A Study on the Demands of Physical and Medical Integration Services for the Elderly in the Dabei Quhou Community in Qingdao
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
1. Title
If the title is too long, the text should be reduced, and the name of the research object or place should be proposed.
2. Summary
Please rewrite and edit as requested. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions
3. Number of samples
The number of samples is too low, and 267 samples can be expanded to explain the overall perception of the Chinese elderly? This is a serious academic research error.
4. Timely citations are important to reinforce the manuscript
As long as it is a research result, phenomenon or data, it is necessary to find strong literature to endorse it.
5. Systematization and consistency of tables and pictures
Table 4 should be related to Table 5. But what I can't understand is the design of Table 5. How does the author distinguish the sub-facets?
6. Is the design in Figure 2 reasonable?
The issues discussed by the authors did not correlate or appear to be influential, or even demonstrably variable, from one issue to another. It is inappropriate for the authors to use linear graphs for presentation.
7. Figure 3 design
This is a good choice. It would be even better if the values and text descriptions could be strengthened and the font size increased.
8. Table 7 design
If there is no misunderstanding, Hierarchy of needs should refer to the degree of needs of the respondents for the topic. Since the author wants to emphasize the differences in issues corresponding to different needs in this table. Then why should we consider co-ranking all the topics in the analysis process? This is a very strange insight.
9. Regarding 3.5. Is this a chapter of its own, named after the discussion?
10. Regarding the discussion, the content of the discussion and the narrative process need to be inferred based on the analysis results.
Example: This survey found "interesting sports activities" to be an unnecessary option. This is, on the contrary, an interesting place for readers. Because the old people grow older, their life functions decline, their relatives grow up, their family members are independent, their peers of the same age wither or their mobility declines. This requires companionship, or the need to increase the attractiveness and motivation of leisure participation through fun activities. Therefore, the author's investigation found that interesting sports activities are unnecessary. I think that instead calls for discussing it.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13607860701366129
Overall, it's a nice theme. However, the manuscript is still flawed and is not yet ready for review. I recommend that the author revise it before reviewing it.
good luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Aim:
To understand the need for health promotion services for the integration of sports and medical care for the elderly in Dabeiquhou Community, Chengyang District, Qingdao.
Methodology:
Based on the theory of attractive quality, logical system, and basic views of the Kano model and applied on the needs of 267 elderly people over 60 years of age.
Overall assessment:
Although it is well written and well presented, the academic value added is low and is not appropriate for this journal. The work does not correspond to the subject of the journal «Sustainability». I could not find the word “sustainability” either in the keywords or within the text. The paper lacks a description of the research gap. The authors do not explain in detail the contribution of the paper. Research questions are not enough. The novelty of this paper is not described in detail. What the paper does is an application of the Kano model in one District, but this is not enough for novelty.
I did not notice any serious problems.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors :
I am very pleased to receive the revised manuscript, which will improve the quality of the manuscript. However, there are still some minor problems that I hope the author can correct.
1. Line 137, what is the function of this word?
2. Lines 154-155, the formula must be presented.
4. Discussion and conclusion sections need to be clearly separated.
5. Suggestions, please mark the title of each suggestion with this point.
6. For the content of line 500, please mark a point and list it as a suggestion for future research.
I hope that this manuscript will receive better improvements, and I wish you the best of luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been considerably improved compared to the previous version.
Therefore I suggest acceptance in its current form.
The quality of English is bery good.
Author Response
感谢您的建议和指导，使我们的稿件有了很大的进步，再次感谢您！
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
I trust you to make sufficient improvements to submit this revised manuscript. But regarding the question asked last time, in line 154, the proposed formula still disappears, and this problem has not been improved.
Furthermore, lines 185-203 have obvious gaps. Is this a mistake? Or is there a picture missing? I hereby declare that the author must check it clearly or submit it again after modification. If improvements cannot be made, the manuscript will be considered for rejection.
good luck,
Author Response
Thank you for your advice and guidance, so that our manuscript has made great progress, thank you again!
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
