Anxiety and Social Support Are Associated with Loneliness among Adults with Disabilities and Older Adults with No Self-Reported Disabilities 10 Months Post COVID-19 Restrictions
and Julia Schmidt 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After reading this study I think there are a number of issues that need to be addressed by the authors, which I will list below.
1. The study title is misleading in two respects: (i) it mentions ‘older adults’ giving the impression that this group comprises the study population – but it does not. The study included adults aged between 30 and 90 according to the information presented in Table 1; (ii) the authors state that anxiety and social support are associated with loneliness among older adults and people with disabilities. This is not correct. As mentioned above the analysis was not restricted to older adults – nor was it restricted to people with disabilities. Moreover, the authors did not stratify the analysis by either older age or disability to examine if anxiety and social support were linked to loneliness in these populations. The study title needs to be changed so it more accurately reflects the research that occurred.
2. In the same way, the Abstract is misleading. It states that, “Participants included older adults (>65 years of age).” Again, according to the information presented in Table 1, 41% of the participants were aged 60 or younger.
3. More details need to be included in the Abstract. Where did the study take place? How many participants were included in the study?
4. I think the Introduction would be improved is some figures were presented showing how the prevalence of loneliness had increased in older adults and individuals with disabilities during the pandemic versus the pre-pandemic period.
5. Methods – Participant recruitment. Far more details need to be presented. The authors state that recruitment occurred through ‘researcher databases’ – what researcher databases? They also mention ‘online posting on community and advocacy websites’. What community and advocacy websites? My guess would be that they might have something to do with disability given the large percentage of people with disabilities that were recruited into the study. However, this needs to be clearly stated – readers shouldn’t have to try and guess what you did.
6. Were there other inclusion and exclusion criteria to the study? For example, in the Results section the authors mention that the recruited individuals were over the age of 19. Was being aged 19 or above an inclusion criterion? If it wasn’t, why mention it – as the age range of the participants was 30 and above according to Table 1. Also, the authors need to mention that the study was restricted to individuals residing in British Columbia (which I assume is an inclusion criterion).
7. How long was the recruitment period and what dates did it occur between? Were any incentives provided for participation e.g. payment?
8. I was a little confused about the data collection. Were the recruited individuals sent a link (from Qualtrics) to an online survey? If they were this needs to be stated more clearly.
9. In the data collection section it states that data were collected, “12-months after the initial implementation of the first wave of physical and social restrictions”. However, in the Abstract it mentions, “10 months following the COVID-19 physical restrictions.” Which is correct?
10. Methods – measures. When describing the measures used in the study, the authors report the alpha values obtained in other validation studies. However, they need to report the alpha values that were obtained for these measures in this study.
11. Please report what version of SPSS you used to analyze the data.
12. The study included just 70 participants. This is a very small number for a quantitative study that includes seven predictor variables in the analysis. It is possible that the study was underpowered to detect associations. This issue should be raised when discussing the study’s limitations.
13. In the Results section the authors mention who is included in the analysis – individuals with disabilities and older adults without disabilities. These details should have been mentioned in the participants section i.e. you need to describe who exactly was recruited into the study before the analysis begins.
14. In the Results section the authors state that the full model explained more than a third of the variance in the model. The r2 value was 0.037. Unless this is referring to a measure of which I am unaware, this means 3.7% not 37%.
15. Discussion section. It is stated that this analysis focuses on older adults in several places. However, the age range of the sample runs from 30 to 90 so this is incorrect.
16. Reference 31 is not cited in the text.
17. References 32 and 33 are not reported correctly in the References section.
18. The manuscript needs to be proof read carefully as there are some places where the meaning of the language is not clear. For example, in the Abstract it says, “…people with physical disabilities 10 months following COVID-19 physical restrictions.”
Author Response
Thank you for your comments! Please see the attachment including my responses to your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Introduction - Clearly written, but in my opinion its way too bried. Concepts are mentioned [i.e. loneliness in the elderly; the effect of disability on loneliness], but not developed. They are just mentioned. Similarly, teh effect od COVID onb loneliness -a significant one- is just mebntioned. These need to be attended to.
2. Method - please specify which months and year was teh data collected during.
3. Discussion - You did not find an association between loneliness and depresssion during COVID. That makes a lot of sense, since the association between loneliness and depression is fuelled by internalizing the causes of loneliness, while during COVID it was clearly extenalized and assigned to the pandemic. That is an important point that needs to be developed.
Same with disabilities, which usually contribute to loneliness, but during COVID were perceived as less central to the experience of loneliness.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments! Please find my responses to your comments attached below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for improving tha manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your previous comments and suggestions.
