Research on Urban Community Elderly Care Facility Based on Quality of Life by SEM: Cases Study of Three Types of Communities in Shenzhen, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the topic is timely and the manuscript is well-written. However, there are some critical issues to be addressed:
1) The conceptualization of the research is not clear. A clearer conceptual framework linking the current research with the extant literature is needed.
2) The sampling strategy for the survey has not been explained in detail. The representativeness of the sample is thus doubtful.
3) It is not clear why only those neighbourhoods or communities with a relatively higher proportion of elderly were picked.
4) Why was the selection done based on the four factors (lines 335-336)?
5) The QoL scales were adapted. Have these adapted scales been validated?
6) Supposedly, the survey instrument used was in Chinese. How could the authors ensure the meanings of the questions in Chinese and English versions were the same?
7) While there is a conclusion section, the actual "conclusion" of the whole manuscript is missing. Perhaps, the authors should have the policy recommendations to go with the discussion.
8) Some of the recommendations are not justified by the research findings. For example, why should the local stores provide meals? Actually, this question ties with the conceptualization and definition of "community elderly care". What kinds of service should be offered under that regime? Besides, I don't think the environment of "dry cleaner stores" is acceptabe for offering meals (even for takeaways).
9) The manuscript has quite many grammatical errors. The authors should have the manuscript proofread by a professional English writer before submission.
10) The use of some terms should be reconsidered. For example, it should be "functional setting" instead of "function setting".
11) The title of the manuscript is too lengthy. The element of "structural equation modeling" can be omitted.
12) How were the analysis results connected to the previous empirical studies? It seems that the results have not been discussed in the context of the extant literature. How similar or different were the results with those of the previous studies?
Author Response
The authors thank for the positive comments and have paid attention to the critique and suggestions. The authors have studied the comments carefully and have addressed them one-by-one to provide the following responses.
point 1：The conceptualization of the research is not clear. A clearer conceptual framework linking the current research with the extant literature is needed.
response 1: According to the reviewer's comments, a clearer conceptual framework of the study was constructed on lines 313-318 and lines 323-330. The authors describe the relationship of this study compared to previous studies.
point 2: The sampling strategy for the survey has not been explained in detail. The representativeness of the sample is thus doubtful.
response 2:The sampling principles and standards are described on lines 425-435 and this study focuses on a sample of older adults over 50 years and with experience in CECFs.
point 3: It is not clear why only those neighbourhoods or communities with a relatively higher proportion of elderly were picked.
response 3: The reason for picking communities with a high proportion of elderly is added on lines 379-383. Due to the uneven distribution of the elderly in Shenzhen, the communities with a high number of the elderly are selected for obtaining relevant research data.
point 4: Why was the selection done based on the four factors (lines 335-336)?
response 4: Additional explanations are added on lines 388-395, and the selection of the communities based on these four standards is intended to better allow for comparative studies.
point 5: The QoL scales were adapted. Have these adapted scales been validated?
response 5: Additional explanations were made on lines 450-464, and the modified form was validated for validity and reliability.
point 6: Supposedly, the survey instrument used was in Chinese. How could the authors ensure the meanings of the questions in Chinese and English versions were the same?
response 6: Thanks for the important comments from the reviewer. All questionnaires used in the study are translated directly from the original Chinese forms into English. The errors were inevitable in the translation process, the authors verified them several times with reference previous studies to maintain the original meaning as much as possible.
point 7: While there is a conclusion section, the actual "conclusion" of the whole manuscript is missing. Perhaps, the authors should have the policy recommendations to go with the discussion.
response 7: Yes, the authors agree with the reviewer's comment and highlight the conclusion in section 5.1, while 5.1.1-5.1.3 presents the policy recommendations based on the conclusion and discussion.
point 8: Some of the recommendations are not justified by the research findings. For example, why should the local stores provide meals? Actually, this question ties with the conceptualization and definition of "community elderly care". What kinds of service should be offered under that regime? Besides, I don't think the environment of "dry cleaner stores" is acceptabe for offering meals (even for takeaways).
response 8: The authors agree with the reviewer's point that this part was an expression error by authors and has been corrected (Lines 740-746). The study recommends that laundries provide laundry services for the elderly.
It is important to emphasize that, unlike Western countries, cleaning, maintenance, and meal services of Chinese elderly are provided by CECFs. Chinese elderly have the most urgent need for dining services. Currently in Chinese cities such as Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou, the government is actively building community elderly canteens to help the elderly with their dining needs. Considering the large investment cost, the community's catering stores in Shanghai and other cities are encouraged to provide part of the meal service for the elderly.
point 9:The manuscript has quite many grammatical errors. The authors should have the manuscript proofread by a professional English riter before submission.
response 9: Thanks for the reviewer's suggestion. The authors are sorry that the grammatical errors in the article troubled your reading problems, and we will get a professional writer to proofread the manuscript.
point 10: The use of some terms should be reconsidered. For example, it should be "functional setting" instead of "function setting".
response 10: The typo found by the reviewer is corrected. The authors take another round of language editing and check to remove all possible language problems from the paper.
point 11:The title of the manuscript is too lengthy. The element of "structural equation modeling" can be omitted.
response 11:The authors agree with the reviewer's comment that the title is too long, but structural equation modeling is an important research method that the authors want to highlight. Therefore, after referring to the titles of other manuscripts, the authors shorten "structural equation modeling" into "SEM" in order to reduce the length of the title.
point 12: How were the analysis results connected to the previous empirical studies? It seems that the results have not been discussed in the context of the extant literature. How similar or different were the results with those of the previous studies?
response 12: The authors agree with the reviewer's comment and expand on the results part, comparing and analyzing the result with previous studies (lines 572-598).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
the manuscript presents research on correlation "evaluation system between the quality of life (QOL) and CECF satisfaction 11 of the elderly". The topic of the research is very relevant. Today, we experience growth in both the size and the proportion of elderly people in the population. In my opinion, this paper is well written and structured. I could not find any logical errors in this manuscript. The following points may be considered during revising the article:
1. Introduction part could be more specific (paragraph 44-48). In this part statements seem to be too much general, especially that this short part (2 sentences) refers to huge numbers of references (8 references).
2. I suggest to specify location of Shenzhen (part of China)
3. In my opinion, the methodology and after the obtained results are really crucial. I would suggest only to refer your findings to the existing knowledge, just to indicate position of your findings with regard to other studies. So conclusion part could be a little extended.
Author Response
Thank you for the insightful and positive comments provided by the reviewer.
point 1: Introduction part could be more specific (paragraph 44-48). In this part statements seem to be too much general, especially that this short part (2 sentences) refers to huge numbers of references (8 references).
response 1: The authors have expanded the introduction part, added and deleted pieces of the literature, and enriched the presentation of the previous literature. （lines 43-60）
point 2: I suggest to specify location of Shenzhen (part of China)
response 2: The author adds the location of Shenzhen in China（lines 371-372）.
point 3: In my opinion, the methodology and after the obtained results are really crucial. I would suggest only to refer your findings to the existing knowledge, just to indicate position of your findings with regard to other studies. So conclusion part could be a little extended.
response 3: The authors agree with the reviewer's comment and expand on the results part, comparing and analyzing the result with previous studies (lines 572-598).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The issue discussed in the paper is achieving a lot of interest in the recent years. Therefore, the authors are following an attractive research path. The manuscript meets the required quality standards to be considered for publication. The paper is well structured and clear for a reader. The framework of the presented research is well explained; the results also are coherent in line with the methodology established.
Few recommendations:
1. Please improved the quality of Figures 3,4,5,6, because are not readable.
2. Check the references style of the journal.
Author Response
The authors thank for the insightful and constructive comments provided by the reviewer.
point 1: Please improved the quality of Figures 3,4,5,6, because are not readable.
response 1:The author redrew the images to increase readability based on the reviewers' comments.
point 2: Check the references style of the journal.
response 2: According to the reviewers' comments, the authors corrected the reference style according to the journal's requirements.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am happy to see the authors have most of my comments/suggestions addressed. My only concern is the language. The language used in the paper is still not up to a publishable standard. For example, "based on" rather than "basing on" should be used in the paper title.
