Physical Activity and Social Support to Promote a Health-Promoting Lifestyle in Older Adults: An Intervention Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors aim to determine the effect of physical activity and social support improves health-promoting lifestyles among older adults. Although this is an important topic, there are numerous available studies pertaining to this topic. A few suggestions for improvement are listed below
1. Please highlight the significance of this study
2. The aim of the study needs to be clearly stated
3. Methods need to be clearly written and elaborated
4. Each participant's social status and previous occupation needs to be analyzed along
5. Tha abstract needs to be restructured. Please include the methods and results from the data
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments of the reviewers. This author group has revised the review comments and invited the MDPI English editor to polish it.
- Please highlight the significance of this study
Response:
Revised complete, line 40-48, line 51-52.
- The aim of the study needs to be clearly stated
Reply: Revised complete, line 92-101.
- Methods need to be clearly written and elaborated
Response: Revised complete, line 109-111, line 113-115, line 125-126, line 132-134, line 137-139, line 150, line 155-165, line 190-198, line 201-208, line 217-221.
- Each participant's social status and previous occupation needs to be analyzed along
Response:
Revised complete, line 113-115, line 191, line 224-237.
- Tha abstract needs to be restructured. Please include the methods and results from the data
Response:
Revised complete, line 12-34.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study entitled “Physical Activity and Social Support for Health-Promoting Lifestyle in Older Adults: An Intervention Study”, is a valuable study for preventing aging. I have some concerns about this study:
1. Why did the authors only include the male adults and the female adults were not included? It should be as study limitations.
2. It is useful that the authors used a new technology (Garmin's vivosmart) to measure the walking steps and calorie consumption. However, how did the authors ensure the reliability of the test data of this device?
3. How did the authors confirm the sample sizes for this study? please clarify.
4. In the statistical analysis, did the authors conduct multiple regression and control for the covariates? I did not see it in the method.
5. Please add explanations for the abbreviations (e.g., LSD in Table 4) below the Tables.
6. What’s the meaning of the 1 or 2 of Model in Table 8-10? Please clarify them accordingly.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments of the reviewers. This author group has revised the review comments and invited the MDPI English editor to polish it.
- Why did the authors only include the male adults and the female adults were not included? It should be as study limitations.
Response: Revised complete, line 203-208.
- It is useful that the authors used a new technology (Garmin's vivosmart) to measure the walking steps and calorie consumption. However, how did the authors ensure the reliability of the test data of this device?
Response:Revised complete, line 155-165.
- How did the authors confirm the sample sizes for this study? please clarify.
Response:Revised complete, line 109-110.
- In the statistical analysis, did the authors conduct multiple regression and control for the covariates? I did not see it in the method.
Response: Revised complete, line 217-221, line 301-309, line 318-321, line 323, line 326-330, line 340, line 345, line 348-354.
- Please add explanations for the abbreviations (e.g., LSD in Table 4) below the Tables.
Response: Revised complete, line 270, line 299.
- What’s the meaning of the 1 or 2 of Model in Table 8-10? Please clarify them accordingly.
Response: Revised complete, line 301-309, line 326-330.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
The health issues of the elderly are very interesting and should be studied continuously. However, it is difficult to say that this study, unfortunately, has discovered new facts.
The purpose, the experiment, and the analysis are all very general.
Abstract
Add a description for the control group.
Social support related to the research method is a major variable in this study. How did you measure it? Describe the measurement. Describe the criteria for dividing the groups.
In the results, use the group name to express whether there was a difference between groups or not.
The introduction is not systematic. There is a very limit to the logical structure and natural flow.
Research methods are better than introductions. However, group classification and experimental contents need to be more detailed, and there is a limit to revealing new facts only with one way ANOVA and multiple regression analysis.
Discussion
Compare the results of this study with the results of other studies. Therefore, I hope that the originality, new discoveries, and interpretations of this study should be logically structured.
There is no '*' in table 1, so delete the * on line 108.
Add the words EGa, EGb, CG to lines 92 and 93.
(ex, experimental group A (EGa; average age 70.8 ± 6.2 years))
Express 0.001 as <0.001.
Mark the '*' in Tables 4 and 6, 7, 8 in the P-value, not the F-value or t-value.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments of the reviewers. This author group has revised the review comments and invited the MDPI English editor to polish it.
The purpose, the experiment, and the analysis are all very general.
Response: Revised complete, line 40-48, line 51-52, line 92-101, line 109-111, line 113-115, line 125-126, line 132-134, line 137-139, line 150, line 155-165, line 190-198, line 201-208, line 217-221.
Abstract
Add a description for the control group.
Response: Revised complete, line 12-34.
Social support related to the research method is a major variable in this study. How did you measure it? Describe the measurement. Describe the criteria for dividing the groups.
Response: Revised complete, line 192-198, line 302-308, line 326-338, line 348-354.
In the results, use the group name to express whether there was a difference between groups or not.
Response: Revised complete, line 244-259, line 272-288, line 361, line 392-394.
The introduction is not systematic. There is a very limit to the logical structure and natural flow.
Response: Revised complete, line 40-48, line 51-52, line 92-105.
Research methods are better than introductions. However, group classification and experimental contents need to be more detailed, and there is a limit to revealing new facts only with one way ANOVA and multiple regression analysis.
Response: Revised complete, line 210-221.
Discussion
Compare the results of this study with the results of other studies. Therefore, I hope that the originality, new discoveries, and interpretations of this study should be logically structured.
Response: Revised complete, line 402-411.
There is no '*' in table 1, so delete the * on line 108.
Response: Delete, line 132.
Add the words EGa, EGb, CG to lines 92 and 93. (ex, experimental group A (EGa; average age 70.8 ± 6.2 years))
Response: Revised complete, line 116-117.
Express 0.001 as <0.001.
Response: Revised complete, line 266, line 297, line 318, line 323, line 340, line 345.
Mark the '*' in Tables 4 and 6, 7, 8 in the P-value, not the F-value or t-value.
Response: Revised complete, line 266, line 297, line 318, line 323, line 340, line 345.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear
The authors faithfully revised the major requests.
Thank you, However, I ask for some more corrections.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their hard work, our author group has made revisions based on the review comments.
