Review Reports
by
- Magdalen Velciu 1,
- Luiza Spiru 2 and
- Vera Stara 8
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Alice Masini Reviewer 2: Asta Stankevičienė
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Background
The Introduction is well described and it has a good flow. I suggest to add a final sentence related the hypothesis of your work. Moreover, I think that some similar interventions were investigated recently for this reason I suggest the author to add more scientific background in the introduction section.
Methods
Who managed the inclusion exclusion criteria assessment before the enrolment in the study? Please explain better this phase.
The enrolment phase was very clear. I suggest to add in methods section the ethical committee approval statement.
2.3 The interview administration
It is not clear how the interviews were structured; please explain the framework and the methods used to build this qualitative approach.
Page 6 Lines 249-251
How did the authors decided that participants are active or inactive? Based on WHO guidelines?
Results
The results section is not clear. I suggest the author to use table in which summarized the different interview domains and questions as far as sample size description in each phase of the study.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Background
The Introduction is well described and it has a good flow. I suggest to add a final sentence related the hypothesis of your work. Moreover, some similar interventions were investigated recently for this reason I suggest the author to add more scientific background in the introduction section.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. We added the background in the introduction
Methods
Who managed the inclusion exclusion criteria assessment before the enrolment in the study? Please explain better this phase.
Answer: Thank you for this question. We integrated this sentence at line 254 “These criteria were set up by the three organizations based on the specificities of the CAREUP project activities and were assessed by professional staff (i.e. psychologists and researchers) before the enrolment in the study at each site.”
The enrolment phase was very clear. I suggest to add in methods section the ethical committee approval statement.
Answer: We are really glad about this suggestion. We integrated this sentence in line 257 mentioning all the ethical requirements we followed: “The individuals that took part in the study were provided with and asked to sign a written informed consent to data treatment and data publication, in accordance with the ethical standards on human experimentation (institutional and national), the GDPR 2018 and the national legislation on privacy and data protection.”
2.3 The interview administration
It is not clear how the interviews were structured; please explain the framework and the methods used to build this qualitative approach.
Answer: Thank you for these comments, at line 215 we now clarified that we designed the tool used in this study based on the User Centered Design approach and the Intrisic Capacity framework.
Page 6 Lines 249-251
How did the authors decided that participants are active or inactive? Based on WHO guidelines?
Answer: Thank you for this question, we clarified in the manuscript that we used the “Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health” that guides methods to appropriately perform physical activity in older age to decide if users are active or inactive.
Results
The results section is not clear. I suggest the author to use table in which summarized the different interview domains and questions as far as sample size description in each phase of the study.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We added Table 1 and Table 2 with raw data. You can check total numbers as well as national differences.
Comments on the Quality of English Language: Minor editing of English language required
Answer: we fixed the minor editing
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
The scientific novelty of their work in the abstract could have been justified by authors.
Research
The principles of operation of your platform and the logic of gaming (for motivation to use the platform) could be explained in more detail.
The logic of constructing the research questionnaire (how were the questions created and what are they?) must be clarified.
Authors could visualize the results of their research.
Authors should explain how will users be involved in the sustainable product development process
Discussion
The discussion part should be shortened by highlighting the differences between the results you have obtained and the results of findings of previous researchers and commenting on the reasons for the discrepancies observed in the results.
Author Response
Abstract
The scientific novelty of their work in the abstract could have been justified by authors.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We added the novelty in the abstract
Research
The principles of operation of your platform and the logic of gaming (for motivation to use the platform) could be explained in more detail.
Answer: Thank you for this request. A more detailed description of the platform operation has been included at the beginning of section 2. We explained that in CAREUP we propose to design and implement games that will evaluate the abilities of the user during each game session based on IC. Thus, we will correlate the score of the games with the IC.
The logic of constructing the research questionnaire (how were the questions created and what are they?) must be clarified.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. At line 215 we now clarified that we designed the tool used in this study based on the User Centered Design approach and the Intrisic Capacity framework.
Authors could visualize the results of their research.
Answer: Thank you for this request. We added Table 1 and Table 2 with raw data. You can check total numbers as well as national differences.
Authors should explain how will users be involved in the sustainable product development process
Answer: We really thank the reviewer for this suggestion, we shared our vision from line 639.
Discussion
The discussion part should be shortened by highlighting the differences between the results you have obtained and the results of findings of previous researchers and commenting on the reasons for the discrepancies observed in the results.
Answer: Thank you for this tip. We shortened the discussion and added comparisons with previous research
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors for reviewing their work and improving the quality.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for reviewing our manuscript and improving its quality.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors should highlight future research directions
Author Response
The authors should highlight future research directions
Answer: we thank the reviewer for underling this missing content. From line 698 of the conclusion, we added the following sentences: “Future research directions will certainly strengthen the collaboration between micro, meso and macro levels as well as underlying the importance of methodological frameworks to prove the efficacy of technology-based interventions (i.e. mixed methods approach, feasibility studies, randomized control trials). This field of research still needs to demonstrate what digital solutions have to offer and how they can improve the effectiveness of interventions through evidence base progresses. Therefore, there is an urgent need to strengthen data, research and innovation around e-health interventions to meet the needs of an ageing society and the future healthcare system’s requirements.”