected by COVID-19. This is pertinent since the body’s homeostasis is directly related to the lower probability of worsening symptoms. Secondly, the cognate coping mechanisms are self-concept, role function, and interdependence. The self-concept mode defines coping and highlights psychological and spiritual aspects. Indeed, considering the context of stress generated by this pandemic, asking for emotional support in chaotic times eases anguish and favors psychological well-being. The coping mechanism that complements the role function mode refers to the individual’s ability to understand their role in the world and the self-knowledge of their role in society. During the pandemic, this acknowledgment is necessary because the population does not participate in essential services; instead, it supports control measures when it fulfills social isolation measures such as visiting the hospital after an appointment. In contrast, in the scope of essential services, health professionals, for example, legitimize their functional importance when they perform their duty with technical skills and humanity. The coping mechanism of the interdependence mode includes the affective demands of everyone. In fact, with a social distancing policy, it is common to observe anguish in the community, which has a particular need related to complete well-being. However, information and communication technologies can be alternatives to increasing physical distancing and its repercussions on the population’s biopsychosocial health. For the interdependence mode, social support from family and multidisciplinary treatment teams can decrease the experience of fear around the transmission and conditions related to COVID-19. Social stigma increases the participants’ stress, which increases the severity of COVID-19 ( Sing Joo et al., 2021 ). In conclusion, the theoretical interpretation of COVID-19 case perceptions showed that participants experienced stress, economic and social impact, stigma, and social support during the global COVID-19 pandemic. The participants’ adaptive process promoted their mental integrity and positively affected their health. Nonetheless, they discussed their existential perceptions during the interviews, raising questions about work and the future during crises. Knowledge gathered from this point of view will help plan to fight such crises in the future. Discussion An interest driving this study was to 1) describe the stressful experiences of life during the COVID-19 pandemic and 2) describe the impact caused by the COVID-19 infection on those infected during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Stressful experiences in life caused by the COVID-19 pandemic People with COVID-19 were stressed by being in lockdown and quarantined. Difficulty finding food sources and disgust from the community exacerbated the symptoms of the disease. Social stigma toward people with COVID-19 existed among people such as relatives or neighbors who feared infection. People with COVID-19 were severely judged by society and experienced situations such as being hunted by a group of citizens who came to find them, who then publicized infection information, meaning that there was no safe place in society. The owners locked rooms and stopped renting to patients. Patients were kicked out of their place ( Tsai & Wilson, 2020 ) and were insulted and bullied. Anyone who had an infected friend was stigmatized by society, meaning they could not stay together and not live in a typical community. Shreyaswi & Shashwath (2020) reported that reducing stigma and providing mental health services is a necessary public health response to COVID-19. Challenges related to the spread of COVID-19, stigma, and discrimination can affect patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and those who are quarantined. Effective communication is both accurate and timely. It positively affects coordination and community involvement and is a cornerstone for reducing stigma and promoting mental health. Besides, an integrated psychosocial rehabilitation program to reduce social stigma and improve the resilience of COVID-19 patients is needed ( Son et al., 2021 ). While several steps are required to address stigma and promote mental health, a clear strategy to integrate mental health services into meeting public healthcare needs becomes necessary during the pandemic; for example, elaborating on possibilities to deliver mental health care through technology. Additionally, participants mentioned the impact of stigmatization and discriminatory experiences on physical and psychological health during the pandemic. This situation has increased discrimination against East and Southeast Asians, with reports of anti-Asian harassment and attacks rising globally ( Lee & Waters, 2021 ; Chen et al., 2020 ; Dhanani & Franz, 2020 ; Hahm et al ., 2021 ; Noel, 2020 ). Among those infected with COVID-19, social support was received during the COVID-19 outbreak, including treatment and assistance, information, and material provisions. For example, the landlord and neighbors showed no disgust when accepted as a part of society. Receiving love, care, appreciation, and acceptance from friends and family, such as encouraging calls during treatment, friends that did not mind doing activities with family members, such as exercising, listening to music, or watching TV, and consulting trusted people, such as a family member, and a health team that provided good care was also experienced. Hospitals produced an app called Clinical App to track the symptoms of COVID-19 patients, coordinate care, ask questions, help people receive care at home, and give advice; on this app, the medical team was beneficial and did not show disgust. Nurses took good care of the patient, unconditioned positive regards of care, encouraged ( Galehdar et al., 2020a ), ( Galehdar et al., 2020b ) and made video calls to ask about patients’ symptoms. Nurses checked their temperature in the morning and evening. Lung X-rays were obtained. A study by Rathnayake et al. (2021) examined nurses’ perspectives on caring for COVID-19 patients; their phenomenological study found that nurses were willing to provide care for COVID-19 patients because it was their duty and responsibility as well as a humanitarian issue. In the beginning, infected people always thought they were unlucky because of the infection’s severe economic, social, health, and mental impacts. However, after entering a good treatment regimen, symptoms improved, and they found themselves fortunate to be cured of this disease. Many established friendships with the health team. They acquired good morale and the ability to educate and share experiences during treatment to benefit society. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic People were unhappy during the COVID-19 lockdown. The physical, mental, social, spiritual, and economic impacts experienced by people with COVID-19 affected their daily lives, such as having no job and using their savings instead of their salary. Unbalanced trade led to more robbers and thieves and increased stress and depression ( Joo et al., 2021 ). This is consistent with a study by Hertz-Palmor et al. (2021) that examined the relationship between income loss, financial strain, and depressive symptoms during COVID-19. Moreover, according to research by Lei et al. (2020) , stress during COVID-19 impacted the participants, and individuals with no psychosocial support were highly vulnerable to anxiety and depression during this pandemic ( Hossain et al. , 2020 ). Moreover, Nicola and research teams ( Nicola et al. , 2020a ) ( Nicola et al. , 2020b ) reported that social support was associated with a lower risk of mental health problems and correlated with another study of emotion regulation growth during the pandemic ( Cuan-Baltazar et al. 2020 ; Dhanani, & Franz, 2020 ). Post-traumatic growth, psychological conditions, and both hopeless and post-stress growth were reported during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Qi & Sheng, 2022 ; Gutiérrez-Cobo et al., 2021 ; Hu et al., 2021 ). Limitations The interview was conducted during community quarantine and after the participant was discharged from the hospital. The participants may have had stress and anxiety about their health status, long COVID, work, and economic problems; this may have prevented the authors from fully understanding the studied phenomena. In addition, the research consisted of a homogenous population of only 15 participants. Thus, a similar study that included these participants might have revealed different perceptions of experiences. The small sample size also increased the risk of bias. Conclusions This research explores the impact of COVID-19 on patients by analyzing their lived experiences. The data show that COVID-19 patients were psychologically, physically, socially, economically, and spiritually affected by the disease. Therefore, healthcare staff and other support systems should consider targeted interventions that reflect the specific adaptive challenges identified in this study, such as psychosocial support and reintegration assistance, rather than broad policy recoomendation. Implications for nursing and health Policy implications • Based on participants’ narratives of economic hardship and social stigma, we suggest that post-COVID recovery policies consider targeted incomes support and psychosocial training. These recoommendations are grouded in the study’s findings and reflect survivors’ expressed needs for reintegration and resilience. • Understanding the challenges that the COVID-19 cases faced in these outbreaks (stress, economic and social aspects, social stigma, social support, and the concept that finding meaning in misfortune) will advance hospitals and nurses to prepare better for the future. Nursing interventions • Social stigma is the factor that influences COVID-19 cases to worsen and leads to mental health problems. Media can efficiently decrease social stigma in the community via social media and gain more cooperation from the healthcare unit in the community. Nursing research • There is a need for a more exhaustive holistic assessment, including return-to-work strategies for future research studies. • This research depicts the impact of stigmatization and discriminatory experiences. This increase in discrimination and harassment has important implications for health care/nursing care. • Considering the limitations of this study, other researchers should use larger sample sizes or conduct research in other regions of the country. Ethical approval Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563) on 20 October 2020. Consent The authors obtained written and verbal informed consent from all participants to use their data in this study. ORCID IDs Ek-Uma Imkome https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5714-4249 Data availability Underlying data Figshare: Until the Dawn: The Impact of COVID-19, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21369810 ( Imkome & Moonchai, 2022 ). The project contains the following underlying data: • Demographic questions • Field notes • Participant information • Semi-structured interview questions • Raw data Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgments This research was supported by Thammasat University Research Unit in the innovation of Mental Health and Behavioral Healthcare and funded by the Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University. References Al Kalaldeh M, Shosha GA, Saiah N, et al. : Dimensions of phenomenology in exploring patient’s suffering in long-life illnesses: Qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Patient Experience. 2018; 5 (1): 43–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Alase A: The Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): A Guide to a Good Qualitative Research Approach. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies. 2017; 5 : 9–19. Publisher Full Text Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T: Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital.Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal.2022; 16 (2). Chen JA, Zhang E, Liu CH: Potential impact of COVID-19–related racial discrimination on the health of Asian Americans. Am. J. Public Health. 2020; 110 (11): 1624–1627. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, et al. : Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nurs. J. 2021; 7 (1): 1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Chutipattana N, Le CN, Kaewsawat S: Depression, anxiety, and stress during COVID-19 epidemic among public health students in Thailand. Trends Sci. 2022; 19 (4). Publisher Full Text Cuan-Baltazar JY, Muñoz-Perez MJ, Robledo-Vega C, et al. : Misinformation of COVID-19 on the internet: Infodemiology study. JMIR Public Health. Surveill. 2020; 6 (2): e18444. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Davis D, Searle SD, Tsui A: The Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network: risk reduction and management of delirium. Age Ageing. 2019; 48 (4): 485–488. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, et al. : Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19.Nurs. Sci. Q.2022; 35 (3): 304–310. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Dhanani LY, Franz B: Unexpected public health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey examining anti-Asian attitudes in the USA. Int. J. Public Health. 2020; 65 (6): 747–754. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Flynn SV, Korcuska JS: Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed-Methods Study. Couns. Educ. Superv. 2018; 57 : 34–50. Publisher Full Text Galehdar N, Kamran A, Toulabi T, et al. : Exploring nurses’ experiences of psychological distress during care of patients with COVID-19: a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry. 2020a; 20 (1): 1–9. Publisher Full Text Galehdar N, Toulabi T, Kamran A, et al. : Exploring nurses’ perception of taking care of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a qualitative study. Nurs. Open. 2020b; 19 . Publisher Full Text Given LM: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks; 2008. Publisher Full Text Graor CH, Knapik GP: Addressing methodological and ethical challenges of qualitative health research on persons with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2013; 27 (2): 65–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Groenewald T: A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated. Int. J. Qual. Methods. 2004; 3 (1): 42–55. Publisher Full Text Gutiérrez-Cobo MJ, Megías-Robles A, Gómez-Leal R, et al. : Is it possible to be happy during the COVID-19 lockdown? A longitudinal study of the role of emotional regulation strategies and pleasant activities in happiness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18 (6): 3211. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Hahm HC, Ha Y, Scott JC, et al. : Perceived COVID-19-related anti-Asian discrimination predicts post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among Asian and Asian American young adults. Psychiatry Res. 2021; 303 : 114084. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, et al. : Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health.Popul. Health Manag.2022 Jun 1; 25 (3): 384–391. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hertz-Palmor N, Moore TM, Gothelf D, et al. : Association among income loss, financial strain and depressive symptoms during COVID-19: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. J. Affect. Disord. 2021; 291 : 1–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Hossain MM, Tasnim S, Sultana A, et al. : Epidemiology of mental health problems in COVID-19: a review. F1000Res. 2020 Jun 23; 9 : 636. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Hu Y, Ye B, Im H: Hope and post-stress growth during COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of perceived stress and the moderating role of empathy. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021; 178 : 110831. Publisher Full Text Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. : Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020; 395 (10223): 497–506. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Imkome E-u, Moonchai K: Figshare: Until the Dawn: The Impact of COVID-19. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text Imkome E, Moonchai K, Soonthornchaiya R: Semi structured interview questions (Covid-19 Cases). figshare. Dataset. 2025. Publisher Full Text Joo GS, Devan DMO, Qi CS, et al. : Association between depression, anxiety, stress and perceived quality of life in a Malaysian B40 urban community during the COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-sectional study. F1000Res. 2021; 10 (693): 693. Kvale S, Brinkmann S: InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed.Sage Publications; 2014. Kerdcharoen N, Kirdchok P, Wonglertwisawakorn C, et al. : Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Res. 2022 Sep 22; 11 : 1089. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Kirkpatrick H: A narrative framework for understanding experiences of people with severe mental illnesses. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2008; 22 (2): 61–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Lee S, Waters SF: Asians and Asian Americans’ experiences of racial discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on health outcomes and the buffering role of social support. Stigma and Health. 2021; 6 (1): 70–78. Publisher Full Text Lei L, Huang X, Zhang S, et al. : Comparison of Prevalence and Associated Factors of Anxiety and Depression Among People Affected by versus People Unaffected by Quarantine During the COVID-19 Epidemic in Southwestern China. Med. Sci. Monit. 2020; 26 : e924609. Publisher Full Text Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M: Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47 (6): 215–217. Publisher Full Text Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, et al. : The socioeconomic implications of the coronavirus and COVID-19 pandemic: a review. Int. J. Surg. 2020a; 78 : 185–193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Nicola M, O’Neill N, Sohrabi C, et al. : Evidence-based management guideline for the COVID-19 pandemic-review article. Int. J. Surg. 2020b; 77 : 206–216. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Noel TK: Conflating culture with COVID-19: Xenophobic repercussions of a global pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2020; 2 (1): 100044. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Nurunnabi M, Hossain SFAH, Chinna K, et al. : Coping strategies of students for anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: a cross-sectional study. F1000Res. 2020; 9 : 1115. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Phu DH, Maneerattanasak S, Shohaimi S, et al. : Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand.PLoS One.2023; 18 (7). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Qi L, Sheng HJ: Posttraumatic growth and psychological resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: A serial mediation model. Front. Psych. 2022; 361 . Rathnayake S, Dasanayake D, Maithreepala SD, et al. : Nurses’ perspectives of taking care of patients with Coronavirus disease 2019: A phenomenological study. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (9): 1–17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Roy C: Alterations in cognitive processing.Stewart-Amidei C, Kunkle J, Bornstein K, editors. American Association of Neuroscience Nurses’ Neuroscience nursing: human responses to neurologic dysfunction. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: Saunders; 2001; pp. 275–323. Roy C: The Roy adaptation model. 3rd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Health; 2009. Roy SC: Research-based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nurs. Sci. Q. 2011; 24 (4): 312–320. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Ruengorn C, Awiphan R, Phosuya C, et al. : Psychological resilience and adverse mental health issues in the Thai population during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19 (20): 13023. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Setiawan T, Wardani R, Theresia E: The conditional effect of family resilience on family quality of life during the Covid-19 pandemic [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2023; 11 : 1279. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text Publisher Full Text | Shreyaswi Sathyanath M, Shashwath Sathyanath M: Stigma Reduction and Provision of Mental Health Services in the PublicHealth Response to COVID-19. Indian J. Community Health. 2020; 32 : 269–272. Publisher Full Text Sing Joo G, Owen Devan DM, Shao Qi C, et al. : Association between depression, anxiety, stress and perceived quality of life in a Malaysian B40 urban community during the COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved]. F1000Res. 2021; 10 : 693. Publisher Full Text Smith B, McGannon KR: Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2018; 11 : 101–121. Publisher Full Text Smith JA, Nizza IE: Essentials of interpretative phenomenological analysis. American Psychological Association; 2022. Publisher Full Text Smith JA, Osborn M: Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. Br. J. Pain. 2015; 9 (1): 41–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Son H-M, Choi W-H, Hwang Y-H, et al. : The Lived Experiences of COVID-19 Patients in South Korea: A Qualitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18 (14): 7419. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Srichannil C: The COVID-19 pandemic and Thailand: A psychologist’s viewpoint. Psychol. Trauma. 2020; 12 (5): 485–487. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Srifuengfung M, Thana-Udom K, Ratta-Apha W, et al. : Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety.J. Affect. Disord.2021; 295 : 353–365. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Srisookkum T, Juwa S, Katkhaw O: Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J. Public Hlth. Dev. 2022; 20 (3): 221–235. Publisher Full Text Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, et al. : The impact of thecovid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcarebehavior in Thailand. J. Public Hlth. Dev. 2022; 20 (1): 188–202. Publisher Full Text Suwanbamrung C, Pongtalung P, Trang LTT, et al. : Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand.J. Public Hlth. Dev.2023; 21 (1): 72–89. Publisher Full Text Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, et al. : Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. J. Health Sci. Res. 2020; 14 (2): 138–134. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2007; 19 (6): 349–357. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Tremblay S, Castiglione S, Audet LA, et al. : Conducting qualitative research to respond to COVID-19 challenges: Reflections for the present and beyond. Int. J. Qual. Methods. 2021; 20 : 160940692110096. Publisher Full Text Tsai J, Wilson M: COVID-19: a potential public health problem for homeless populations. Lancet Public Health. 2020; 5 (4): e186–e187. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Wongtanasarasin W, Srisawang T, Yothiya W, et al. : Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study.Emerg. Med. Australas.2021; 33 (2): 316–323. Publisher Full Text World Health Organization: WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard.2023. https://covid19.who.int/region/searo/country/th Wu Z, McGoogan JM: Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese center for disease control and prevention. JAMA. 2020; 323 (13): 1239–1242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Yongthasaneekul T, Thammaboosadee S: Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation.2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Houston, TX, USA; 2021; pp. 2924–2930. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 6 VERSION 6 PUBLISHED 22 Dec 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Mental Health and Psychiatrics Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, Pratumtane, 12120, Thailand 2 Mental Health and Psychiatrics Nursing, Srisavarindhira Thai Red Cross Institute of Nursing, Pratumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand Ek-uma Imkome Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Kamonchanok Moonchai Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (6) version 6 Revised Published: 07 Oct 2025, 11:1560 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.6 version 5 Revised Published: 25 Jun 2025, 11:1560 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.5 version 4 Revised Published: 06 May 2025, 11:1560 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.4 version 3 Revised Published: 29 Jan 2024, 11:1560 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.3 version 2 Revised Published: 25 Sep 2023, 11:1560 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.2 version 1 Published: 22 Dec 2022, 11:1560 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.1 Copyright © 2025 Imkome Eu and Moonchai K. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Imkome Eu and Moonchai K. Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127578.6 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 5 VERSION 5 PUBLISHED 25 Jun 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sharma J and Sidiq M. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183939.r411576 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v5#referee-response-411576 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 17 Sep 2025 Jyoti Sharma , Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health Sciences, Galgotias University (Ringgold ID: 357911), Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India; Physiotherapy, SAHS, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, India Mohammad Sidiq , Galgotias University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India; Physiotherapy, School of Applied Medical Sciences, Tishk International University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183939.r411576 Major Points of Evaluation 1. Is the work presented clearly and accurately, and does it cite the current literature? Partly. - The form of the manuscript is generally good writing and organization, although the methodological descriptions differ ... Continue reading READ ALL Major Points of Evaluation 1. Is the work presented clearly and accurately, and does it cite the current literature? Partly. - The form of the manuscript is generally good writing and organization, although the methodological descriptions differ across different versions (references to 'phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,' 'content analysis,' 'thematic analysis,' and IPA). This lack of consistency is confusing regarding the analytic framework. - The introduction and discussion, relevant literature, including Thai studies, and international qualitative research are mentioned, but the motivation for the knowledge gap is not very strongly justified. There are already a number of qualitative studies on the Thai and regional context of provisions of healthcare for people who have contracted the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Recommendation: The authors should take care of methodological consistency by being clear in their message that IPA is the only analytical framework. They should also refine the logic for novelty in that their research must stand in the context of existing Thai and Southeast Asian faults. 2. Is the study design appropriate? Is the work technically sound? Partly. - The use of IPA can be suitable to have lived experiences explored. However, technical soundness is undermined by the use of mixed methodological terminology and the use of post-positivist requirements for trustworthiness (credibility, dependability, and transferability) rather than IPA's interpretivist indicators of quality. - The results section is predominantly descriptive in nature, without much interpretative analysis or depth, and has long quotes. The relationship between the data, themes, and the Roy adaptation model could be more clearly made. Recommendation: The authors need to enhance analytic interpretation, going beyond descriptive reporting. They should undergo a consistent IPA-specific application of rigor criteria (sensitivity to context, commitment, transparency, and impact) and demonstrate how the Roy Adaptation Model adds further insight and not merely be appended. 3. Are enough details of methods and analysis given that others will be able to replicate? Partly. - Strengths: Ethical approval, informed consent, and sampling and interview procedures are presented. Audit trails, member checks, and peer debriefing are mentioned. - Weaknesses: Data is saturated, but the explanation for this saturation is mentioned but not fully explained in the context of IPA. The analytic steps (e.g., idiographic case analysis, theme development, and cross-case synthesis) are not consistently described, leaving an ambiguity for replication. Recommendation: The authors should include step-by-step details of the IPA process (i.e., the process of coding and theme development) with examples and further details of how saturation was established. 4. If applicable, is the statistical analysis, including its interpretation, appropriate? Not applicable. - This is a qualitative study; there is no need for statistical analysis. 5. Are all the source data underlying the results available such that full reproducibility is possible? Yes. - The authors have deposited demographic questions, field notes, interview questions, and raw data on Figshare under a CC-BY license, which is a transparent and reproducible license. 6. Are the conclusions well supported by results? Partly. - are conclusions based on their experience as a participant and generally supported by the themes identified. - However, the leap from descriptive accounts of participants to more holistic policy and intervention recommendations (i.e. income support, psychosocial training, integrated recovery frameworks) is not warranted given the depth of analysis. Recommendation: Authors should exercise caution with the inferences they draw and make sure the implications for policy are based on their findings and not extrapolated beyond them. Overall Recommendation This study deals with one of the interesting issues and has used the appropriate qualitative methodology. However, it needs further clarification and strengthening of its analytic rigor and commentitude interpretations so that it becomes scientifically sound. Major Changes Needed (that should be covered): - Effectively establish method performance, ensuring explicit reference to IPA as the method of analysis and eliminate contradictory language (eg, content/thematic analysis). - Include in detail the steps of IPA procedures (coding, idiographic analysis, cross-case synthesis) in order to increase transparency and replicability - Strengthen interpretation within the results, moving beyond descriptive quotes to an interpretive involvement with the meaning-making of the participants, i.e., analytical engagement with the results. For the effort of it, this appears as an afterthought rather than being explicitly showing how the Roy adaptation model informed interpretation - Reframe conclusions to avoid overgeneralization and insure that policy recommendations are directly based on the outcomes of the study Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy, Public Health, SDGs, cross-sectional studies, RCTs. We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Sharma J and Sidiq M. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183939.r411576 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v5#referee-response-411576 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 07 Oct 2025 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 07 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made substantial revisions to improve ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, methodological consistency, and analytical rigor of the study. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, along with a summary of the revisions made. Reviewer Comment 1: Methodological Consistency The methodological descriptions differ across versions (references to 'phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,' 'content analysis,' 'thematic analysis,' and IPA). This lack of consistency is confusing. Response : We have revised the manuscript to consistently reflect Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as the sole analytic framework. All references to other approaches have been removed or clarified as philosophical foundations of IPA. Reviewer Comment 2: Justification of Knowledge Gap The motivation for the knowledge gap is not strongly justified. Response : We have strengthened the introduction to emphasize the lack of IPA-based studies on COVID-19 survivors in Thailand and the novel integration of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) as an interpretive lens. Reviewer Comment 3: Rigor Criteria The use of post-positivist requirements for trustworthiness is inconsistent with IPA’s interpretivist indicators. Response : We have replaced post-positivist terms with IPA-specific indicators of quality: sensitivity to context, commitment and rigor, transparency and coherence, and impact and importance , as recommended by Smith et al. (2022). Reviewer Comment 4: Interpretative Depth in Results The results section is predominantly descriptive, with long quotes and limited interpretative analysis. Response : We have added analytical commentary to participant quotes and explicitly linked emergent themes to meaning-making processes and RAM domains. Reviewer Comment 5: IPA Analytic Steps The analytic steps are not consistently described, leaving ambiguity for replication. Response : We have added a detailed description of the IPA process, including initial reading, annotation, theme development, idiographic case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. Reviewer Comment 6: Overgeneralized Conclusions Policy recommendations are not sufficiently grounded in findings. Response : We have revised the conclusion to ensure that policy implications are directly based on participants’ narratives and adaptive challenges, avoiding broad extrapolations. Additional Improvements We removed redundant and repetitive sentences to improve clarity and flow. We ensured that all references to RAM are explicitly tied to the interpretative process rather than appended. We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and improve the scientific quality of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and support. Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, methodological consistency, and analytical rigor of the study. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, along with a summary of the revisions made. Reviewer Comment 1: Methodological Consistency The methodological descriptions differ across versions (references to 'phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,' 'content analysis,' 'thematic analysis,' and IPA). This lack of consistency is confusing. Response : We have revised the manuscript to consistently reflect Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as the sole analytic framework. All references to other approaches have been removed or clarified as philosophical foundations of IPA. Reviewer Comment 2: Justification of Knowledge Gap The motivation for the knowledge gap is not strongly justified. Response : We have strengthened the introduction to emphasize the lack of IPA-based studies on COVID-19 survivors in Thailand and the novel integration of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) as an interpretive lens. Reviewer Comment 3: Rigor Criteria The use of post-positivist requirements for trustworthiness is inconsistent with IPA’s interpretivist indicators. Response : We have replaced post-positivist terms with IPA-specific indicators of quality: sensitivity to context, commitment and rigor, transparency and coherence, and impact and importance , as recommended by Smith et al. (2022). Reviewer Comment 4: Interpretative Depth in Results The results section is predominantly descriptive, with long quotes and limited interpretative analysis. Response : We have added analytical commentary to participant quotes and explicitly linked emergent themes to meaning-making processes and RAM domains. Reviewer Comment 5: IPA Analytic Steps The analytic steps are not consistently described, leaving ambiguity for replication. Response : We have added a detailed description of the IPA process, including initial reading, annotation, theme development, idiographic case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. Reviewer Comment 6: Overgeneralized Conclusions Policy recommendations are not sufficiently grounded in findings. Response : We have revised the conclusion to ensure that policy implications are directly based on participants’ narratives and adaptive challenges, avoiding broad extrapolations. Additional Improvements We removed redundant and repetitive sentences to improve clarity and flow. We ensured that all references to RAM are explicitly tied to the interpretative process rather than appended. We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and improve the scientific quality of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and support. Competing Interests: None. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 07 Oct 2025 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 07 Oct 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made substantial revisions to improve ... Continue reading Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, methodological consistency, and analytical rigor of the study. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, along with a summary of the revisions made. Reviewer Comment 1: Methodological Consistency The methodological descriptions differ across versions (references to 'phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,' 'content analysis,' 'thematic analysis,' and IPA). This lack of consistency is confusing. Response : We have revised the manuscript to consistently reflect Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as the sole analytic framework. All references to other approaches have been removed or clarified as philosophical foundations of IPA. Reviewer Comment 2: Justification of Knowledge Gap The motivation for the knowledge gap is not strongly justified. Response : We have strengthened the introduction to emphasize the lack of IPA-based studies on COVID-19 survivors in Thailand and the novel integration of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) as an interpretive lens. Reviewer Comment 3: Rigor Criteria The use of post-positivist requirements for trustworthiness is inconsistent with IPA’s interpretivist indicators. Response : We have replaced post-positivist terms with IPA-specific indicators of quality: sensitivity to context, commitment and rigor, transparency and coherence, and impact and importance , as recommended by Smith et al. (2022). Reviewer Comment 4: Interpretative Depth in Results The results section is predominantly descriptive, with long quotes and limited interpretative analysis. Response : We have added analytical commentary to participant quotes and explicitly linked emergent themes to meaning-making processes and RAM domains. Reviewer Comment 5: IPA Analytic Steps The analytic steps are not consistently described, leaving ambiguity for replication. Response : We have added a detailed description of the IPA process, including initial reading, annotation, theme development, idiographic case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. Reviewer Comment 6: Overgeneralized Conclusions Policy recommendations are not sufficiently grounded in findings. Response : We have revised the conclusion to ensure that policy implications are directly based on participants’ narratives and adaptive challenges, avoiding broad extrapolations. Additional Improvements We removed redundant and repetitive sentences to improve clarity and flow. We ensured that all references to RAM are explicitly tied to the interpretative process rather than appended. We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and improve the scientific quality of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and support. Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, methodological consistency, and analytical rigor of the study. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, along with a summary of the revisions made. Reviewer Comment 1: Methodological Consistency The methodological descriptions differ across versions (references to 'phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,' 'content analysis,' 'thematic analysis,' and IPA). This lack of consistency is confusing. Response : We have revised the manuscript to consistently reflect Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as the sole analytic framework. All references to other approaches have been removed or clarified as philosophical foundations of IPA. Reviewer Comment 2: Justification of Knowledge Gap The motivation for the knowledge gap is not strongly justified. Response : We have strengthened the introduction to emphasize the lack of IPA-based studies on COVID-19 survivors in Thailand and the novel integration of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) as an interpretive lens. Reviewer Comment 3: Rigor Criteria The use of post-positivist requirements for trustworthiness is inconsistent with IPA’s interpretivist indicators. Response : We have replaced post-positivist terms with IPA-specific indicators of quality: sensitivity to context, commitment and rigor, transparency and coherence, and impact and importance , as recommended by Smith et al. (2022). Reviewer Comment 4: Interpretative Depth in Results The results section is predominantly descriptive, with long quotes and limited interpretative analysis. Response : We have added analytical commentary to participant quotes and explicitly linked emergent themes to meaning-making processes and RAM domains. Reviewer Comment 5: IPA Analytic Steps The analytic steps are not consistently described, leaving ambiguity for replication. Response : We have added a detailed description of the IPA process, including initial reading, annotation, theme development, idiographic case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. Reviewer Comment 6: Overgeneralized Conclusions Policy recommendations are not sufficiently grounded in findings. Response : We have revised the conclusion to ensure that policy implications are directly based on participants’ narratives and adaptive challenges, avoiding broad extrapolations. Additional Improvements We removed redundant and repetitive sentences to improve clarity and flow. We ensured that all references to RAM are explicitly tied to the interpretative process rather than appended. We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and improve the scientific quality of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and support. Competing Interests: None. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 06 May 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Srichannil C. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181459.r383174 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v4#referee-response-383174 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 18 Jun 2025 Chomphunut Srichannil , Department of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181459.r383174 The revised version of this article has taken further steps toward improvement. However, significant methodological concerns remain unresolved, particularly in relation to the claimed use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). First, while the authors describe their approach ... Continue reading READ ALL The revised version of this article has taken further steps toward improvement. However, significant methodological concerns remain unresolved, particularly in relation to the claimed use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). First, while the authors describe their approach as a “phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,” they do not clearly state that IPA is the central analytic method until later in the paper. If IPA is indeed the primary analytic framework, this should be explicitly stated early in the methodology or design section. Furthermore, in the results section, the authors state that “major themes were derived from content analysis,” which introduces confusion, as content analysis is a distinct methodological approach and not typically aligned with IPA. Clarification is needed regarding the analytic procedures used. Second, the criteria employed to demonstrate trustworthiness — credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability — are drawn from Guba and Lincoln’s post-positivist paradigm, which is not epistemologically aligned with the interpretivist foundations of IPA. This raises important concerns regarding methodological congruence. In IPA, methodological quality is more appropriately demonstrated through IPA-specific criteria (see Smith, 2011; Smith et al., 2022). I would recommend either re-framing the quality assurance criteria to align with IPA or reconsidering the analytical framework itself. Finally, these inconsistencies also affect the reporting of findings, particularly with respect to the idiographic focus, depth of interpretation, and analytic structure expected in IPA research. The current presentation of results relies heavily on a sequence of participant quotes, with limited interpretative engagement. In summary, I encourage the authors to revisit the issues of methodological alignment, analytic clarity, and consistency with the claimed use of IPA. These concerns should be addressed before the article can be considered methodologically sound. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Counseling Psychology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Srichannil C. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181459.r383174 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v4#referee-response-383174 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and the opportunity to strengthen the methodological transparency of our study. We have made the following revisions and clarifications: Clarifying the ... Continue reading We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and the opportunity to strengthen the methodological transparency of our study. We have made the following revisions and clarifications: Clarifying the Analytic Approach We acknowledge the prior ambiguity in our description of the analytic method. To address this, we have now explicitly stated in the Design section that Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is the central analytic framework guiding our study. We have removed the ambiguous term “phenomenological-hermeneutic approach” in favor of consistently referring to IPA throughout the methodology. Additionally, in the Results section, we have removed the phrase “major themes were derived from content analysis,” recognizing that content analysis is a distinct technique not epistemologically aligned with IPA. We now clarify that themes were developed inductively through iterative engagement with the data in accordance with IPA procedures, as outlined by Smith and colleagues (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Smith et al., 2022). 2 . Ensuring Methodological Congruence The reviewer correctly notes that our original quality criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) are drawn from the Guba and Lincoln framework, which is situated within a post-positivist tradition. In response, we have revised the Trustworthiness section to reflect IPA-specific markers of rigor and coherence, including: Sensitivity to context (e.g., attention to the socio-cultural and historical context of COVID-19 in Thailand), Commitment and rigor (e.g., detailed iterative coding, sustained interaction with transcripts, analytic depth), Transparency and coherence (e.g., a clear audit trail of interpretative processes, bracketing of researcher assumptions), Impact and importance (e.g., the study’s implications for public health and psychosocial interventions in pandemic recovery). These standards reflect the interpretivist foundations of IPA and have replaced the prior post-positivist criteria. 3. Enhancing Interpretative Engagement in Results Highlighted how participants make meaning of their experiences, Emphasized nuanced distinctions between individual cases, And reinforced the emergent nature of themes, rooted in both participant narratives and theoretical interpretation. To strengthen idiographic depth and analytic richness, we revisited the Results section to ensure that participant quotes are not merely descriptive but are actively interpreted through the lens of the Roy Adaptation Model within the IPA framework. We have: As IPA values idiographic nuance, we have retained individual voice while offering layered interpretations of participants’ adaptation processes across physiological, psychological, and social domains. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and the opportunity to strengthen the methodological transparency of our study. We have made the following revisions and clarifications: Clarifying the Analytic Approach We acknowledge the prior ambiguity in our description of the analytic method. To address this, we have now explicitly stated in the Design section that Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is the central analytic framework guiding our study. We have removed the ambiguous term “phenomenological-hermeneutic approach” in favor of consistently referring to IPA throughout the methodology. Additionally, in the Results section, we have removed the phrase “major themes were derived from content analysis,” recognizing that content analysis is a distinct technique not epistemologically aligned with IPA. We now clarify that themes were developed inductively through iterative engagement with the data in accordance with IPA procedures, as outlined by Smith and colleagues (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Smith et al., 2022). 2 . Ensuring Methodological Congruence The reviewer correctly notes that our original quality criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) are drawn from the Guba and Lincoln framework, which is situated within a post-positivist tradition. In response, we have revised the Trustworthiness section to reflect IPA-specific markers of rigor and coherence, including: Sensitivity to context (e.g., attention to the socio-cultural and historical context of COVID-19 in Thailand), Commitment and rigor (e.g., detailed iterative coding, sustained interaction with transcripts, analytic depth), Transparency and coherence (e.g., a clear audit trail of interpretative processes, bracketing of researcher assumptions), Impact and importance (e.g., the study’s implications for public health and psychosocial interventions in pandemic recovery). These standards reflect the interpretivist foundations of IPA and have replaced the prior post-positivist criteria. 3. Enhancing Interpretative Engagement in Results Highlighted how participants make meaning of their experiences, Emphasized nuanced distinctions between individual cases, And reinforced the emergent nature of themes, rooted in both participant narratives and theoretical interpretation. To strengthen idiographic depth and analytic richness, we revisited the Results section to ensure that participant quotes are not merely descriptive but are actively interpreted through the lens of the Roy Adaptation Model within the IPA framework. We have: As IPA values idiographic nuance, we have retained individual voice while offering layered interpretations of participants’ adaptation processes across physiological, psychological, and social domains. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 10 Sep 2025 Author Response We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and the opportunity to strengthen the methodological transparency of our study. We have made the following revisions and clarifications: Clarifying the ... Continue reading We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and the opportunity to strengthen the methodological transparency of our study. We have made the following revisions and clarifications: Clarifying the Analytic Approach We acknowledge the prior ambiguity in our description of the analytic method. To address this, we have now explicitly stated in the Design section that Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is the central analytic framework guiding our study. We have removed the ambiguous term “phenomenological-hermeneutic approach” in favor of consistently referring to IPA throughout the methodology. Additionally, in the Results section, we have removed the phrase “major themes were derived from content analysis,” recognizing that content analysis is a distinct technique not epistemologically aligned with IPA. We now clarify that themes were developed inductively through iterative engagement with the data in accordance with IPA procedures, as outlined by Smith and colleagues (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Smith et al., 2022). 2 . Ensuring Methodological Congruence The reviewer correctly notes that our original quality criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) are drawn from the Guba and Lincoln framework, which is situated within a post-positivist tradition. In response, we have revised the Trustworthiness section to reflect IPA-specific markers of rigor and coherence, including: Sensitivity to context (e.g., attention to the socio-cultural and historical context of COVID-19 in Thailand), Commitment and rigor (e.g., detailed iterative coding, sustained interaction with transcripts, analytic depth), Transparency and coherence (e.g., a clear audit trail of interpretative processes, bracketing of researcher assumptions), Impact and importance (e.g., the study’s implications for public health and psychosocial interventions in pandemic recovery). These standards reflect the interpretivist foundations of IPA and have replaced the prior post-positivist criteria. 3. Enhancing Interpretative Engagement in Results Highlighted how participants make meaning of their experiences, Emphasized nuanced distinctions between individual cases, And reinforced the emergent nature of themes, rooted in both participant narratives and theoretical interpretation. To strengthen idiographic depth and analytic richness, we revisited the Results section to ensure that participant quotes are not merely descriptive but are actively interpreted through the lens of the Roy Adaptation Model within the IPA framework. We have: As IPA values idiographic nuance, we have retained individual voice while offering layered interpretations of participants’ adaptation processes across physiological, psychological, and social domains. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and the opportunity to strengthen the methodological transparency of our study. We have made the following revisions and clarifications: Clarifying the Analytic Approach We acknowledge the prior ambiguity in our description of the analytic method. To address this, we have now explicitly stated in the Design section that Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is the central analytic framework guiding our study. We have removed the ambiguous term “phenomenological-hermeneutic approach” in favor of consistently referring to IPA throughout the methodology. Additionally, in the Results section, we have removed the phrase “major themes were derived from content analysis,” recognizing that content analysis is a distinct technique not epistemologically aligned with IPA. We now clarify that themes were developed inductively through iterative engagement with the data in accordance with IPA procedures, as outlined by Smith and colleagues (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Smith et al., 2022). 2 . Ensuring Methodological Congruence The reviewer correctly notes that our original quality criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) are drawn from the Guba and Lincoln framework, which is situated within a post-positivist tradition. In response, we have revised the Trustworthiness section to reflect IPA-specific markers of rigor and coherence, including: Sensitivity to context (e.g., attention to the socio-cultural and historical context of COVID-19 in Thailand), Commitment and rigor (e.g., detailed iterative coding, sustained interaction with transcripts, analytic depth), Transparency and coherence (e.g., a clear audit trail of interpretative processes, bracketing of researcher assumptions), Impact and importance (e.g., the study’s implications for public health and psychosocial interventions in pandemic recovery). These standards reflect the interpretivist foundations of IPA and have replaced the prior post-positivist criteria. 3. Enhancing Interpretative Engagement in Results Highlighted how participants make meaning of their experiences, Emphasized nuanced distinctions between individual cases, And reinforced the emergent nature of themes, rooted in both participant narratives and theoretical interpretation. To strengthen idiographic depth and analytic richness, we revisited the Results section to ensure that participant quotes are not merely descriptive but are actively interpreted through the lens of the Roy Adaptation Model within the IPA framework. We have: As IPA values idiographic nuance, we have retained individual voice while offering layered interpretations of participants’ adaptation processes across physiological, psychological, and social domains. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kin CP. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181459.r383175 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v4#referee-response-383175 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 May 2025 Cheah Phaik Kin , Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181459.r383175 Revisions have ... Continue reading READ ALL Revisions have been made accordingly. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kin CP. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181459.r383175 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v4#referee-response-383175 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 25 Sep 2023 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kin CP. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155443.r209256 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v2#referee-response-209256 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Oct 2023 Cheah Phaik Kin , Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155443.r209256 Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. COMMENTS: “During ... Continue reading READ ALL Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. COMMENTS: There was no response from the authors on this feedback. Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants COMMENTS: Noted with thanks. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. COMMENTS: No response was given to this suggestion. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework ( Smith & Osborn, 2015 ; Alase, 2017 ).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model Results Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “ Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. COMMENTS: No response provided. No explanation is found in the paper. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. COMMENTS: No response provided It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. COMMENTS: No response provided. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? COMMENTS: No response provided. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kin CP. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155443.r209256 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v2#referee-response-209256 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 29 Jan 2024 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 29 Jan 2024 Author Response We appreciate your thorough evaluation of our work, strengthening our quality and clarity. We have carefully reviewed the comments. As suggested, we would like to provide a point-by-point response. We ... Continue reading We appreciate your thorough evaluation of our work, strengthening our quality and clarity. We have carefully reviewed the comments. As suggested, we would like to provide a point-by-point response. We are confident that with your support, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. If you have any more suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are eager to work collaboratively to ensure the success of our manuscript. 1. Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based.COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: Thank you very much. We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)”. References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - “Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support.” In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for pointing out the important issue. According to your comment, we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population’s needs and problems.” Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research.COMMENTS: There was no response from the authors on this feedback. Author response: We apologize for the short description of the manuscript’s last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. “The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study’s theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual’s experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual’s attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person’s internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation.” Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 4.Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - “The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018; Graor & Knapik, 2013; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014).” COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. Author response: Thank you very much. The questions were shared in English version n Figshare: Until the Dawn: The Impact of COVID-19, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21369810 ( Imkome E-u, & Moonchai K, 2022). “Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)” - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants COMMENTS: Noted with thanks. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. COMMENTS: No response was given to this suggestion. Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. A cross-sectional study is another project. We had to remove the sentence from this manuscript. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Alase, 2017).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” Author response: Thank you very much for your comments. We added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model Author response: Thanks for the interesting query. The Roy Adaptation Model was applied as the theoretical framework for this study. Results Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. COMMENTS: No response provided. No explanation is found in the paper. Author response: We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: “All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers.” Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - “Apply from Roy, 2011”? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. COMMENTS: No response provided Author response: Thank you very much. It is a typo. We removed it from the manuscript. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as “Level”. This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a “level” indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. COMMENTS: No response provided. Author response: Thank you for your comment. We intended to label the analysis results as “Level,” which starts with general data, structural understanding, and Theoretical interpretation. Please provide your idea to make this manuscript more straightforward. The sub-themes in Level 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within “Level 2: Structural understanding”, there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under “Level 2”? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? Author response: Thank you very much. All the themes that you mention are the sub-themes of level 2. Structural understanding, a major theme derived from content analysis, was evident across interviews and included stress, economic and social impact, social stigma, and the concept that bad luck occasionally brings good luck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We appreciate your thorough evaluation of our work, strengthening our quality and clarity. We have carefully reviewed the comments. As suggested, we would like to provide a point-by-point response. We are confident that with your support, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. If you have any more suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are eager to work collaboratively to ensure the success of our manuscript. 1. Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based.COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: Thank you very much. We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)”. References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - “Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support.” In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for pointing out the important issue. According to your comment, we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population’s needs and problems.” Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research.COMMENTS: There was no response from the authors on this feedback. Author response: We apologize for the short description of the manuscript’s last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. “The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study’s theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual’s experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual’s attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person’s internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation.” Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 4.Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - “The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018; Graor & Knapik, 2013; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014).” COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. Author response: Thank you very much. The questions were shared in English version n Figshare: Until the Dawn: The Impact of COVID-19, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21369810 ( Imkome E-u, & Moonchai K, 2022). “Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)” - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants COMMENTS: Noted with thanks. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. COMMENTS: No response was given to this suggestion. Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. A cross-sectional study is another project. We had to remove the sentence from this manuscript. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Alase, 2017).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” Author response: Thank you very much for your comments. We added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model Author response: Thanks for the interesting query. The Roy Adaptation Model was applied as the theoretical framework for this study. Results Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. COMMENTS: No response provided. No explanation is found in the paper. Author response: We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: “All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers.” Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - “Apply from Roy, 2011”? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. COMMENTS: No response provided Author response: Thank you very much. It is a typo. We removed it from the manuscript. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as “Level”. This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a “level” indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. COMMENTS: No response provided. Author response: Thank you for your comment. We intended to label the analysis results as “Level,” which starts with general data, structural understanding, and Theoretical interpretation. Please provide your idea to make this manuscript more straightforward. The sub-themes in Level 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within “Level 2: Structural understanding”, there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under “Level 2”? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? Author response: Thank you very much. All the themes that you mention are the sub-themes of level 2. Structural understanding, a major theme derived from content analysis, was evident across interviews and included stress, economic and social impact, social stigma, and the concept that bad luck occasionally brings good luck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Interests: I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by F1000Research, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. Close Report a concern Author Response 09 May 2025 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 09 May 2025 Author Response Reviewer’s comments: Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which ... Continue reading Reviewer’s comments: Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: We have strengthened the contextual description of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand by incorporating relevant references that document the psychological and social challenges faced by patients during this period. Specifically, we have cited studies that examine the impact of quarantine, fear, loneliness, and anxiety on individuals, as well as research addressing concerns about infecting family and community members. These references provide empirical support for our discussion and enhance the credibility of our findings. Furthermore, we have refined the narrative to ensure that the contextual background is presented with clarity and conviction. By integrating these references, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environment in which our study was conducted, thereby reinforcing the methodological integrity of our research. Reviewer’s comments 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. a. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." b. In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the justification for this study and establish the knowledge gap more clearly in the introduction parts. Reviewer’s comments: 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. Author response: We have revised the manuscript to clarify how the application of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) enhances understanding rather than limiting creativity or alternative perspectives. The revisions ensure that RAM is used as a guiding framework that supports qualitative inquiry without restricting the emergence of diverse themes and lived experiences. In the Theoretical Perspective section, we now explicitly discuss how RAM provides structure for interpreting psychosocial adaptation while maintaining flexibility in exploring participants' unique narratives. Rather than prescribing rigid categories, RAM serves as an interpretive lens that allows for thematic development and multidimensional analysis, ensuring that the phenomenological nature of the study remains intact. We have emphasized that our phenomenological-hermeneutic approach fosters open-ended exploration, allowing themes to emerge organically from participants’ lived experiences. The use of RAM helps categorize adaptation processes without stifling creativity, ensuring that alternative perspectives, such as unexpected benefits and resilience factors, are fully captured. Reviewer’s comments: 4. Methods a. In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. ​​​​​​​Author response: We have updated the manuscript to provide a detailed explanation of the development of interview questions, including specific examples, and their foundation in both existing literature and the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) within the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: b.This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. ​​​​​​​Author response: We are providing a more detailed description of the specific questions asked during the interviews. While we may not be able to share the exact questions due to confidentiality concerns, we have included a sample of the questions in the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: c. "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants ​​​​​​​Author response: We have added the following information regarding ethical approval: "This project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Thammasat University (Science), Thailand (COA No. 119/2563). The research adhered to ethical standards established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Helsinki Declaration (2000). Prior to obtaining informed consent, all participants were informed about the study's objectives, the safe protection of their data, and the associated risks and benefits. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection commenced. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and the anonymity of participants was maintained throughout the research process. Confidentiality strategies were implemented, and identifying codes were assigned to the initial data collected from observations, interviews, and documentary analyses; access to this data was restricted to the research team. The data were securely stored on the principal investigator's password-protected computer until the conclusion of the study. After 24 months, all files were permanently deleted using “Secure Deletion Shredder,” a protected deletion program for Windows." Reviewer’s comments: d. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. Author response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment and would like to apologize for any confusion caused. We would like to clarify that this study is purely qualitative and does not utilize a cross-sectional design. The mention of "cross-sectional" was an unintentional typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: e.Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework ( Smith & Osborn, 2015 ; Alase, 2017 ).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” ​​​​​​​Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback and have revised the manuscript to provide a detailed of Trustworthiness on the Trustworthiness parts. Reviewer’s comments: 5. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale behind our data analysis approach. To address this, we have incorporated the following explanation: Our analytical framework was structured into progressive levels to capture the evolving adaptation trajectory of participants. Level 1 focused on self-perception and emotional responses, serving as the foundation for subsequent thematic development. Level 2 explored structural influences, such as stigma and social support, which shaped individual coping strategies. Finally, Level 3 integrated adaptation strategies within the broader theoretical framework, ensuring a multidimensional perspective without imposing hierarchical constraints. Reviewer’s comments: 6. Results a. Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “ Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your acknowledgment. We appreciate your review and are glad the clarification helps improve the understanding of our study. Reviewer’s comments: b. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our findings. At Level 1 analysis, self-understanding captures participants' perceptions of their experiences with COVID-19. Respondents reported psychological distress—stress, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and impaired decision-making—exacerbated by financial instability and job loss. Social support played a critical role in moderating emotional strain, with individuals who engaged support systems demonstrating greater psychological stability. Self-understanding evolved throughout their adaptation process. Some participants recognized personal resilience, while others struggled with stigma and reintegration. By analyzing this dimension, our study highlights the need for psychosocial interventions that foster emotional resilience and facilitate long-term recovery. We hope this addresses your concerns and strengthens the discussion in our manuscript. Reviewer’s comments: c. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. Author response: Thank you for your review. "Apply from Roy, 2011" was a typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: d. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. The use of "Level" in our analysis aligns with the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, which emphasizes a layered, progressive interpretation of participants' lived experiences. The "Level" structure moves from descriptive self-understanding (Level 1) to thematic development (Level 2) and theoretical interpretation (Level 3). This approach ensures a deeper exploration of adaptation processes while maintaining methodological rigor. It does not imply a rigid hierarchy but reflects a structured analytical progression. Reviewer’s comments: e. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the organization of sub-themes within "Level 2: Structural Understanding." All sub-themes—Stress, Economic and Social Impact, Social Stigma, Social Support, and Sometimes, Bad Luck Brings Good Luck—are of the same level within Level 2. They represent distinct dimensions of participants’ experiences and adaptation during the pandemic and were identified through thematic analysis. The hierarchical structure of the results is based on the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, where Level 1 focuses on individual self-understanding, Level 2 develops structural themes from shared experiences, and Level 3 applies theoretical interpretation using the Roy Adaptation Model. Within Level 2, the sub-themes were derived from content analysis and do not represent further subdivisions but rather interconnected aspects of adaptation processes. ------------------------------------- Reviewer’s comments: Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: We have strengthened the contextual description of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand by incorporating relevant references that document the psychological and social challenges faced by patients during this period. Specifically, we have cited studies that examine the impact of quarantine, fear, loneliness, and anxiety on individuals, as well as research addressing concerns about infecting family and community members. These references provide empirical support for our discussion and enhance the credibility of our findings. Furthermore, we have refined the narrative to ensure that the contextual background is presented with clarity and conviction. By integrating these references, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environment in which our study was conducted, thereby reinforcing the methodological integrity of our research. Reviewer’s comments 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. a. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." b. In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the justification for this study and establish the knowledge gap more clearly in the introduction parts. Reviewer’s comments: 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. Author response: We have revised the manuscript to clarify how the application of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) enhances understanding rather than limiting creativity or alternative perspectives. The revisions ensure that RAM is used as a guiding framework that supports qualitative inquiry without restricting the emergence of diverse themes and lived experiences. In the Theoretical Perspective section, we now explicitly discuss how RAM provides structure for interpreting psychosocial adaptation while maintaining flexibility in exploring participants' unique narratives. Rather than prescribing rigid categories, RAM serves as an interpretive lens that allows for thematic development and multidimensional analysis, ensuring that the phenomenological nature of the study remains intact. We have emphasized that our phenomenological-hermeneutic approach fosters open-ended exploration, allowing themes to emerge organically from participants’ lived experiences. The use of RAM helps categorize adaptation processes without stifling creativity, ensuring that alternative perspectives, such as unexpected benefits and resilience factors, are fully captured. Reviewer’s comments: 4. Methods a. In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. ​​​​​​​Author response: We have updated the manuscript to provide a detailed explanation of the development of interview questions, including specific examples, and their foundation in both existing literature and the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) within the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: b.This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. ​​​​​​​Author response: We are providing a more detailed description of the specific questions asked during the interviews. While we may not be able to share the exact questions due to confidentiality concerns, we have included a sample of the questions in the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: c. "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants ​​​​​​​Author response: We have added the following information regarding ethical approval: "This project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Thammasat University (Science), Thailand (COA No. 119/2563). The research adhered to ethical standards established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Helsinki Declaration (2000). Prior to obtaining informed consent, all participants were informed about the study's objectives, the safe protection of their data, and the associated risks and benefits. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection commenced. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and the anonymity of participants was maintained throughout the research process. Confidentiality strategies were implemented, and identifying codes were assigned to the initial data collected from observations, interviews, and documentary analyses; access to this data was restricted to the research team. The data were securely stored on the principal investigator's password-protected computer until the conclusion of the study. After 24 months, all files were permanently deleted using “Secure Deletion Shredder,” a protected deletion program for Windows." Reviewer’s comments: d. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. Author response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment and would like to apologize for any confusion caused. We would like to clarify that this study is purely qualitative and does not utilize a cross-sectional design. The mention of "cross-sectional" was an unintentional typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: e.Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework ( Smith & Osborn, 2015 ; Alase, 2017 ).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” ​​​​​​​Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback and have revised the manuscript to provide a detailed of Trustworthiness on the Trustworthiness parts. Reviewer’s comments: 5. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale behind our data analysis approach. To address this, we have incorporated the following explanation: Our analytical framework was structured into progressive levels to capture the evolving adaptation trajectory of participants. Level 1 focused on self-perception and emotional responses, serving as the foundation for subsequent thematic development. Level 2 explored structural influences, such as stigma and social support, which shaped individual coping strategies. Finally, Level 3 integrated adaptation strategies within the broader theoretical framework, ensuring a multidimensional perspective without imposing hierarchical constraints. Reviewer’s comments: 6. Results a. Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “ Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your acknowledgment. We appreciate your review and are glad the clarification helps improve the understanding of our study. Reviewer’s comments: b. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our findings. At Level 1 analysis, self-understanding captures participants' perceptions of their experiences with COVID-19. Respondents reported psychological distress—stress, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and impaired decision-making—exacerbated by financial instability and job loss. Social support played a critical role in moderating emotional strain, with individuals who engaged support systems demonstrating greater psychological stability. Self-understanding evolved throughout their adaptation process. Some participants recognized personal resilience, while others struggled with stigma and reintegration. By analyzing this dimension, our study highlights the need for psychosocial interventions that foster emotional resilience and facilitate long-term recovery. We hope this addresses your concerns and strengthens the discussion in our manuscript. Reviewer’s comments: c. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. Author response: Thank you for your review. "Apply from Roy, 2011" was a typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: d. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. The use of "Level" in our analysis aligns with the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, which emphasizes a layered, progressive interpretation of participants' lived experiences. The "Level" structure moves from descriptive self-understanding (Level 1) to thematic development (Level 2) and theoretical interpretation (Level 3). This approach ensures a deeper exploration of adaptation processes while maintaining methodological rigor. It does not imply a rigid hierarchy but reflects a structured analytical progression. Reviewer’s comments: e. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the organization of sub-themes within "Level 2: Structural Understanding." All sub-themes—Stress, Economic and Social Impact, Social Stigma, Social Support, and Sometimes, Bad Luck Brings Good Luck—are of the same level within Level 2. They represent distinct dimensions of participants’ experiences and adaptation during the pandemic and were identified through thematic analysis. The hierarchical structure of the results is based on the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, where Level 1 focuses on individual self-understanding, Level 2 develops structural themes from shared experiences, and Level 3 applies theoretical interpretation using the Roy Adaptation Model. Within Level 2, the sub-themes were derived from content analysis and do not represent further subdivisions but rather interconnected aspects of adaptation processes. ------------------------------------- Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 29 Jan 2024 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 29 Jan 2024 Author Response We appreciate your thorough evaluation of our work, strengthening our quality and clarity. We have carefully reviewed the comments. As suggested, we would like to provide a point-by-point response. We ... Continue reading We appreciate your thorough evaluation of our work, strengthening our quality and clarity. We have carefully reviewed the comments. As suggested, we would like to provide a point-by-point response. We are confident that with your support, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. If you have any more suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are eager to work collaboratively to ensure the success of our manuscript. 1. Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based.COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: Thank you very much. We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)”. References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - “Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support.” In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for pointing out the important issue. According to your comment, we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population’s needs and problems.” Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research.COMMENTS: There was no response from the authors on this feedback. Author response: We apologize for the short description of the manuscript’s last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. “The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study’s theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual’s experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual’s attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person’s internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation.” Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 4.Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - “The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018; Graor & Knapik, 2013; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014).” COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. Author response: Thank you very much. The questions were shared in English version n Figshare: Until the Dawn: The Impact of COVID-19, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21369810 ( Imkome E-u, & Moonchai K, 2022). “Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)” - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants COMMENTS: Noted with thanks. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. COMMENTS: No response was given to this suggestion. Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. A cross-sectional study is another project. We had to remove the sentence from this manuscript. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Alase, 2017).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” Author response: Thank you very much for your comments. We added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model Author response: Thanks for the interesting query. The Roy Adaptation Model was applied as the theoretical framework for this study. Results Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. COMMENTS: No response provided. No explanation is found in the paper. Author response: We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: “All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers.” Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - “Apply from Roy, 2011”? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. COMMENTS: No response provided Author response: Thank you very much. It is a typo. We removed it from the manuscript. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as “Level”. This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a “level” indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. COMMENTS: No response provided. Author response: Thank you for your comment. We intended to label the analysis results as “Level,” which starts with general data, structural understanding, and Theoretical interpretation. Please provide your idea to make this manuscript more straightforward. The sub-themes in Level 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within “Level 2: Structural understanding”, there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under “Level 2”? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? Author response: Thank you very much. All the themes that you mention are the sub-themes of level 2. Structural understanding, a major theme derived from content analysis, was evident across interviews and included stress, economic and social impact, social stigma, and the concept that bad luck occasionally brings good luck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We appreciate your thorough evaluation of our work, strengthening our quality and clarity. We have carefully reviewed the comments. As suggested, we would like to provide a point-by-point response. We are confident that with your support, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. If you have any more suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are eager to work collaboratively to ensure the success of our manuscript. 1. Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based.COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: Thank you very much. We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)”. References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - “Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support.” In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for pointing out the important issue. According to your comment, we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population’s needs and problems.” Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research.COMMENTS: There was no response from the authors on this feedback. Author response: We apologize for the short description of the manuscript’s last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. “The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study’s theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual’s experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual’s attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person’s internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation.” Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 4.Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - “The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018; Graor & Knapik, 2013; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014).” COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. Author response: Thank you very much. The questions were shared in English version n Figshare: Until the Dawn: The Impact of COVID-19, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21369810 ( Imkome E-u, & Moonchai K, 2022). “Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)” - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants COMMENTS: Noted with thanks. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. COMMENTS: No response was given to this suggestion. Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. A cross-sectional study is another project. We had to remove the sentence from this manuscript. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Alase, 2017).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” Author response: Thank you very much for your comments. We added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model Author response: Thanks for the interesting query. The Roy Adaptation Model was applied as the theoretical framework for this study. Results Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. COMMENTS: No response provided. No explanation is found in the paper. Author response: We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: “All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers.” Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - “Apply from Roy, 2011”? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. COMMENTS: No response provided Author response: Thank you very much. It is a typo. We removed it from the manuscript. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as “Level”. This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a “level” indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. COMMENTS: No response provided. Author response: Thank you for your comment. We intended to label the analysis results as “Level,” which starts with general data, structural understanding, and Theoretical interpretation. Please provide your idea to make this manuscript more straightforward. The sub-themes in Level 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within “Level 2: Structural understanding”, there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under “Level 2”? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? Author response: Thank you very much. All the themes that you mention are the sub-themes of level 2. Structural understanding, a major theme derived from content analysis, was evident across interviews and included stress, economic and social impact, social stigma, and the concept that bad luck occasionally brings good luck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Interests: I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by F1000Research, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. Close Report a concern Author Response 09 May 2025 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 09 May 2025 Author Response Reviewer’s comments: Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which ... Continue reading Reviewer’s comments: Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: We have strengthened the contextual description of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand by incorporating relevant references that document the psychological and social challenges faced by patients during this period. Specifically, we have cited studies that examine the impact of quarantine, fear, loneliness, and anxiety on individuals, as well as research addressing concerns about infecting family and community members. These references provide empirical support for our discussion and enhance the credibility of our findings. Furthermore, we have refined the narrative to ensure that the contextual background is presented with clarity and conviction. By integrating these references, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environment in which our study was conducted, thereby reinforcing the methodological integrity of our research. Reviewer’s comments 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. a. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." b. In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the justification for this study and establish the knowledge gap more clearly in the introduction parts. Reviewer’s comments: 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. Author response: We have revised the manuscript to clarify how the application of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) enhances understanding rather than limiting creativity or alternative perspectives. The revisions ensure that RAM is used as a guiding framework that supports qualitative inquiry without restricting the emergence of diverse themes and lived experiences. In the Theoretical Perspective section, we now explicitly discuss how RAM provides structure for interpreting psychosocial adaptation while maintaining flexibility in exploring participants' unique narratives. Rather than prescribing rigid categories, RAM serves as an interpretive lens that allows for thematic development and multidimensional analysis, ensuring that the phenomenological nature of the study remains intact. We have emphasized that our phenomenological-hermeneutic approach fosters open-ended exploration, allowing themes to emerge organically from participants’ lived experiences. The use of RAM helps categorize adaptation processes without stifling creativity, ensuring that alternative perspectives, such as unexpected benefits and resilience factors, are fully captured. Reviewer’s comments: 4. Methods a. In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. ​​​​​​​Author response: We have updated the manuscript to provide a detailed explanation of the development of interview questions, including specific examples, and their foundation in both existing literature and the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) within the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: b.This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. ​​​​​​​Author response: We are providing a more detailed description of the specific questions asked during the interviews. While we may not be able to share the exact questions due to confidentiality concerns, we have included a sample of the questions in the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: c. "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants ​​​​​​​Author response: We have added the following information regarding ethical approval: "This project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Thammasat University (Science), Thailand (COA No. 119/2563). The research adhered to ethical standards established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Helsinki Declaration (2000). Prior to obtaining informed consent, all participants were informed about the study's objectives, the safe protection of their data, and the associated risks and benefits. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection commenced. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and the anonymity of participants was maintained throughout the research process. Confidentiality strategies were implemented, and identifying codes were assigned to the initial data collected from observations, interviews, and documentary analyses; access to this data was restricted to the research team. The data were securely stored on the principal investigator's password-protected computer until the conclusion of the study. After 24 months, all files were permanently deleted using “Secure Deletion Shredder,” a protected deletion program for Windows." Reviewer’s comments: d. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. Author response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment and would like to apologize for any confusion caused. We would like to clarify that this study is purely qualitative and does not utilize a cross-sectional design. The mention of "cross-sectional" was an unintentional typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: e.Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework ( Smith & Osborn, 2015 ; Alase, 2017 ).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” ​​​​​​​Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback and have revised the manuscript to provide a detailed of Trustworthiness on the Trustworthiness parts. Reviewer’s comments: 5. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale behind our data analysis approach. To address this, we have incorporated the following explanation: Our analytical framework was structured into progressive levels to capture the evolving adaptation trajectory of participants. Level 1 focused on self-perception and emotional responses, serving as the foundation for subsequent thematic development. Level 2 explored structural influences, such as stigma and social support, which shaped individual coping strategies. Finally, Level 3 integrated adaptation strategies within the broader theoretical framework, ensuring a multidimensional perspective without imposing hierarchical constraints. Reviewer’s comments: 6. Results a. Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “ Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your acknowledgment. We appreciate your review and are glad the clarification helps improve the understanding of our study. Reviewer’s comments: b. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our findings. At Level 1 analysis, self-understanding captures participants' perceptions of their experiences with COVID-19. Respondents reported psychological distress—stress, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and impaired decision-making—exacerbated by financial instability and job loss. Social support played a critical role in moderating emotional strain, with individuals who engaged support systems demonstrating greater psychological stability. Self-understanding evolved throughout their adaptation process. Some participants recognized personal resilience, while others struggled with stigma and reintegration. By analyzing this dimension, our study highlights the need for psychosocial interventions that foster emotional resilience and facilitate long-term recovery. We hope this addresses your concerns and strengthens the discussion in our manuscript. Reviewer’s comments: c. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. Author response: Thank you for your review. "Apply from Roy, 2011" was a typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: d. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. The use of "Level" in our analysis aligns with the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, which emphasizes a layered, progressive interpretation of participants' lived experiences. The "Level" structure moves from descriptive self-understanding (Level 1) to thematic development (Level 2) and theoretical interpretation (Level 3). This approach ensures a deeper exploration of adaptation processes while maintaining methodological rigor. It does not imply a rigid hierarchy but reflects a structured analytical progression. Reviewer’s comments: e. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the organization of sub-themes within "Level 2: Structural Understanding." All sub-themes—Stress, Economic and Social Impact, Social Stigma, Social Support, and Sometimes, Bad Luck Brings Good Luck—are of the same level within Level 2. They represent distinct dimensions of participants’ experiences and adaptation during the pandemic and were identified through thematic analysis. The hierarchical structure of the results is based on the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, where Level 1 focuses on individual self-understanding, Level 2 develops structural themes from shared experiences, and Level 3 applies theoretical interpretation using the Roy Adaptation Model. Within Level 2, the sub-themes were derived from content analysis and do not represent further subdivisions but rather interconnected aspects of adaptation processes. ------------------------------------- Reviewer’s comments: Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: We have strengthened the contextual description of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand by incorporating relevant references that document the psychological and social challenges faced by patients during this period. Specifically, we have cited studies that examine the impact of quarantine, fear, loneliness, and anxiety on individuals, as well as research addressing concerns about infecting family and community members. These references provide empirical support for our discussion and enhance the credibility of our findings. Furthermore, we have refined the narrative to ensure that the contextual background is presented with clarity and conviction. By integrating these references, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environment in which our study was conducted, thereby reinforcing the methodological integrity of our research. Reviewer’s comments 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. a. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." b. In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the justification for this study and establish the knowledge gap more clearly in the introduction parts. Reviewer’s comments: 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. Author response: We have revised the manuscript to clarify how the application of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) enhances understanding rather than limiting creativity or alternative perspectives. The revisions ensure that RAM is used as a guiding framework that supports qualitative inquiry without restricting the emergence of diverse themes and lived experiences. In the Theoretical Perspective section, we now explicitly discuss how RAM provides structure for interpreting psychosocial adaptation while maintaining flexibility in exploring participants' unique narratives. Rather than prescribing rigid categories, RAM serves as an interpretive lens that allows for thematic development and multidimensional analysis, ensuring that the phenomenological nature of the study remains intact. We have emphasized that our phenomenological-hermeneutic approach fosters open-ended exploration, allowing themes to emerge organically from participants’ lived experiences. The use of RAM helps categorize adaptation processes without stifling creativity, ensuring that alternative perspectives, such as unexpected benefits and resilience factors, are fully captured. Reviewer’s comments: 4. Methods a. In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. ​​​​​​​Author response: We have updated the manuscript to provide a detailed explanation of the development of interview questions, including specific examples, and their foundation in both existing literature and the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) within the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: b.This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. ​​​​​​​Author response: We are providing a more detailed description of the specific questions asked during the interviews. While we may not be able to share the exact questions due to confidentiality concerns, we have included a sample of the questions in the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: c. "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants ​​​​​​​Author response: We have added the following information regarding ethical approval: "This project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Thammasat University (Science), Thailand (COA No. 119/2563). The research adhered to ethical standards established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Helsinki Declaration (2000). Prior to obtaining informed consent, all participants were informed about the study's objectives, the safe protection of their data, and the associated risks and benefits. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection commenced. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and the anonymity of participants was maintained throughout the research process. Confidentiality strategies were implemented, and identifying codes were assigned to the initial data collected from observations, interviews, and documentary analyses; access to this data was restricted to the research team. The data were securely stored on the principal investigator's password-protected computer until the conclusion of the study. After 24 months, all files were permanently deleted using “Secure Deletion Shredder,” a protected deletion program for Windows." Reviewer’s comments: d. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. Author response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment and would like to apologize for any confusion caused. We would like to clarify that this study is purely qualitative and does not utilize a cross-sectional design. The mention of "cross-sectional" was an unintentional typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: e.Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework ( Smith & Osborn, 2015 ; Alase, 2017 ).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” ​​​​​​​Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback and have revised the manuscript to provide a detailed of Trustworthiness on the Trustworthiness parts. Reviewer’s comments: 5. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale behind our data analysis approach. To address this, we have incorporated the following explanation: Our analytical framework was structured into progressive levels to capture the evolving adaptation trajectory of participants. Level 1 focused on self-perception and emotional responses, serving as the foundation for subsequent thematic development. Level 2 explored structural influences, such as stigma and social support, which shaped individual coping strategies. Finally, Level 3 integrated adaptation strategies within the broader theoretical framework, ensuring a multidimensional perspective without imposing hierarchical constraints. Reviewer’s comments: 6. Results a. Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “ Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your acknowledgment. We appreciate your review and are glad the clarification helps improve the understanding of our study. Reviewer’s comments: b. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our findings. At Level 1 analysis, self-understanding captures participants' perceptions of their experiences with COVID-19. Respondents reported psychological distress—stress, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and impaired decision-making—exacerbated by financial instability and job loss. Social support played a critical role in moderating emotional strain, with individuals who engaged support systems demonstrating greater psychological stability. Self-understanding evolved throughout their adaptation process. Some participants recognized personal resilience, while others struggled with stigma and reintegration. By analyzing this dimension, our study highlights the need for psychosocial interventions that foster emotional resilience and facilitate long-term recovery. We hope this addresses your concerns and strengthens the discussion in our manuscript. Reviewer’s comments: c. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. Author response: Thank you for your review. "Apply from Roy, 2011" was a typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: d. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. The use of "Level" in our analysis aligns with the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, which emphasizes a layered, progressive interpretation of participants' lived experiences. The "Level" structure moves from descriptive self-understanding (Level 1) to thematic development (Level 2) and theoretical interpretation (Level 3). This approach ensures a deeper exploration of adaptation processes while maintaining methodological rigor. It does not imply a rigid hierarchy but reflects a structured analytical progression. Reviewer’s comments: e. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the organization of sub-themes within "Level 2: Structural Understanding." All sub-themes—Stress, Economic and Social Impact, Social Stigma, Social Support, and Sometimes, Bad Luck Brings Good Luck—are of the same level within Level 2. They represent distinct dimensions of participants’ experiences and adaptation during the pandemic and were identified through thematic analysis. The hierarchical structure of the results is based on the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, where Level 1 focuses on individual self-understanding, Level 2 develops structural themes from shared experiences, and Level 3 applies theoretical interpretation using the Roy Adaptation Model. Within Level 2, the sub-themes were derived from content analysis and do not represent further subdivisions but rather interconnected aspects of adaptation processes. ------------------------------------- Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Srichannil C. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155443.r209257 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v2#referee-response-209257 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Oct 2023 Chomphunut Srichannil , Department of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155443.r209257 In this revised article, more information about the research procedures have been provided but it appears that this research still lacks methodological consistency and accuracy. It remains unclear what methodology has actually been used in this research. Although IPA (Interpretative ... Continue reading READ ALL In this revised article, more information about the research procedures have been provided but it appears that this research still lacks methodological consistency and accuracy. It remains unclear what methodology has actually been used in this research. Although IPA (Interpretative phenomenological analysis) was added in this version, the data analysis, quality criteria, as well as the reporting of research findings do not align with IPA. Due to the significant lack of methodological rigor of this paper, it is not approved. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Counseling Psychology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Srichannil C. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155443.r209257 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v2#referee-response-209257 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 29 Jan 2024 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 29 Jan 2024 Author Response We want to thank you for your insightful comment. We hope that with your comments, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. We provide a response below. ... Continue reading We want to thank you for your insightful comment. We hope that with your comments, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. We provide a response below. Introduction parts 1.1 We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: "During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)". References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 1.2 we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. "Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients' lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population's needs and problems." Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 2. Theoretical framework We apologize for the short description of the manuscript's last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. "The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study's theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual's experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual's attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person's internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation." Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 3. MethodsWe added more detail of the Roy Adaptation Model in the theoretical framework. Stressful life events, adaptation, and emotions were also mentioned. Additionally, we added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. 6. Results We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: "All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers." We want to thank you for your insightful comment. We hope that with your comments, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. We provide a response below. Introduction parts 1.1 We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: "During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)". References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 1.2 we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. "Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients' lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population's needs and problems." Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 2. Theoretical framework We apologize for the short description of the manuscript's last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. "The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study's theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual's experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual's attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person's internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation." Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 3. MethodsWe added more detail of the Roy Adaptation Model in the theoretical framework. Stressful life events, adaptation, and emotions were also mentioned. Additionally, we added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. 6. Results We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: "All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers." Competing Interests: I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by F1000Resesarch, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. Close Report a concern Author Response 06 May 2025 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 06 May 2025 Author Response Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recognize the importance of methodological consistency in qualitative research. In ... Continue reading Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recognize the importance of methodological consistency in qualitative research. In this revised version, we have taken additional steps to clarify the methodology used in our study. Specifically, we employed a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach to analyze the lived experiences of our participants. Our data analysis adhered to Smith and Osborn's (2015) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework. This process involved an iterative cycle of coding that progressed from descriptive to interpretative engagement, ensuring that emergent themes were grounded in participants' lived experiences. We employed bracketing techniques to minimize researcher bias and utilized double-coding verification to enhance reliability. The initial codes were generated based on descriptive responses, then refined through interpretative layers to derive emergent themes, ensuring alignment with IPA principles. Regarding methodological rigor, we have provided more explicit details on the data analysis process, including the use of COREQ guidelines to enhance transparency. Additionally, we have improved the explanation of quality criteria and ensured that our approach maintains consistency in its application. Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recognize the importance of methodological consistency in qualitative research. In this revised version, we have taken additional steps to clarify the methodology used in our study. Specifically, we employed a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach to analyze the lived experiences of our participants. Our data analysis adhered to Smith and Osborn's (2015) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework. This process involved an iterative cycle of coding that progressed from descriptive to interpretative engagement, ensuring that emergent themes were grounded in participants' lived experiences. We employed bracketing techniques to minimize researcher bias and utilized double-coding verification to enhance reliability. The initial codes were generated based on descriptive responses, then refined through interpretative layers to derive emergent themes, ensuring alignment with IPA principles. Regarding methodological rigor, we have provided more explicit details on the data analysis process, including the use of COREQ guidelines to enhance transparency. Additionally, we have improved the explanation of quality criteria and ensured that our approach maintains consistency in its application. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 29 Jan 2024 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 29 Jan 2024 Author Response We want to thank you for your insightful comment. We hope that with your comments, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. We provide a response below. ... Continue reading We want to thank you for your insightful comment. We hope that with your comments, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. We provide a response below. Introduction parts 1.1 We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: "During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)". References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 1.2 we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. "Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients' lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population's needs and problems." Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 2. Theoretical framework We apologize for the short description of the manuscript's last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. "The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study's theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual's experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual's attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person's internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation." Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 3. MethodsWe added more detail of the Roy Adaptation Model in the theoretical framework. Stressful life events, adaptation, and emotions were also mentioned. Additionally, we added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. 6. Results We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: "All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers." We want to thank you for your insightful comment. We hope that with your comments, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. We provide a response below. Introduction parts 1.1 We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: "During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)". References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 1.2 we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. "Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients' lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population's needs and problems." Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 2. Theoretical framework We apologize for the short description of the manuscript's last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. "The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study's theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual's experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual's attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person's internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation." Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 3. MethodsWe added more detail of the Roy Adaptation Model in the theoretical framework. Stressful life events, adaptation, and emotions were also mentioned. Additionally, we added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. 6. Results We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: "All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers." Competing Interests: I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by F1000Resesarch, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. Close Report a concern Author Response 06 May 2025 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 06 May 2025 Author Response Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recognize the importance of methodological consistency in qualitative research. In ... Continue reading Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recognize the importance of methodological consistency in qualitative research. In this revised version, we have taken additional steps to clarify the methodology used in our study. Specifically, we employed a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach to analyze the lived experiences of our participants. Our data analysis adhered to Smith and Osborn's (2015) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework. This process involved an iterative cycle of coding that progressed from descriptive to interpretative engagement, ensuring that emergent themes were grounded in participants' lived experiences. We employed bracketing techniques to minimize researcher bias and utilized double-coding verification to enhance reliability. The initial codes were generated based on descriptive responses, then refined through interpretative layers to derive emergent themes, ensuring alignment with IPA principles. Regarding methodological rigor, we have provided more explicit details on the data analysis process, including the use of COREQ guidelines to enhance transparency. Additionally, we have improved the explanation of quality criteria and ensured that our approach maintains consistency in its application. Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recognize the importance of methodological consistency in qualitative research. In this revised version, we have taken additional steps to clarify the methodology used in our study. Specifically, we employed a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach to analyze the lived experiences of our participants. Our data analysis adhered to Smith and Osborn's (2015) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework. This process involved an iterative cycle of coding that progressed from descriptive to interpretative engagement, ensuring that emergent themes were grounded in participants' lived experiences. We employed bracketing techniques to minimize researcher bias and utilized double-coding verification to enhance reliability. The initial codes were generated based on descriptive responses, then refined through interpretative layers to derive emergent themes, ensuring alignment with IPA principles. Regarding methodological rigor, we have provided more explicit details on the data analysis process, including the use of COREQ guidelines to enhance transparency. Additionally, we have improved the explanation of quality criteria and ensured that our approach maintains consistency in its application. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 22 Dec 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kin CP. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140098.r193387 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v1#referee-response-193387 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 07 Aug 2023 Cheah Phaik Kin , Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140098.r193387 Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. The knowledge ... Continue reading READ ALL Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. Results Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? Overall, while the purpose of this paper is rationale and very necessary, this paper lacks the scientific rigour. I would recommend a resubmission. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Public Health, education, policing I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kin CP. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140098.r193387 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v1#referee-response-193387 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 25 Sep 2023 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 25 Sep 2023 Author Response This version has addressed reviewer 2's comments by: Adding the statement of the situation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, the gap of knowledge was ... Continue reading This version has addressed reviewer 2's comments by: Adding the statement of the situation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, the gap of knowledge was address and citation Adding an explanation of how the interview questions were developed. rephrased the statement to make it clearer on the part of procedure Added the state of the Ethics Review Committee’s institution Trustworthiness was describing The IPA analysis methods were employed Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. This version has addressed reviewer 2's comments by: Adding the statement of the situation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, the gap of knowledge was address and citation Adding an explanation of how the interview questions were developed. rephrased the statement to make it clearer on the part of procedure Added the state of the Ethics Review Committee’s institution Trustworthiness was describing The IPA analysis methods were employed Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 25 Sep 2023 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 25 Sep 2023 Author Response This version has addressed reviewer 2's comments by: Adding the statement of the situation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, the gap of knowledge was ... Continue reading This version has addressed reviewer 2's comments by: Adding the statement of the situation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, the gap of knowledge was address and citation Adding an explanation of how the interview questions were developed. rephrased the statement to make it clearer on the part of procedure Added the state of the Ethics Review Committee’s institution Trustworthiness was describing The IPA analysis methods were employed Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. This version has addressed reviewer 2's comments by: Adding the statement of the situation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, the gap of knowledge was address and citation Adding an explanation of how the interview questions were developed. rephrased the statement to make it clearer on the part of procedure Added the state of the Ethics Review Committee’s institution Trustworthiness was describing The IPA analysis methods were employed Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Srichannil C. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140098.r175113 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v1#referee-response-175113 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Jun 2023 Chomphunut Srichannil , Department of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140098.r175113 This study used online interviews to explore the lived experiences of 15 COVID-19 survivors, focusing on the impact of COVID-19. Data Collection Data saturation was mentioned, but it is not clear how saturation was ... Continue reading READ ALL This study used online interviews to explore the lived experiences of 15 COVID-19 survivors, focusing on the impact of COVID-19. Data Collection Data saturation was mentioned, but it is not clear how saturation was reached. Indeed, the question should also be extended to “Is data saturation required for using phenomenological-hermeneutic approach?” In terms of recording online video interviews, there should be more information regarding how the issues of confidentiality, data storage, and data safety have been addressed. Data Analysis There is an inconsistency in mentioning the use of the methods for analyzing the data in the abstract and other sections. Specifically, in the abstract, the authors stated that “using a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach. We used the thematic analysis technique to analyze the data”. (The use of “thematic analysis technique” could also be confused with Thematic Analysis, a range of methods for qualitative data analysis). In the data analysis section, only the phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was stated (Here a citation to “Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014” was claimed, but this was not on the reference list). However, content analysis was also mentioned in the result section when the authors wrote “Major themes derived from content analysis were evident across interviews”. The question is thus what is the data analysis method used in the study? Additionally, the word “structural understanding” appeared to be redundant in the second and third levels. Please check for accuracy. Results It appears that the results were fairly descriptive, mostly done by presenting (translated) quotes from the participants. With the use of the phenomenological-hermeneutic approach, interpretation should be more widely incorporated in the results. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Counseling Psychology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Srichannil C. Reviewer Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140098.r175113 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v1#referee-response-175113 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 25 Sep 2023 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 25 Sep 2023 Author Response To respond to the reviewer's comments on Data Collection. We added the sentence “the saturation was reached when no additional data were found” on the part of data collection. ... Continue reading To respond to the reviewer's comments on Data Collection. We added the sentence “the saturation was reached when no additional data were found” on the part of data collection. Additionally, we had to add more information regarding how the issues of confidentiality, data storage, and data safety have been addressed on the part of consent. We have updated Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014 as the reference, and The IPA analysis methods were added. We removed the redundant “structural understanding” in the second and third levels for the results and corrected it for the data analysis part. To respond to the reviewer's comments on Data Collection. We added the sentence “the saturation was reached when no additional data were found” on the part of data collection. Additionally, we had to add more information regarding how the issues of confidentiality, data storage, and data safety have been addressed on the part of consent. We have updated Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014 as the reference, and The IPA analysis methods were added. We removed the redundant “structural understanding” in the second and third levels for the results and corrected it for the data analysis part. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 25 Sep 2023 Ek-uma Imkome , mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand 25 Sep 2023 Author Response To respond to the reviewer's comments on Data Collection. We added the sentence “the saturation was reached when no additional data were found” on the part of data collection. ... Continue reading To respond to the reviewer's comments on Data Collection. We added the sentence “the saturation was reached when no additional data were found” on the part of data collection. Additionally, we had to add more information regarding how the issues of confidentiality, data storage, and data safety have been addressed on the part of consent. We have updated Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014 as the reference, and The IPA analysis methods were added. We removed the redundant “structural understanding” in the second and third levels for the results and corrected it for the data analysis part. To respond to the reviewer's comments on Data Collection. We added the sentence “the saturation was reached when no additional data were found” on the part of data collection. Additionally, we had to add more information regarding how the issues of confidentiality, data storage, and data safety have been addressed on the part of consent. We have updated Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014 as the reference, and The IPA analysis methods were added. We removed the redundant “structural understanding” in the second and third levels for the results and corrected it for the data analysis part. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 6 VERSION 6 PUBLISHED 22 Dec 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 6 (revision) 07 Oct 25 Version 5 (revision) 25 Jun 25 read Version 4 (revision) 06 May 25 read read Version 3 (revision) 29 Jan 24 Version 2 (revision) 25 Sep 23 read read Version 1 22 Dec 22 read read Chomphunut Srichannil , Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Cheah Phaik Kin , Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia Jyoti Sharma , Galgotias University (Ringgold ID: 357911), Greater Noida, India; Galgotias University, Greater Noida, India Mohammad Sidiq , Galgotias University, Greater Noida, India; Tishk International University, Erbil, Iraq Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sidiq M et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 17 Sep 2025 | for Version 5 Jyoti Sharma , Physiotherapy, School of Allied Health Sciences, Galgotias University (Ringgold ID: 357911), Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India; Physiotherapy, SAHS, Galgotias University, Greater Noida, India Mohammad Sidiq , Galgotias University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India; Physiotherapy, School of Applied Medical Sciences, Tishk International University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sidiq M et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Major Points of Evaluation 1. Is the work presented clearly and accurately, and does it cite the current literature? Partly. - The form of the manuscript is generally good writing and organization, although the methodological descriptions differ across different versions (references to 'phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,' 'content analysis,' 'thematic analysis,' and IPA). This lack of consistency is confusing regarding the analytic framework. - The introduction and discussion, relevant literature, including Thai studies, and international qualitative research are mentioned, but the motivation for the knowledge gap is not very strongly justified. There are already a number of qualitative studies on the Thai and regional context of provisions of healthcare for people who have contracted the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Recommendation: The authors should take care of methodological consistency by being clear in their message that IPA is the only analytical framework. They should also refine the logic for novelty in that their research must stand in the context of existing Thai and Southeast Asian faults. 2. Is the study design appropriate? Is the work technically sound? Partly. - The use of IPA can be suitable to have lived experiences explored. However, technical soundness is undermined by the use of mixed methodological terminology and the use of post-positivist requirements for trustworthiness (credibility, dependability, and transferability) rather than IPA's interpretivist indicators of quality. - The results section is predominantly descriptive in nature, without much interpretative analysis or depth, and has long quotes. The relationship between the data, themes, and the Roy adaptation model could be more clearly made. Recommendation: The authors need to enhance analytic interpretation, going beyond descriptive reporting. They should undergo a consistent IPA-specific application of rigor criteria (sensitivity to context, commitment, transparency, and impact) and demonstrate how the Roy Adaptation Model adds further insight and not merely be appended. 3. Are enough details of methods and analysis given that others will be able to replicate? Partly. - Strengths: Ethical approval, informed consent, and sampling and interview procedures are presented. Audit trails, member checks, and peer debriefing are mentioned. - Weaknesses: Data is saturated, but the explanation for this saturation is mentioned but not fully explained in the context of IPA. The analytic steps (e.g., idiographic case analysis, theme development, and cross-case synthesis) are not consistently described, leaving an ambiguity for replication. Recommendation: The authors should include step-by-step details of the IPA process (i.e., the process of coding and theme development) with examples and further details of how saturation was established. 4. If applicable, is the statistical analysis, including its interpretation, appropriate? Not applicable. - This is a qualitative study; there is no need for statistical analysis. 5. Are all the source data underlying the results available such that full reproducibility is possible? Yes. - The authors have deposited demographic questions, field notes, interview questions, and raw data on Figshare under a CC-BY license, which is a transparent and reproducible license. 6. Are the conclusions well supported by results? Partly. - are conclusions based on their experience as a participant and generally supported by the themes identified. - However, the leap from descriptive accounts of participants to more holistic policy and intervention recommendations (i.e. income support, psychosocial training, integrated recovery frameworks) is not warranted given the depth of analysis. Recommendation: Authors should exercise caution with the inferences they draw and make sure the implications for policy are based on their findings and not extrapolated beyond them. Overall Recommendation This study deals with one of the interesting issues and has used the appropriate qualitative methodology. However, it needs further clarification and strengthening of its analytic rigor and commentitude interpretations so that it becomes scientifically sound. Major Changes Needed (that should be covered): - Effectively establish method performance, ensuring explicit reference to IPA as the method of analysis and eliminate contradictory language (eg, content/thematic analysis). - Include in detail the steps of IPA procedures (coding, idiographic analysis, cross-case synthesis) in order to increase transparency and replicability - Strengthen interpretation within the results, moving beyond descriptive quotes to an interpretive involvement with the meaning-making of the participants, i.e., analytical engagement with the results. For the effort of it, this appears as an afterthought rather than being explicitly showing how the Roy adaptation model informed interpretation - Reframe conclusions to avoid overgeneralization and insure that policy recommendations are directly based on the outcomes of the study Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy, Public Health, SDGs, cross-sectional studies, RCTs. We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 07 Oct 2025 Ek-uma Imkome, mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, methodological consistency, and analytical rigor of the study. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, along with a summary of the revisions made. Reviewer Comment 1: Methodological Consistency The methodological descriptions differ across versions (references to 'phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,' 'content analysis,' 'thematic analysis,' and IPA). This lack of consistency is confusing. Response : We have revised the manuscript to consistently reflect Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as the sole analytic framework. All references to other approaches have been removed or clarified as philosophical foundations of IPA. Reviewer Comment 2: Justification of Knowledge Gap The motivation for the knowledge gap is not strongly justified. Response : We have strengthened the introduction to emphasize the lack of IPA-based studies on COVID-19 survivors in Thailand and the novel integration of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) as an interpretive lens. Reviewer Comment 3: Rigor Criteria The use of post-positivist requirements for trustworthiness is inconsistent with IPA’s interpretivist indicators. Response : We have replaced post-positivist terms with IPA-specific indicators of quality: sensitivity to context, commitment and rigor, transparency and coherence, and impact and importance , as recommended by Smith et al. (2022). Reviewer Comment 4: Interpretative Depth in Results The results section is predominantly descriptive, with long quotes and limited interpretative analysis. Response : We have added analytical commentary to participant quotes and explicitly linked emergent themes to meaning-making processes and RAM domains. Reviewer Comment 5: IPA Analytic Steps The analytic steps are not consistently described, leaving ambiguity for replication. Response : We have added a detailed description of the IPA process, including initial reading, annotation, theme development, idiographic case analysis, and cross-case synthesis. Reviewer Comment 6: Overgeneralized Conclusions Policy recommendations are not sufficiently grounded in findings. Response : We have revised the conclusion to ensure that policy implications are directly based on participants’ narratives and adaptive challenges, avoiding broad extrapolations. Additional Improvements We removed redundant and repetitive sentences to improve clarity and flow. We ensured that all references to RAM are explicitly tied to the interpretative process rather than appended. We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and improve the scientific quality of our manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and support. View more View less Competing Interests None. reply Respond Report a concern Sharma J and Sidiq M. Peer Review Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183939.r411576) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v5#referee-response-411576 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Srichannil C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 18 Jun 2025 | for Version 4 Chomphunut Srichannil , Department of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2025 Srichannil C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The revised version of this article has taken further steps toward improvement. However, significant methodological concerns remain unresolved, particularly in relation to the claimed use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). First, while the authors describe their approach as a “phenomenological-hermeneutic approach,” they do not clearly state that IPA is the central analytic method until later in the paper. If IPA is indeed the primary analytic framework, this should be explicitly stated early in the methodology or design section. Furthermore, in the results section, the authors state that “major themes were derived from content analysis,” which introduces confusion, as content analysis is a distinct methodological approach and not typically aligned with IPA. Clarification is needed regarding the analytic procedures used. Second, the criteria employed to demonstrate trustworthiness — credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability — are drawn from Guba and Lincoln’s post-positivist paradigm, which is not epistemologically aligned with the interpretivist foundations of IPA. This raises important concerns regarding methodological congruence. In IPA, methodological quality is more appropriately demonstrated through IPA-specific criteria (see Smith, 2011; Smith et al., 2022). I would recommend either re-framing the quality assurance criteria to align with IPA or reconsidering the analytical framework itself. Finally, these inconsistencies also affect the reporting of findings, particularly with respect to the idiographic focus, depth of interpretation, and analytic structure expected in IPA research. The current presentation of results relies heavily on a sequence of participant quotes, with limited interpretative engagement. In summary, I encourage the authors to revisit the issues of methodological alignment, analytic clarity, and consistency with the claimed use of IPA. These concerns should be addressed before the article can be considered methodologically sound. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Counseling Psychology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Ek-uma Imkome, mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments and the opportunity to strengthen the methodological transparency of our study. We have made the following revisions and clarifications: Clarifying the Analytic Approach We acknowledge the prior ambiguity in our description of the analytic method. To address this, we have now explicitly stated in the Design section that Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is the central analytic framework guiding our study. We have removed the ambiguous term “phenomenological-hermeneutic approach” in favor of consistently referring to IPA throughout the methodology. Additionally, in the Results section, we have removed the phrase “major themes were derived from content analysis,” recognizing that content analysis is a distinct technique not epistemologically aligned with IPA. We now clarify that themes were developed inductively through iterative engagement with the data in accordance with IPA procedures, as outlined by Smith and colleagues (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Smith et al., 2022). 2 . Ensuring Methodological Congruence The reviewer correctly notes that our original quality criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) are drawn from the Guba and Lincoln framework, which is situated within a post-positivist tradition. In response, we have revised the Trustworthiness section to reflect IPA-specific markers of rigor and coherence, including: Sensitivity to context (e.g., attention to the socio-cultural and historical context of COVID-19 in Thailand), Commitment and rigor (e.g., detailed iterative coding, sustained interaction with transcripts, analytic depth), Transparency and coherence (e.g., a clear audit trail of interpretative processes, bracketing of researcher assumptions), Impact and importance (e.g., the study’s implications for public health and psychosocial interventions in pandemic recovery). These standards reflect the interpretivist foundations of IPA and have replaced the prior post-positivist criteria. 3. Enhancing Interpretative Engagement in Results Highlighted how participants make meaning of their experiences, Emphasized nuanced distinctions between individual cases, And reinforced the emergent nature of themes, rooted in both participant narratives and theoretical interpretation. To strengthen idiographic depth and analytic richness, we revisited the Results section to ensure that participant quotes are not merely descriptive but are actively interpreted through the lens of the Roy Adaptation Model within the IPA framework. We have: As IPA values idiographic nuance, we have retained individual voice while offering layered interpretations of participants’ adaptation processes across physiological, psychological, and social domains. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Srichannil C. Peer Review Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181459.r383174) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v4#referee-response-383174 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Kin C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 May 2025 | for Version 4 Cheah Phaik Kin , Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Kin C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Revisions have been made accordingly. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Kin CP. Peer Review Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181459.r383175) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v4#referee-response-383175 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Kin C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 Cheah Phaik Kin , Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2023 Kin C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. COMMENTS: There was no response from the authors on this feedback. Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants COMMENTS: Noted with thanks. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. COMMENTS: No response was given to this suggestion. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework ( Smith & Osborn, 2015 ; Alase, 2017 ).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model Results Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “ Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. COMMENTS: No response provided. No explanation is found in the paper. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. COMMENTS: No response provided It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. COMMENTS: No response provided. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? COMMENTS: No response provided. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 29 Jan 2024 Ek-uma Imkome, mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand We appreciate your thorough evaluation of our work, strengthening our quality and clarity. We have carefully reviewed the comments. As suggested, we would like to provide a point-by-point response. We are confident that with your support, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. If you have any more suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are eager to work collaboratively to ensure the success of our manuscript. 1. Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based.COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: Thank you very much. We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)”. References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - “Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support.” In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for pointing out the important issue. According to your comment, we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population’s needs and problems.” Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research.COMMENTS: There was no response from the authors on this feedback. Author response: We apologize for the short description of the manuscript’s last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. “The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study’s theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual’s experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual’s attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person’s internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation.” Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 4.Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - “The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018; Graor & Knapik, 2013; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014).” COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. Author response: Thank you very much. The questions were shared in English version n Figshare: Until the Dawn: The Impact of COVID-19, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21369810 ( Imkome E-u, & Moonchai K, 2022). “Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)” - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants COMMENTS: Noted with thanks. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. COMMENTS: No response was given to this suggestion. Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. A cross-sectional study is another project. We had to remove the sentence from this manuscript. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework (Smith & Osborn, 2015; Alase, 2017).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” Author response: Thank you very much for your comments. We added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model Author response: Thanks for the interesting query. The Roy Adaptation Model was applied as the theoretical framework for this study. Results Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “Table 1 - The marital status “Couple” means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. COMMENTS: No response provided. No explanation is found in the paper. Author response: We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: “All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers.” Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - “Apply from Roy, 2011”? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. COMMENTS: No response provided Author response: Thank you very much. It is a typo. We removed it from the manuscript. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as “Level”. This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a “level” indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. COMMENTS: No response provided. Author response: Thank you for your comment. We intended to label the analysis results as “Level,” which starts with general data, structural understanding, and Theoretical interpretation. Please provide your idea to make this manuscript more straightforward. The sub-themes in Level 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within “Level 2: Structural understanding”, there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under “Level 2”? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? Author response: Thank you very much. All the themes that you mention are the sub-themes of level 2. Structural understanding, a major theme derived from content analysis, was evident across interviews and included stress, economic and social impact, social stigma, and the concept that bad luck occasionally brings good luck. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- View more View less Competing Interests I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by F1000Research, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 09 May 2025 Ek-uma Imkome, mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand Reviewer’s comments: Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. COMMENTS: “During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, patients have faced problems such as fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, and a feeling of taboo. Patients have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being and the risk of infecting family members and community members.” This statement was added by the authors to provide contextual and background information. However, no reference was provided. As the study is based in Thailand, the authors must explain the context with conviction and support. Given the many papers published about the Covid (and lockdown) situation and issues faced in Thailand, many references are available. Author response: We have strengthened the contextual description of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand by incorporating relevant references that document the psychological and social challenges faced by patients during this period. Specifically, we have cited studies that examine the impact of quarantine, fear, loneliness, and anxiety on individuals, as well as research addressing concerns about infecting family and community members. These references provide empirical support for our discussion and enhance the credibility of our findings. Furthermore, we have refined the narrative to ensure that the contextual background is presented with clarity and conviction. By integrating these references, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environment in which our study was conducted, thereby reinforcing the methodological integrity of our research. Reviewer’s comments 2. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. a. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." b. In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. COMMENTS: “Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies and clinical trials during the initial crisis response to the pandemic. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance and detail of COVID-19 patients’ lived reality and contextualized experiences due to the knowledge, understanding, advanced nursing intervention, medication, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention were lacking.” The authors described the gap. Proof or support is needed to establish this gap. There are existing studies that have reported on the experiences/perspectives/ impact of Covid among survivors. There are also studies have reported the impacts, perspectives and experiences on other specific segments e.g. nurses, students, patients, people with a certain type of disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS, diabetes) while other studies have reported on broader or more general segments. Therefore, it is not clear how this study contributes to existing knowledge. The authors need to describe and establish this gap, justifying the need for this study, and thereby explaining the new or novel ideas that this study provides. Author response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the justification for this study and establish the knowledge gap more clearly in the introduction parts. Reviewer’s comments: 3. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. Author response: We have revised the manuscript to clarify how the application of the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) enhances understanding rather than limiting creativity or alternative perspectives. The revisions ensure that RAM is used as a guiding framework that supports qualitative inquiry without restricting the emergence of diverse themes and lived experiences. In the Theoretical Perspective section, we now explicitly discuss how RAM provides structure for interpreting psychosocial adaptation while maintaining flexibility in exploring participants' unique narratives. Rather than prescribing rigid categories, RAM serves as an interpretive lens that allows for thematic development and multidimensional analysis, ensuring that the phenomenological nature of the study remains intact. We have emphasized that our phenomenological-hermeneutic approach fosters open-ended exploration, allowing themes to emerge organically from participants’ lived experiences. The use of RAM helps categorize adaptation processes without stifling creativity, ensuring that alternative perspectives, such as unexpected benefits and resilience factors, are fully captured. Reviewer’s comments: 4. Methods a. In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. COMMENTS: “Third, semi-structured individual in-depth questions were developed by reviewing the literature on the concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions. The three validators checked the content and comments.” The authors have added the statement above. As I have commented earlier, “In the same vein (ie. No. 3)” as the authors had used a theoretical framework (as mentioned in No. 3 above), but it is not clear how or where. Was “concept of stressful life events, adaptation and emotions” adapted from the Roy Adaptation Model? If yes, I think some critique and justification are also needed for No. 3 above. Also, this also needs to be explained further how this model was adopted in this study, while using the IPA approach. ​​​​​​​Author response: We have updated the manuscript to provide a detailed explanation of the development of interview questions, including specific examples, and their foundation in both existing literature and the Roy Adaptation Model (RAM) within the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: b.This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." COMMENTS: The instrument needs to be described. If the questions cannot be shared or published, then a more detailed description of what questions were asked would help. ​​​​​​​Author response: We are providing a more detailed description of the specific questions asked during the interviews. While we may not be able to share the exact questions due to confidentiality concerns, we have included a sample of the questions in the Procedures section. Reviewer’s comments: c. "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants ​​​​​​​Author response: We have added the following information regarding ethical approval: "This project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Thammasat University (Science), Thailand (COA No. 119/2563). The research adhered to ethical standards established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Helsinki Declaration (2000). Prior to obtaining informed consent, all participants were informed about the study's objectives, the safe protection of their data, and the associated risks and benefits. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection commenced. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and the anonymity of participants was maintained throughout the research process. Confidentiality strategies were implemented, and identifying codes were assigned to the initial data collected from observations, interviews, and documentary analyses; access to this data was restricted to the research team. The data were securely stored on the principal investigator's password-protected computer until the conclusion of the study. After 24 months, all files were permanently deleted using “Secure Deletion Shredder,” a protected deletion program for Windows." Reviewer’s comments: d. Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. Author response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment and would like to apologize for any confusion caused. We would like to clarify that this study is purely qualitative and does not utilize a cross-sectional design. The mention of "cross-sectional" was an unintentional typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: e.Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness COMMENTS: The authors mentioned “Trustworthiness was describing” in their response to the suggestion. It is not explained how, for example, criteria such as credibility, transferability, dependability or confirmability are ensured. However, the author did mention that “A good rapport, member check, peer debriefing, and researcher triangulation reflect the trustworthiness of this study. The researcher analyzed the transcripts independently using an IPA framework ( Smith & Osborn, 2015 ; Alase, 2017 ).” Authors could explain these procedures in relation to one or more of the data trustworthiness criteria. It is also helpful to explain how each was carried out i.e. “a good rapport, member check, peer debriefing and researcher triangulation.” ​​​​​​​Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback and have revised the manuscript to provide a detailed of Trustworthiness on the Trustworthiness parts. Reviewer’s comments: 5. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. COMMENTS: As procedures were using the IPA framework, how was the Roy Adaptation Model ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale behind our data analysis approach. To address this, we have incorporated the following explanation: Our analytical framework was structured into progressive levels to capture the evolving adaptation trajectory of participants. Level 1 focused on self-perception and emotional responses, serving as the foundation for subsequent thematic development. Level 2 explored structural influences, such as stigma and social support, which shaped individual coping strategies. Finally, Level 3 integrated adaptation strategies within the broader theoretical framework, ensuring a multidimensional perspective without imposing hierarchical constraints. Reviewer’s comments: 6. Results a. Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? COMMENTS: “ Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. Noted with thanks. This makes it clearer. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your acknowledgment. We appreciate your review and are glad the clarification helps improve the understanding of our study. Reviewer’s comments: b. Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our findings. At Level 1 analysis, self-understanding captures participants' perceptions of their experiences with COVID-19. Respondents reported psychological distress—stress, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and impaired decision-making—exacerbated by financial instability and job loss. Social support played a critical role in moderating emotional strain, with individuals who engaged support systems demonstrating greater psychological stability. Self-understanding evolved throughout their adaptation process. Some participants recognized personal resilience, while others struggled with stigma and reintegration. By analyzing this dimension, our study highlights the need for psychosocial interventions that foster emotional resilience and facilitate long-term recovery. We hope this addresses your concerns and strengthens the discussion in our manuscript. Reviewer’s comments: c. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. Author response: Thank you for your review. "Apply from Roy, 2011" was a typographical error. Reviewer’s comments: d. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. The use of "Level" in our analysis aligns with the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, which emphasizes a layered, progressive interpretation of participants' lived experiences. The "Level" structure moves from descriptive self-understanding (Level 1) to thematic development (Level 2) and theoretical interpretation (Level 3). This approach ensures a deeper exploration of adaptation processes while maintaining methodological rigor. It does not imply a rigid hierarchy but reflects a structured analytical progression. Reviewer’s comments: e. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? ​​​​​​​Author response: Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the organization of sub-themes within "Level 2: Structural Understanding." All sub-themes—Stress, Economic and Social Impact, Social Stigma, Social Support, and Sometimes, Bad Luck Brings Good Luck—are of the same level within Level 2. They represent distinct dimensions of participants’ experiences and adaptation during the pandemic and were identified through thematic analysis. The hierarchical structure of the results is based on the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework, where Level 1 focuses on individual self-understanding, Level 2 develops structural themes from shared experiences, and Level 3 applies theoretical interpretation using the Roy Adaptation Model. Within Level 2, the sub-themes were derived from content analysis and do not represent further subdivisions but rather interconnected aspects of adaptation processes. ------------------------------------- View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Kin CP. Peer Review Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155443.r209256) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v2#referee-response-209256 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Srichannil C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 Chomphunut Srichannil , Department of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2023 Srichannil C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions In this revised article, more information about the research procedures have been provided but it appears that this research still lacks methodological consistency and accuracy. It remains unclear what methodology has actually been used in this research. Although IPA (Interpretative phenomenological analysis) was added in this version, the data analysis, quality criteria, as well as the reporting of research findings do not align with IPA. Due to the significant lack of methodological rigor of this paper, it is not approved. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Counseling Psychology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 29 Jan 2024 Ek-uma Imkome, mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand We want to thank you for your insightful comment. We hope that with your comments, our manuscript will meet the high standards of F1000Research. We provide a response below. Introduction parts 1.1 We added information and the references were addressed as the list below: "During the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, people have faced problems such as stress, fear, loneliness, boredom, anger, anxiety, insomnia, a feeling of taboo, and low health literacy (Suwanaphant et al., 2020; Choompunuch et al., 2021; Boondiskulchok et al., 2022; Suanrueang et al., 2022; Taweewun et al., 2022). Moreover, people have also been concerned about the effect of being quarantined on their psychological well-being, acute health conditions, the risk of infecting family members and community members, and the sorrows and worries that influence jobs and income (Yongthasaneekul & Thammaboosadee, 2021; Wongtanasarasin, Srisawang, Yothiya, & Phinyo, 2021; Hall, Sanchez, Da, Bennett, Powers, & Warren, 2022)". References 1. Taweewun Srisookkum, Somkid Juwa, Orathai Katkhaw, Tienthong Takaew, Saengduean Phromkaewngam, Naphat Prapasuchat. Health literacy, anxiety and stress among people during Coronavirus-2019 pandemic at the northern of Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(3):221-235 (https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2022/200318) 2. Suanrueang P, Suen MW, Lin HF, Er TK, Michaela M, Jamora Q. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on anxiety, health literacy, and eHealth literacy in 2020 related to healthcare behavior in Thailand. J Public Hlth Dev. 2022;20(1):188-202. doi:10.55131/jphd/ 2022/ 200115. 3. Boondiskulchok S, Weerametachai S, Leesri T. Prevalence and associated factors of stress and depression among SARS-Cov-2 patient in field hospital, Saraburi hospital. Regional Health Promotion Center 9 Journal. 2022; 16(2). 4. Choompunuch B, Suksatan W, Sonsroem J, Kutawan S, In-udom A. Stress, adversity quotient, and health behaviors of undergraduate students in a Thai university during COVID-19 outbreak. Belitung Nursing Journal. 2021;7(1):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1276 5. Suwanaphant K, Seedaket S, Vonok L, Assana S, Wawngam W, Kingsawad K, On-Kail P. Factors associated with stress due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among students of the Faculty of Public Health and Allied Health Sciences, Praboromarajchanok Institute. Journal of Health Science Research. 2020; 14(2):138-4. 6. Wongtanasarasin, W., Srisawang, T., Yothiya, W., & Phinyo, P. (2021). Impact of national lockdown towards emergency department visits and admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand: A hospital-based study. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(2), 316-323–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13666 7. Yongthasaneekul, T., & Thammaboosadee, S. (2021). Emotion and Worry Measurement Comparison of United Kingdom and Thailand During The First COVID-19 Lockdown Situation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2021 IEEE International Conference On, 2924–2930. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669723 8. Hall LR, Sanchez K, Da Graca B, Bennett MM, Powers M, Warren AM. Income Differences and COVID-19: Impact on Daily Life and Mental Health. Popul Health Manag. 2022 Jun 1; 25(3):384–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2021.0214 PMID: 34652228 1.2 we added the information and references on the past studies that have been done in Thailand. "Researchers primarily conducted epidemiological studies, descriptive studies, and clinical studies during the crisis response to the pandemic in Thailand (Lerthattasilp, Kosulwit, Phanasathit et al., 2020; Srifuengfung, Thana-udom, Ratta-apha, Chulakadabba, Sanguanpanich, & Viravan, 2021; Nitchawan, Pantri, Chayut, Yingrat, Nongnuch, & Chotiman , 2022; Suwanbamrung, Pongtalung, Trang, Nam, & Phu, 2023; Phu, 2023). This is quantitative, and the results show the volumes and relationships of factors of all units of analysis in the whole picture. However, qualitative research is needed to provide the nuance, detail, individual problems, and individual needs of COVID-19 patients' lived reality and contextualized experiences to gain more knowledge and deep understanding to design an advanced nursing intervention, medication-taking style, alternative treatment, and psychosocial intervention. The qualitative research results can provide the clinical information for the new or novel ideas of nursing care that meet this target population's needs and problems." Reference 1. Suwanbamrung, C., Pongtalung, P., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., & Phu, D. H. (2023). Levels and risk factors associated with depression, anxiety, and stress among COVID-19 infected adults after hospital discharge in a Southern Province of Thailand. Journal of Public Health and Development, 21(1), 72-89–89. https://doi.org/10.55131/jphd/2023/210106 2. Srifuengfung, M., Thana-udom, K., Ratta-apha, W., Chulakadabba, S., Sanguanpanich, N., & Viravan, N. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults living in long-term care centers in Thailand, and risk factors for post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 295, 353-365–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021. 08.044 . 3. Nitchawan Kerdcharoen, Pantri Kirdchok, Chayut Wonglertwisawakorn, Yingrat Naviganuntana, Nongnuch Polruamngern, & Chotiman Chinvararak. (2022). Mental health problems of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients in hospitel in Thailand: A cross-sectional study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 11, 1089. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.125998.2 4. Lerthattasilp T, Kosulwit K, Phanasathit M, et al., Psychological impacts on patients with COVID-19 in a Thai field hospital. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry. 2020; 47(6): 215–217. 5. Phu, D. H., Maneerattanasak, S., Shohaimi, S., Trang, L. T. T., Nam, T. T., Suwanbamrung, C., Kuning, M., Like, A., & Torpor, H. (2023). Prevalence and factors associated with long COVID and mental health status among recovered COVID-19 patients in southern Thailand. PLoS ONE, 18(7 July). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289382 2. Theoretical framework We apologize for the short description of the manuscript's last version because it related to the APC charge. We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on the theoretical framework parts. "The Roy adaptation model (RAM) applied this study's theoretical framework, which deepened our understanding of the lived experiences and the impact of COVID-19 cases. In addition, applying RAM in nursing research will guide the quality of care and provide data to estimate the results. Moreover, RAM is practical to all areas of nursing and frequently applied in the theoretical framework of qualitative studies of COVID-19 cases (Dayılar, Dogan, Güler, & Carroll, 2022). RAM ( Roy, 2001, 2009, 2011) points out that people are adaptive systems defined as a whole and covered of parts that function as a unit; the whole is influenced by surrounding focal, contextual, and residual stimuli (Roy, 2009). People become resilient by adapting to external environments and internal environments of the individual's experience (Roy, 2009). The constant change in the environment stimulates people to drive toward adaptive responses, which consist of a) positive responses to stimuli, which are defined as adaptation results in health, both physical and emotional, and b) negative responses, which are defined as maladaptation results in illness. According to RAM, the nursing goal is to promote four adaptive modes of person, thus contributing to the quality of life and health by assessing behaviors and factors that impact adaptive performance and intervening to increase environmental interactions (Roy, 2009). Contextual, focal, and residual stimuli are three environmental stimuli that impact adaptation (Roy, 2009, 2011a). While the focal stimulus is the internal or external stimulus that most impacts and directs an individual's attention, a contextual stimulus is the internal or external impetus affecting the situation, contributing to the behavior triggered by the focal stimulus (Roy, 2009, 2011a). Contextual stimuli are inferred from a person's events, stressful life events, or illness processes. Residual stimuli are stimuli that are in a person's internal or external environment. Residual stimuli become contextual or focal once they have been validated by the person experiencing the impact of the stimulus. The adaptive and stimuli are primary elements of understanding individual COVID-19 cases, their adaptation, and their life strategies for enhancing adaptation." Reference 1. Dayılar Candan H, Dogan S, Güler C, Carroll K. Roy adaptation model: theory-based knowledge and nursing care with a person experiencing COVID-19. Nurs Sci Q. 2022; 35(3): 304-310. doi:10.1177/08943184221092434 2. Roy C. (2011a). Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly, 24(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218 3. MethodsWe added more detail of the Roy Adaptation Model in the theoretical framework. Stressful life events, adaptation, and emotions were also mentioned. Additionally, we added the Trustworthiness of the study as the content below: To ensure data trustworthiness, phenomenological methods such as reflexivity, member checking, and auditing are often among the most highly used procedures to maximize trustworthiness. Member reflections instead of traditional member checking and incorporated peer debriefing to ensure rigor in interpretative qualitative research were used. Feedback and reflections are participant validation of results and an opportunity for further elaboration of findings from participants in the co-construction of the phenomenon with the authors (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018; Smith & McGannon, 2018). Member reflections were primarily incorporated upon completion of the study analysis. All participants were contacted via phone and joined a Microsoft Teams discussion of the summary of the findings. The authors conducted peer debriefing (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to process the study. The construction of knowledge through critical feedback that encouraged reflection upon and investigation of alternative interpretations emerging from the data was the peer debriefing process that included data collection or analysis and aided in probing the thinking around the research process and analysis (Given, 2008) as weekly during data collection and monthly during data analysis and interpretation. The trail of the audit was established as initial notes; step-by-step methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis; annotated transcripts; tables of themes that developed; the final report; and all field notes (J.A. Smith et al., 2022; J. Smith et al., 2009). Field notes recorded details of what was seen, heard, thought, and experienced throughout data collection (Groenewald, 2004). Field notes were divided into four categories, each in separate files. The first was the Interview environment and atmosphere, i.e., objective recordings of what happened, who was involved, what activities occurred, and what was seen or heard. The second was the behavior and the data from the participants. For this process, the notes were recorded immediately after the conclusion of each data collection session. In these notes, the first author documented reflections on personal experiences related to the data and attempts to derive meaning through reflection on the data. The third was obstacles encountered in interviews. The fourth was the planning for the following interview. The final file contained research notes summarizing procedures, events, and study progress. Reference 1. Flynn SV, Korcuska JS. Credible Phenomenological Research: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Couns Educ Superv. 2018; doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12092.2 2. Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018; doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357. 3. Given LM. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. eBooks. 2008; doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909. 4. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2022. 5. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications; 2009. 6. Results We added the results found about the respondents' Self-Understanding below: "All participants show physical survival during the interview. The participant has a low level of psychic integrity. They have stress, fear, anxiety, communication problems, sleep problems, and poor decision-making. Some of them have no job or have lost a job. However, they receive social support from significant others and health care providers." View more View less Competing Interests I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by F1000Resesarch, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 06 May 2025 Ek-uma Imkome, mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recognize the importance of methodological consistency in qualitative research. In this revised version, we have taken additional steps to clarify the methodology used in our study. Specifically, we employed a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach to analyze the lived experiences of our participants. Our data analysis adhered to Smith and Osborn's (2015) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) framework. This process involved an iterative cycle of coding that progressed from descriptive to interpretative engagement, ensuring that emergent themes were grounded in participants' lived experiences. We employed bracketing techniques to minimize researcher bias and utilized double-coding verification to enhance reliability. The initial codes were generated based on descriptive responses, then refined through interpretative layers to derive emergent themes, ensuring alignment with IPA principles. Regarding methodological rigor, we have provided more explicit details on the data analysis process, including the use of COREQ guidelines to enhance transparency. Additionally, we have improved the explanation of quality criteria and ensured that our approach maintains consistency in its application. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Srichannil C. Peer Review Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155443.r209257) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v2#referee-response-209257 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Kin C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 Cheah Phaik Kin , Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2023 Kin C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Because this study was done in Thailand, it is helpful to describe the situation there during the pandemic to help readers understand the context in which this study was based. The knowledge gap needs to be further established and supported to justify the need for this investigation and the significance of this study. It is important that the researchers provide support for this statement - "Besides, a few studies have explored the needs of COVID-19 cases, their stress and adaptation to the disease, and health support." In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to past studies that have been done in Thailand, as well as in other countries to establish the need to conduct this investigation and fill this knowledge gap. Theoretical framework - While it is helpful to use a theoretical framework to guide this work, the researchers need to explain how this model is not stifling this study that uses qualitative methods, ensuring that it does not limit creativity or the exploration of alternative perspectives, but rather enhances understanding and provides a structured approach to the research. Methods In the same vein (ie. No. 3), please explain how the interview questions were developed. This statement can be rephrased to make it clearer. Does it also mean that the authors have designed the interview questions by drawing upon the instrument/findings from these studies? - "The phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was applied through discussions after examining and interpreting lived experiences and perceptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Al Kalaldeh et al., 2018 ; Graor & Knapik, 2013 ; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014)." "Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants (COA No. 119/2563)" - Please state more specifically which committee this refers to e.g. the University of ??? Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Research Participants Please state when these interviews were carried out as this is a cross-sectional study. Please describe how the authors ensured data trustworthiness. Please provide support and justification for the data analysis methods employed. Results Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner or married? Level 1 - It would be helpful to describe the results found about the respondents Self-Understanding. Is Figure 1 showing the results of this study? What does this statement mean - "Apply from Roy, 2011"? There may be a typo or grammatical mistake here. It is not clear why the Results of the analysis are labelled as "Level". This is not a conventional way to report the results of a qualitative study. Labelling each theme/category as a "level" indicates a hierarchy. Is this the intention, if so, the hierarchy is not clear. The sub-themes in Leval 2 appears confusing. From the formatting of the paper, it appears that within "Level 2: Structural understanding", there are Stress; Economic and Social Impact; Social Stigma; Social Support; Sometimes, bad luck brings good luck. Are these sub-themes all of the same level sub-themes under "Level 2"? Or are some of them of a third level sub-theme? Overall, while the purpose of this paper is rationale and very necessary, this paper lacks the scientific rigour. I would recommend a resubmission. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Public Health, education, policing I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 25 Sep 2023 Ek-uma Imkome, mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand This version has addressed reviewer 2's comments by: Adding the statement of the situation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand, the gap of knowledge was address and citation Adding an explanation of how the interview questions were developed. rephrased the statement to make it clearer on the part of procedure Added the state of the Ethics Review Committee’s institution Trustworthiness was describing The IPA analysis methods were employed Table 1 - The marital status "Couple" means living with a partner and/or married. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Kin CP. Peer Review Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140098.r193387) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v1#referee-response-193387 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Srichannil C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Jun 2023 | for Version 1 Chomphunut Srichannil , Department of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2023 Srichannil C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study used online interviews to explore the lived experiences of 15 COVID-19 survivors, focusing on the impact of COVID-19. Data Collection Data saturation was mentioned, but it is not clear how saturation was reached. Indeed, the question should also be extended to “Is data saturation required for using phenomenological-hermeneutic approach?” In terms of recording online video interviews, there should be more information regarding how the issues of confidentiality, data storage, and data safety have been addressed. Data Analysis There is an inconsistency in mentioning the use of the methods for analyzing the data in the abstract and other sections. Specifically, in the abstract, the authors stated that “using a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach. We used the thematic analysis technique to analyze the data”. (The use of “thematic analysis technique” could also be confused with Thematic Analysis, a range of methods for qualitative data analysis). In the data analysis section, only the phenomenological-hermeneutic approach was stated (Here a citation to “Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014” was claimed, but this was not on the reference list). However, content analysis was also mentioned in the result section when the authors wrote “Major themes derived from content analysis were evident across interviews”. The question is thus what is the data analysis method used in the study? Additionally, the word “structural understanding” appeared to be redundant in the second and third levels. Please check for accuracy. Results It appears that the results were fairly descriptive, mostly done by presenting (translated) quotes from the participants. With the use of the phenomenological-hermeneutic approach, interpretation should be more widely incorporated in the results. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Counseling Psychology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 25 Sep 2023 Ek-uma Imkome, mental health and psychiatrics nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Thammasat University, Klong-luang, 12120, Thailand To respond to the reviewer's comments on Data Collection. We added the sentence “the saturation was reached when no additional data were found” on the part of data collection. Additionally, we had to add more information regarding how the issues of confidentiality, data storage, and data safety have been addressed on the part of consent. We have updated Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014 as the reference, and The IPA analysis methods were added. We removed the redundant “structural understanding” in the second and third levels for the results and corrected it for the data analysis part. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Srichannil C. Peer Review Report For: Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19 during the pandemic in Thailand [version 6; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :1560 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140098.r175113) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v1#referee-response-175113 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v6" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v6&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v6" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Imkome Eu and Moonchai K'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v6/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560", templates : { twitter : "Until the dawn: everyday experiences of people living with COVID-19.... Imkome Eu and Moonchai K, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1560/v6" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/127578/189106") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "189106"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "175106": 0, "400390": 0, "175107": 0, "400391": 0, "400388": 0, "175105": 0, "400389": 0, "175110": 0, "400386": 0, "175111": 0, "400387": 0, "175108": 0, "175109": 0, "175114": 0, "175112": 0, "175113": 36, "400394": 0, "400395": 0, "400392": 0, "400393": 0, "267300": 0, "398375": 0, "267301": 0, "267302": 0, "267303": 0, "267297": 0, "267298": 0, "267299": 0, "398382": 0, "398383": 0, "398380": 0, "398381": 0, "398378": 0, "267304": 0, "398379": 0, "267305": 0, "398376": 0, "267306": 0, "398377": 0, "444470": 0, "444471": 0, "444468": 0, "444469": 0, "444467": 0, "398384": 0, "173115": 0, "444476": 0, "173118": 0, "444474": 0, "173119": 0, "444475": 0, "173116": 0, "444472": 0, "173117": 0, "444473": 0, "173122": 0, "281668": 0, "173123": 0, "281669": 0, "173120": 0, "281670": 0, "173121": 0, "281671": 0, "281665": 0, "281666": 0, "281667": 0, "396366": 0, "396367": 0, "396364": 0, "396365": 0, "396362": 0, "281672": 0, "396363": 0, "281673": 0, "281674": 0, "181334": 0, "396370": 0, "396371": 0, "396368": 0, "396369": 0, "181338": 0, "181336": 0, "181342": 0, "181340": 0, "181346": 0, "181344": 0, "181350": 0, "181348": 0, "181352": 0, "177326": 0, "177327": 0, "177330": 0, "177331": 0, "177328": 0, "177329": 0, "177335": 0, "177332": 0, "177333": 0, "177336": 0, "413894": 0, "347333": 0, "413895": 0, "383175": 7, "241857": 0, "347335": 0, "383174": 8, "413893": 0, "241856": 0, "347334": 0, "413902": 0, "413900": 0, "413901": 0, "413898": 0, "347337": 0, "413899": 0, "413896": 0, "413897": 0, "347338": 0, "330983": 0, "330982": 0, "408814": 0, "330989": 0, "408815": 0, "330988": 0, "408812": 0, "330991": 0, "408813": 0, "330990": 0, "330985": 0, "408811": 0, "330984": 0, "330987": 0, "330986": 0, "408820": 0, "408818": 0, "408819": 0, "408816": 0, "408817": 0, "422158": 0, "422159": 0, "452886": 0, "422166": 0, "452887": 0, "422167": 0, "452884": 0, "422164": 0, "452885": 0, "422165": 0, "452882": 0, "422162": 0, "452883": 0, "422163": 0, "452880": 0, "422160": 0, "452881": 0, "422161": 0, "385311": 0, "385310": 0, "452888": 0, "452889": 0, "385317": 0, "385316": 0, "385319": 0, "362791": 0, "385318": 0, "385313": 0, "385312": 0, "385315": 0, "385314": 0, "402742": 0, "362805": 0, "402743": 0, "362804": 0, "402740": 0, "362807": 0, "402741": 0, "362806": 0, "362803": 0, "362802": 0, "402750": 0, "402748": 0, "402749": 0, "402746": 0, "362809": 0, "402747": 0, "362808": 0, "362811": 0, "402745": 0, "362810": 0, "335175": 0, "335181": 0, "335180": 0, "335183": 0, "335182": 0, "335177": 0, "335176": 0, "335179": 0, "335178": 0, "335184": 0, "169318": 0, "169319": 0, "169320": 0, "209257": 43, "169321": 0, "209256": 32, "383397": 0, "383396": 0, "383399": 0, "383398": 0, "383395": 0, "383394": 0, "405934": 0, "405935": 0, "405932": 0, "405933": 0, "421290": 0, "383401": 0, "405930": 0, "421291": 0, "383400": 0, "405931": 0, "421289": 0, "405929": 0, "450998": 0, "450999": 0, "450996": 0, "450997": 0, "450995": 0, "405936": 0, "405937": 0, "449006": 0, "449007": 0, "449004": 0, "449005": 0, "449014": 0, "449012": 0, "449013": 0, "449010": 0, "449011": 0, "449008": 0, "449009": 0, "394766": 0, "394767": 0, "437772": 0, "437830": 0, "437831": 0, "437828": 0, "437829": 0, "394878": 0, "394879": 0, "425596": 0, "425597": 0, "394877": 0, "425594": 0, "425595": 0, "425592": 0, "425593": 0, "425607": 0, "394882": 0, "394880": 0, "394881": 0, "425610": 0, "425608": 0, "425609": 0, "425631": 0, "259747": 0, "259746": 0, "259745": 0, "259744": 0, "259750": 0, "298657": 0, "298658": 0, "259748": 0, "298659": 0, "259752": 0, "259759": 0, "259757": 0, "259761": 0, "437956": 0, "437954": 0, "437955": 0, "437952": 0, "437953": 0, "440031": 0, "440038": 0, "440039": 0, "440036": 0, "440037": 0, "440034": 0, "440035": 0, "440032": 0, "440033": 0, "440040": 0, "326404": 0, "326405": 0, "326406": 0, "326407": 0, "326402": 0, "326403": 0, "326408": 0, "326409": 0, "326410": 0, "326411": 0, "162605": 0, "391991": 0, "391997": 0, "391996": 0, "391999": 0, "391998": 0, "391993": 0, "391992": 0, "391995": 0, "391994": 0, "392009": 0, "292700": 0, "292701": 0, "292702": 0, "292703": 0, "193375": 0, "193373": 0, "292699": 0, "193378": 0, "263012": 0, "431975": 0, "292709": 0, "431973": 0, "193382": 0, "292704": 0, "193383": 0, "292705": 0, "292706": 0, "193381": 0, "292707": 0, "193387": 27, "193384": 0, "193391": 0, "431976": 0, "193389": 0, "431990": 0, "431991": 0, "431988": 0, "431989": 0, "431987": 0, "305020": 0, "305021": 0, "305022": 0, "305023": 0, "431992": 0, "305018": 0, "431993": 0, "305019": 0, "305028": 0, "158598": 0, "305024": 0, "158599": 0, "305025": 0, "158596": 0, "305026": 0, "158597": 0, "305027": 0, "158600": 0, "274324": 0, "274325": 0, "274326": 0, "274327": 0, "274322": 0, "274323": 0, "426910": 0, "274328": 0, "274329": 0, "274330": 0, "411574": 0, "411575": 0, "411572": 0, "351159": 0, "411573": 0, "351165": 0, "351164": 0, "411580": 0, "351167": 0, "411581": 0, "351166": 0, "411578": 0, "351161": 0, "411579": 0, "351160": 0, "411576": 16, "351163": 0, "411577": 0, "351162": 0, "309188": 0, "309189": 0, "309190": 0, "309191": 0, "351168": 0, "309187": 0, "309196": 0, "164814": 0, "309192": 0, "164815": 0, "309193": 0, "164812": 0, "309194": 0, "164813": 0, "309195": 0, "164816": 0, "164817": 0, "435182": 0, "435183": 0, "435180": 0, "435181": 0, "435178": 0, "435179": 0, "435177": 0, "435186": 0, "435187": 0, "435184": 0, "435185": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "0036ad37-89fc-4c40-ae52-a6097786d35b"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });