The title is suitable and adequately reflects the content of the protocol study. I consider this study highly relevant and a valuable contribution to the literature. Introduction: The introduction reports suitable and relevant previous data and sets the stage by summarizing the relevant literature and identifying gaps in knowledge. The introduction clearly justifies the research purpose. It highlights the gaps and inconsistencies in the existing literature related to the field. The introduction also clearly explicitly the main goal and objectives of the study. Methods: The research methods are rigorous and offer valuable insights that have the potential to impact the field positively. It describes the data collection techniques and procedures and provides good details about the statistical tools or tests that will be used in the analysis. The analysis method that will be used is clearly indicated, providing transparency and allowing for replication and further investigation. The specific analytical techniques are described, ensuring that readers clearly understand how the data will be analyzed. The information is organized in a coherent manner, enabling a systematic interpretation. Discussion: The discussion is critical, and clear, and discusses their implications in relation to the existing literature. The points made are logically structured and supported by evidence from previous studies. The authors do rely on theoretical elements by referencing previous research in the field. The study indicates the research contribution by highlighting the novel aspects of the study. The authors should acknowledge and justify some limitations and potential risks and mitigate measures related to the research. I suggest creating a subsection titled "Limitations and Future Directions" where the authors can address the limitations/risks of the study and another for “Perspective for future studies and practical implications” The conclusions are very poor and it is necessary to review this section to give it the importance it has and the findings found. However, I congratulate all the authors for their excellent contributions. The research report is sufficiently worth reading for its lucid presentation. Authors should only concentrate on rewording the discussion sections and expanding the conclusion and revising the article according to the instructions mentioned above. Page 6 Line 38 – Missing citation after this sentence “The investigators' team developed the research questionnaire using previous literature” On page 8 Line 8 in the citation is missing at the end of this sentence: “The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which showed an alpha value of 0.74, confirming a satisfactory internal consistency.” The information about participants' “Sample” is missing in the Methods section: namely the Range of age, sex, mean age, and SD. Page 8 lines 49-56. I suggest moving this information to the participants' subtopic in the methods section. Page 10 line 7: Please change the name of the subtopic “Participants Burnout” it's not clear Page 15 Line 108 Please modify the subtopic “Strengths and limitations of the study” to Strengths and limitations On the other hand, it would be interesting to raise the theoretical and practical implications of this study in a subtopic named “Perspective for future studies and practical implications” The conclusions are very poor and it is necessary to review this section to give it the importance it has and the findings found.

The authors have met all required revisions. the article is improved