The Impact of Sustainable Development on the Public Health System of the Elderly in the Internet of Things Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are flaws in the structure and content of this paper. It is quite confused that in Methods section, the home care system is developed by the author or developed by other creators? If the home care system is developed by the author, please state clearer where is the app, maybe add the development history will be better. If the system isn’t created by the author, then, Methods section should not be state like the current manuscript, instead, it should clearly state your statistical method (i.e. quantitative research method). Results and analysis section doesn’t seem to echo the content of Methods section. Moreover, the author seems use IMB model, but what was the interrelationship between each variable, how many participants in your study? The statistical results in the last part of Results and analysis section seem irrelevant with the so-called IMB model.

Author Response

Dear Editor

     Please  check  the  attachment .

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “The impact of sustainable development on the public health system of the elderly in the Internet of Things environment” discussed about the development of sensors for elderly, find method to link the information of elderlies and their behaviours and did some data analyses on elderlies’ long-term care mode. However, the contributions of this manuscript are not clear, thus major revision is required for this manuscript to be published.

Firstly, the manuscript did not mention that where the data used in this manuscript come from. Are the data from China? If so, from which location and how the data were collected?

Secondly, the contribution of this manuscript is not clear. Is it a review paper, is it a sensor development paper, is it an elderly investigation paper, or is it a data analysis paper? What is the major contribution of this paper? If it is a research paper, the sensor prototype developed by the author or the database collection by the author must be indicated in detail, and the method of data process should be explained too.

My suggested revisions are as below:

(1)    In the manuscript, the author should clearly list the contributions of this manuscript, and what are the prototype and statistic research done by the author in this manuscript. If they are done by the author, clearly state the method that how the research was conducted (such as data collected from XXX, use software XXX, prototype shown in Figure X was developed by steps of 1, 2, 3, …).

(2)    In the abstract lines 14-15, the author wrote “The research shows that 91% of the disabled elderly can obtain comprehensive and efficient long-term care services”, where is the 91% number from? 91% is not shown in the context.

(3)    In lines 32-36, where are the data from? Add a reference for it.

(4)    For formulas 2-6, please add references for these formulas (if they are from references) or roughly describe how these formulas are derived and the meaning of each parameter (if they are novel work of the author).

(5)    Please explain Figure 3 in detail. What is the original signal from? It is not clear why Figure 3 is there and what the author wants to show through Figure 3.

(6)    In line 213, “formula of the attitude Angle is Formula 7”, Formula 7 is just for Fourier Transform, not for attitude angle. Should this be Formula 10?

(7)    Please explain what are the pitch, roll, yaw, ax, ay, and ax respectively in the Formulas 8-10.

(8)    Please explain the formulas 11-18 in detail. The readers have no idea what each formula and their parameters mean.

(9)    Please explain what formulas 19 and 20 mean and what are the related parameters mean.

(10)In lines 269-270, “The red part of triangular marks in the figure is FFT coefficient”, there are no red triangular marks in any of the figures in this manuscript.

(11)Please explain what the differences between Figure 4 and Figure 5 are, and why Figure 5 results in a big improvement.

(12)In lines 285-286, the author wrote “Low-income families are fully subsidized by the government, 90% for middle and low income people and 60% for general families”, please explain which country has this policy. If it is for China, different provinces and cities have different policies, please specify. This sentence also has logic issue. If low-income families are fully subsidized, why it says “90% for middle and low income people”, are there any difference between low income family and low income people? 60% for general people, if middle or low income people are not general people, who are the general people?  

(13)In Table 2, what are ADL and IADL representing for? How are the levels be identified. Please add a reference for it.  

 

(14)In line 398, “After the original data collected through the network is processed”, what are the original data about and where are they from? Is there any literature reference for it? In this sentence, “is processed” should be “are processed”.

(15)In line 401, “a total of 7 principal components were extracted”, please indicate what these 7 principal components are standing for?

(16)For lines 407-416, please indicate where the data are collected from, and how many urban and rural elderlies are involved in the investigation respectively and where are the elderlies from (i.e., at which location of the China or the world).

(17)Is Table 5 extracted from the same batch of data for Table 4? How are the life satisfaction numbers calculated in Table 5 and what do these numbers mean?

(18)Tables 3-5 do not seem to be related to IoT. Are data for these tables collected from IoT? If so, how are they collected from IoT?

Author Response

Dear Editor 

    Please  check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This scientific article that we have appraised is a high quality work.

It is well written, clear, precise, relevant in its form and especially in terms of its demonstration. The methodology is clearly presented, the demonstration is of quality and allows a valid answer to the questions asked. The figures are numerous and really support the demonstration.

The bibliographical references are numerous, recent, in short it is a very relevant scientific analysis.

 

This excellent quality research work deserves to be validated as it is.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor

   Please  check the  attachment .

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The overall concept and adoption of the current problem have been well presented. This a great attempt towards solving the major issue of public health in the elderly by utilizing present-day technology. 

Can you list a few examples of the recommended methods that are effectively implemented in the country or outside? What is the overall economic/emotional burden on an individual or on the system and what are some ways to tackle a situation like this? In advanced countries few of the systems/techniques have been successfully adopted and implemented, can the authors quote a few examples or models? In this context, even though the authors quoted some examples, i.e. in Reference 8 (lines 92 to 94) the statement is not clear.

Author Response

Dear Editor 

     Please  check the  attachment .

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has completed the modification of the relevant problems, which can be accepted for publication. Before it is published, please re-check the spelling and grammar. 

Author Response

Dear  Editor

       Please check  the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is improved and the author has answered all of my comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Thanks for the revisions.

I would recommend its publication on Sustainability. Just two small revisions are suggested as below:

1.       In line 280 and line 284, “ROL1” should be revised to “roll”.

2.       For Table 2, ADL and IADL are not explained in the revised manuscript but are inside the author’s reply to my review comments. The author might add your reply “ADL: Activities of Daily Living, IADL: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living” into the manuscript, and add a reference “Ref: Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969, 9:179–186” in the References.

Author Response

Dear  Editor

       Please  check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx