Author's response to reviews Title: Improving occupational health care for construction workers: a process evaluation Authors:

MAJOR: Background Section: The first sentence of the background sentence should include an adjective for the type of “evaluation” you are conducting in your study. For example, after re-reading the manuscript it became apparent the second time after reviewing the abstract that you would be conducting a “process evaluation”. → We included in background sentence the type of evaluation we conducted in the study. MAJOR: Background Section: The following comment while pertinent to this sentence of the abstract is also true for the entire manuscript – The abbreviation Workers’ health surveillance should likely be Workers’ health surveillance programme (WHSP); many future sentence structures read awkward without the “programme” at the end of it. → We understand the comment of the reviewer, but for two reasons we have chosen to use WHS and not WHSP as abbreviation. First, the term WHS is used by the International Labour Organization to designate the surveillance of workers health, as meant in our study (1). To prevent any misunderstanding, we chose to use their abbreviation. Secondly, we used the abbreviation WHS in our design article, and changing the abbreviation might lead to a misunderstanding among those readers who also read the design article (2). We rephrased the wording and avoided the use of ‘a WHS’, instead we used ‘WHS’.