The Role of Micro-Communities in Post-Disaster Psychological Well-Being of Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Reviewer 1 Comment

Author Response

Revision in Manuscript

“Very interesting, referenced, and well written article, I expect articles to begin with the abstract. The Highlights section was vaguely like an AI summary of the article.”

The journal format requires structured highlights before the abstract. However, the highlights were revised to make them more specific to the study context, sample, and key empirical findings rather than general statements.

Highlights section rewritten to include Malatya earthquake context, sample characteristics, and main findings regarding sociodemographic factors and micro-communities.

“Line 149 Why did you not include the statistical analyses supporting the Turkish adaptation by Dagli and Baysal?”

Psychometric properties of the Turkish version were added to improve methodological transparency.

Cronbach’s α = 0.88 and test–retest reliability r = 0.97 added to the scale description (Methods section).

“Table 1 was a good summary of the findings. Interesting results, especially the low number of relative deaths, the distance from the city and reliance on NGOs and neighbors.”

The Discussion was expanded to interpret these descriptive patterns, including sampling constraints, sustainability of NGO/neighborhood support, and widespread geographic impact.

A new analytical paragraph added to the Discussion section addressing bereavement rates, support sources, and geographic patterns.

“I would expect recommendations for further research although these were alluded to in the discussion section. For example Line 244 … Line 266 …”

A dedicated future research paragraph was added addressing longitudinal designs, qualitative approaches, cultural comparisons of gender patterns, and intervention-based studies integrating formal and informal support systems.

New paragraph added to the Conclusions section outlining methodological and theoretical directions for future research.

Reviewer 2 Comment

Author Response

Revision in Manuscript

Introduction - It might be worth introducing the term 'micro-communities' so your audience understands exactly how you understand it. Have you got literature you can reference to justify why you chose this term over another?

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I agree that the term “micro-communities” required clearer conceptual definition and theoretical grounding. The manuscript has been revised to explicitly define micro-communities as small-scale, geographically proximate social networks including family members, neighbors, and community-based organizations that provide instrumental, emotional, and informational support. This conceptualization is now supported by references to Coleman’s social capital framework and Aldrich’s work on post-disaster community resilience, which emphasize the importance of localized bonding and bridging social capital in recovery processes.

A new explanatory paragraph defining “micro-communities” and justifying the term with relevant literature has been added to the Introduction (after line XX).

2.2 - How did you select participants? You mention "random sampling approach" but we need more detail. e.g. Did you contact people from a list, and if so, where did you obtain the list? Why did you conduct the questionnaires in public spaces? Who conducted the questionnaires and why? Did you intend to get a mix of gender, disaster experience, etc., or was age the sole criterion for selection? etc.

Thank you for highlighting the need for greater methodological clarity. The description of the sampling process has been substantially expanded. Because post-earthquake displacement and institutional disruption prevented the use of a formal sampling frame, a systematic intercept sampling approach was employed in public spaces (parks, gardens, and community centers) frequented by older adults in Battalgazi and Yesilyurt districts. The rationale for selecting public spaces, the infeasibility of door-to-door recruitment, and the focus on community-dwelling older adults are now clarified. It is also specified that data were collected through face-to-face interviews conducted by the author, a geropsychiatry specialist, using trauma-informed communication principles. Age (60+) was the primary inclusion criterion, with geographic stratification by district but no gender or exposure quotas. Sampling limitations are now explicitly acknowledged.

Section 2.2 has been revised to provide a detailed description of the sampling frame limitations, recruitment locations, data collection procedures, researcher role, and inclusion criteria.

2.2. - "A power analysis based on population data obtained from the Turkish Statistical Institute indicated that a minimum sample size of 287 participants was required to achieve adequate statistical power." - What was the population size? / What percentage of the population did you seek to include?

Thank you for this important clarification request. The manuscript now specifies that, according to 2023 Turkish Statistical Institute data, the combined population aged 60 years and above in Battalgazi and Yesilyurt districts was approximately 23,450 individuals. Using a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and a 50% population proportion, the calculated minimum sample size was 378 participants. Due to post-disaster feasibility constraints, 287 participants were recruited. This sample represents approximately 1.2% of the target population. These details have been added to improve transparency regarding the power analysis and sampling coverage.

Population size, statistical assumptions, and sampling proportion have been added to Section 2.2.

Reviewer 3 Comment

Author Response

Revision in Manuscript

This article needs to highlight how this is different than existing literature and what it brings new to the body of literature.

Thank you for this important comment. We clarified the study’s novelty by emphasizing its analytical focus on micro-communities as distinct units of support and by empirically testing whether their perceived importance translates into psychological outcomes. The study also contributes context-specific evidence from Türkiye’s 2023 earthquakes.

A new paragraph has been added to the end of the Introduction explicitly outlining the study’s three main contributions to the existing literature.

It should be made clearer in the title of the article what type of study this is. The term disaster attitude is unclear too.

We agree and have revised the title to clearly indicate the study design and removed ambiguous terminology.

The title has been revised to: “The Role of Micro-Communities in Post-Disaster Psychological Well-Being of Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study.” References to “disaster attitude” were removed.

It is unclear why there are highlights listed before the abstract, is this a journal requirement?

The placement of the Highlights section before the abstract follows the journal’s formatting requirements and was not determined by the author.

No change was made to the manuscript; clarification is provided here in accordance with journal guidelines.

Line 31 – the term social micro-communities should be defined as this is not a common term.

We agree that the term required explicit definition.

A clear definition of “micro-communities” has been added to the Introduction, grounded in social capital and disaster resilience literature, with appropriate references.

Line 87 – should be outlined earlier in the article.

The manuscript structure was revised to improve conceptual flow.

The referenced concept has been moved earlier in the Introduction to ensure clarity before methodological application.

Is there any literature on micro-communities helping disaster old adult survivors – what makes this study different.

Relevant literature on social capital, neighborhood ties, and disaster recovery among older adults has been incorporated, and the study’s distinct contribution has been clarified.

Additional references and explanatory text have been added to the Introduction to position the study within existing research.

Line 102 – how were the older adults approached to participate in the study?

The recruitment procedure has been clarified to enhance methodological transparency.

Section 2.2 now explains the use of systematic intercept sampling in public spaces frequented by older adults due to post-disaster displacement and lack of a sampling frame.

Line 104–105: how was confidentiality handled since it was in a public space? Who conducted the interviews? How was interrater reliability handled?

Confidentiality was ensured by conducting interviews in semi-private settings. All interviews were conducted by a single researcher specialized in geropsychiatry using standardized procedures; therefore, interrater reliability was not applicable. Data accuracy was supported through random verification of completed questionnaires.

Section 2.2 has been revised to clarify confidentiality procedures, interviewer identity, and the rationale for interrater reliability not being applicable.

Line 109 – what was the final sample size? What is the demographic data on this population – a summative statement is missing.

We agree and added a concise summary of the study population.

A summative description of the sample (n=287), including age, gender, marital status, and district distribution, has been added to the Results section.

Line 152 – since some people may experience more than one natural disaster how was that handled?

This issue has been clarified in the Methods section.

The manuscript now states that although participants may have experienced previous disasters, the analysis focused on recovery following the February 2023 earthquakes.

Line 231 – what about age, gender, education and marital status make it more strongly associated? The wording needs clarification.

We revised the wording to avoid causal implications and to clarify interpretation. Sociodemographic variables are now discussed as contextual and structural markers influencing access to resources rather than inherent determinants.

The Discussion section has been revised to clarify the interpretation of sociodemographic associations in line with the cross-sectional design.