Adapting in Later Life During a Health Crisis—Loro Viejo Sí Aprende a Hablar: A Grounded Theory of Older Adults’ Adaptation Processes in the UK and Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It appears a considerable amount of research and thought went into this paper however the central premise of the paper is flawed. It is not possible to compare countries at a population level with an N of 61, especially given the strong influence of self-selection and non-random sampling.  The paper does not provide sufficient demographic information for the reader to understand population, environmental, and individual-level drivers (e.g. social determinants of heath, living situation). The post-modern approach to data collection (constructivist grounded theory) lends itself better to exploratory or participatory action research in this area as opposed to conclusive objective findings (re. adaptation processes and cognitive adaptation). 

Methodologically, there are also a few gaps in how the information is presented that inhibit the reader’s ability to gauge the scientific merit of the findings.  For example, how did the researchers select which of the 297 participants of the C19PR to contact [line 235 indicated just 86 were attempted], in the findings how many respondents were coded into the defined nodes (the paper simply states many but should provide an accurate N, or in some instances one – is that sufficient to state saturation), and a discussion of how data collection at two temporal points (UK) as opposed to one (Columbia)may have influenced findings – was there data consistency between the two interview time points).

There are also a number of generalizations and conclusions not supported by the data including, broad stroking cultural values at the national level (L73 – 76), and stated findings within the discussion including:  “stereotypes about vulnerability obscured older adults’ capacity for adaptation” (L466-467), reference to internalized self-stigma of vulnerability (470), and ability for lifelong learning (519) which were not highlighted in the results. 

The data collected in this work is of significant value to the academic community, however not in the way it is presented.  Enhanced transparency of the population under study (e.g. SES, location of residence (rural vs. urban), living situation (e.g. community dwelling vs. institution-based), employment status, level of education, polypharmacy, multimorbidity, ethnicity, etc.) and detailed thematic coding data would allow for much stronger understanding of the significance of the findings. As already stated, framing the results as exploratory would also better reflect the scope and applicability of the results.   

On a final note, I encourage you to reconsider your title as, at least to this reviewer, it feels a bit ageist. There is a significant body of literature related to growth (as opposed to fixed) mindset that describes learning as a continuum rather than fixed point (c.f. the work of Carol Dweck). As well, words hold meaning (c.f. Nations, M. K., & Monte, C. G. (2013). “I'm not dog, no!”: Cries of resistance against cholera control campaigns. In The Anthropology of Infectious Disease (pp. 439-481). Routledge.)

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1 please see attached the point by point response to your feedback. Thank you for your critical thoughts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Old Dogs Can Learn New Tricks—Loro Viejo sí Aprende a Hablar—A Grounded Theory from the United Kingdom and Colombia" is very interesting, well written, and clearly structured. It presents significant findings in a research area that remains insufficiently explored.

The study is methodologically rigorous, employing Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory approach, which is systematically and transparently presented. The use of detailed qualitative interviews strengthens the empirical basis of the theoretical conclusions drawn. Qualitative insights from participants in both countries add substantial depth and context to the analysis, effectively illustrating the diverse adaptive strategies older adults used.

The article effectively provides a cross-cultural comparison between two different socio-economic contexts (the UK and Colombia). It successfully identifies universal adaptation processes among older adults, highlighting that despite diverse cultural backgrounds, common psychological adaptation mechanisms exist.

The article clearly outlines cognitive, emotional, and behavioral adaptation processes, providing a structured framework for understanding how older adults managed challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns. This categorization enhances readability and comprehension.

My leading suggestions are the following.

- I suggest including in the article the table (Sociodemographic data UK and Colombia) of the supplementary material S1 to better and clearly justify the choice of the two countries, especially at the end of Section 1.5 or Section 2.

- I suggest reducing Section 2, which provides too many specific details (it weighs one-third of the article). For example, Table 1 can be moved into the article's annex.

- On the contrary, Sections 3 and 4 deserve more attention and further details on the results and discussion. The authors recognize but do not deeply explore how factors such as gender, health status, caregiving responsibilities, housing conditions, or socioeconomic inequalities within each country might interact with or influence adaptive processes and have influenced interviewees' lives. Such intersectional analysis could have provided more nuanced insights and should be explored and added to the article if the authors have collected data on these aspects.

- In Section 3, a short description/definition of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral concepts should be provided.

- Although the authors mention addressing temporal alignment issues by selecting similar interview periods, it remains unclear whether, and how, differences in the exact timing of data collection (Wave 2 in the UK versus Wave 1 in Colombia) may have influenced responses. This discrepancy might have introduced variability unrelated to cultural differences.

- The authors seem aware of the limit connected with representativeness (as stated in the final part). This can even more clearly be declared in the article (in Section 2), underlying that the sampling strategies may limit the generalizability of the findings. In the UK, using Qualtrics for recruitment inherently excludes individuals not connected to digital platforms, potentially biasing the sample toward digitally competent older adults. The Colombian sample, recruited via snowball sampling, similarly lacks national representativeness.

Minor comments and typos

- The term paper should be substituted with “article” in the text.

- Line 88: the second and last authors or author (singular)?

- Lines 103-107 (challenge 4): I do not really understand the point, and I suggest clarifying the fourth challenge better.

- Line 117: Three nationwide lockdowns → If this sentence refers to the second phase, it would be more precise and correct to write “two nationwide lockdowns”, no?

- Table 1: I suggest moving “2021” next to January instead of putting the year at the end of the timeline.

- Line 133: thrice should be twice.

- Line 138: “This study …” should be “These studies are of ….”.

- Line 192: The dot is missing at the end of the sentence.

- Line 259: The word “University” is repeated twice.

- Line 476: At the end of the sentence, Fig. 2 should be canceled.

Final comments

Overall, the article provides valuable contributions to the literature on cross-cultural older adults and effectively applies grounded theory to examine complex adaptive processes among older adults. It can be published after considering the above comments and suggestions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2, thank you for you encouraging feedback. Please see attached the point by point feedback

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, this manuscript offers a valuable contribution regarding the adaptation of older adults in culturally diverse contexts after one year of the pandemic. With targeted improvements in contextualization, clarity of objectives, presentation of results, and strengthening of the discussion, it will reach an excellent standard.

The abstract provides a clear overview of objectives and findings, but the introduction could be reinforced with more recent studies on prolonged adaptation in older populations during crises to better situate the specific gap addressed by this research.

In the Materials and Methods section, grounded theory and sampling are described, but the research questions and hypotheses are not explicitly stated, which it would be advisable to include.

The presentation of results includes the three emerging categories described in depth with a wealth of quotations, but it lacks summary diagrams or tables; for example, Figure 1 (timeline) lacks a detailed legend, and Figure 2 (adaptation model) could be enriched with a flowchart showing the cognitive–emotional–behavioral interaction. Incorporating a table summarizing each theme and subtheme would be beneficial.

Regarding bibliographic references, there is a good balance between classics and recent studies, but it would be worthwhile to include more perspectives from Latin American countries other than Colombia (e.g., Brazil or Mexico) to reinforce the cross‑cultural dimension.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3 thank you for your supportive feedback. Please see the attached point by point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf