How Families’ Use of Digital Technology Can Be a Tool for Reducing Loneliness and Improving Food Intake among Older Adults

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My overall evaluation questions whether the title of the article stems with the contents. Maybe Considering using communication devices/digital technology as a tool for reducing loneliness and improving food intake for older adults - would be more accurate, as the survey conveals the ideas of how older adults could benefit from the technology Komb in the perspective of administrators where as it showed that e.g. only 5% use it for meals. L 25 over 80 years in 2060 is expected to be three times larger than in 2020: over 80 years is expected to triple in 2060 L 50-52 Loneliness is the subjective feeling of being alone without a network, while social isolation 50 is the physical separation from other people (Gardiner, Geldenhuys, & Gott, 2018). one without a network, while social isolation is the physical separation from other people (Gardiner, Geldenhuys, & Gott, 2018). For older adults, both conditions can affect daily routines and the feeling of being alone (Gaymu & Springer, 2012). The definitions of loneliness, social isolation and feeling of being alone - and the interrelationship of concepts - is not clear. L 54 In old age (80 plus), about 40-50% often feel lonely. How was this measured? Very high figures. L 61 The incidence of perceived loneliness and food-related problems increase with age (Björnwall, Mattsson Sydner, Koochek, & Neuman, 2021). The connection is not described. L 63 The text returns to risk factors for social isolation and loneliness - as in the paragraph above. L 68 - reference? L 95-96 - strongly generalizing L 99-100 It is recommended to try to separate concepts of living / being (eating) alone - and loneliness; it is not the same phenomenon. L 111-112 Thus, a reduction in loneliness, social isolation and risk of malnutrition can be achieved. Should be a hypothesis for the article - not a statement. L 129 - easily - quite normative - L 134-136 warm technology as well L 165 . Part 3 registered Komp usage during COVID-19. How could usage during COVID NOT be registered as the survey was carried out in 2020? L 179 Table 1. Number of free text answers to the different questions in the survey. How do these questions and their answers relate to the statement in the introduction that only 5% of current use were for eating meals together (abstract). Discussed further down? L 188-89 Could a more simple way to describe the content of Table 2 be found? Maybe a table is not needed to show the demograhic characteristics? Table 3,4,5,7,8,9 I don't think presenting qualitative statements in tables is a readable form. Maybe just a few statements on each topic could be integrated to the mail text. There are way too many details presented in one article. The term "the elderly" should be avoided.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript “How families’ use of digital technology can be a tool for reducing loneliness and improving food intake among older adults”. Many thanks for providing very good insights and comments enabling us to improve the manuscript. Please find enclosed our responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comments to authors.

The test is well written, however there is need for thorough proofreading.

The paper would be greatly improved if frequency/numbers/percentages being referred to in the text are presented in tables/tabular forms so that readers can easily verify it. However, if it is for want of space that the authors choose this format, then my suggestion is that table/s can be added as supplementary materials.

Introduction

Line 29-30:  “….there are also more than before who live…”  Please clarify this sentence.

 

Material and Methods

Line 134: “…the purpose to reduce loneliness and social isolation by warm…” this sentence is not clear. It will read better as “…the purpose was to reduce loneliness and social isolation by warm…”.

 

Can the authors please clarify how responses were anonymized?

 

Results

Table 1:  for question 3, there is no need for “yes/no” in the text, since the question has been split into two separate parts, and the no of quotations seems to be referring to “if NO”. See text below:

“Would social meals via Komp, where the older adult eats with you or others, be a good idea? Yes/no (if no: which resources would you need to get started?) “

 

Line 185: the text “….42% lived in cities, while…” is not supported by information in the table 2 referred to. The information provided in the table 2, under the subtheme “place of residence” also does not sum up to 100%.

 

Line 282-283: “didn’t like to share meals with others.” This sentence will read better if “other” is replaced with “others”

General comment on the result.

The authors have made efforts to present a good writeup by trying to fuse the “text responses”  with the frequency/percentages. The paper would be greatly improved if frequency/numbers/percentages  being referred to in the text are present in table/tabular form so that readers can easily verify it. If however, for want of space they chose this format, the table/s can be added as supplementary material.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript “How families’ use of digital technology can be a tool for reducing loneliness and improving food intake among older adults”. Many thanks for providing very good insights and comments enabling us to improve the manuscript. Please find enclosed our responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear researcher(s), you are addressing an important and meaningful gap. Your paper is well-written and it has some important results, and if you edit your paper it can be much more effective. Here are some humble suggestions to improve the paper, I would do the following to strengthen the paper. I have enjoyed reading the paper and am looking forward to seeing the paper published. You could increase the effect of your paper with some more recent studies suggested below or any other studies and not use the suggested ones.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript “How families’ use of digital technology can be a tool for reducing loneliness and improving food intake among older adults”. Many thanks for providing very good insights and comments enabling us to improve the manuscript. Please find enclosed our responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

First of all, I would like to thank for the opportunity to review this paper. The subject under study is certainly very important, especially in the historical period we are experiencing. The article presents interesting results, but it is nevertheless believed that, given the organization and description of the content, the manuscript cannot be published in its current form. I would like to encourage authors to consider several issues to be improved.

The introduction needs improvement. The introduction is too long and descriptive, rather than a critical analysis of existing researches. Besides, according to the research question (lines 35-37), the content of Line 38-45 seems to be off-topic.

The setting of measurement dimension lacks necessary literature support.For example，How these questions in Table 1 were put forward? What are they based on?  References should be added for the context in lines 162-168.

The authors should conclude the results in the first paragraph of Discussion section, before proceeding to a detailed discussion.

It should be noted that subjective bias is also a limitation of this research because the results were based on self-reported answers.

The article is actually more like a user experience survey, not involving a study of the mechanism, and lacks depth. I suggest to rewrite the paper as a short report.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript “How families’ use of digital technology can be a tool for reducing loneliness and improving food intake among older adults”. Many thanks for providing very good insights and comments enabling us to improve the manuscript. Please find enclosed our responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your thorough changes.

Reviewer 4 Report

OK.