Remote Cultural Events: Investigating the Usefulness of Live Streaming for Creating Cultural and Social Engagement in Communities of Older Adults
and Aarni Tuomi 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript. The manuscript is well written and deals with a valuable area of live streaming for creating cultural and social engagement in communities of older adults. However, the authors need to respond to the following points.
1. The possible sampling bias needs to be clarified.
The authors should create a table for descriptive statistics, including the socioeconomic variables of the subjects, if available. Joining a live-streaming event of opera may not be a popular pastime leisure for everyone. The subjects may be skewed by their socioeconomic background. Therefore, the authors should clarify the possible sampling bias by presenting descriptive statistics. If not, the authors should mention the possible sampling bias in the section on research limitations.
2. The limitations of the research are not sufficient.
People’s emotions may be affected by the atmosphere of the venue, not just by the streaming content. For instance, an excellent performance may look cheap with a terrible sound system and vice versa; and the perception of a romantic story may depend on whom you hear the story with.
Furthermore, the impression of the experience may be affected by the personalities, tone, and atmosphere of the interviewers.
The authors should take those into account and discuss them in the section on research limitations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled "Remote cultural events: Investigating the usefulness of live streaming for creating cultural and social engagement in communities of older adults". We appreciate your expertise and valuable insights in evaluating our work. This revised manuscript presents the major edits to enhance our study's overall structure and content (all edits are marked in blue). These edits encompass several key aspects, including the identification of literature gaps as a conclusion of the literature review, the explication of the canvas referenced in our study, a comprehensive map detailing the activities and stakeholders involved in the research, and a more elaborate discussion of the limitations inherent to our study. More specifically, the first notable change was the establishment of a robust theoretical framework. During this process, we identified a prominent gap in the literature, which pertained to the need for a formalized theory for designing, referencing, and communicating studies involving older adults. This realization prompted us to develop an Operational systematization defined Cultural Events Model Canvas for Older Adults. Drawing inspiration from a key reference taxonomy of arts intervention for older adults and the widely shared Business Model Canvas in UX design, we formulated this canvas as a visual synthesis of the literature review section. The potential of this canvas extended beyond its initial purpose as we explored its applicability in the domains of welfare and the development of new business formats. The refinement of the research questions was another crucial improvement. We placed greater emphasis on highlighting the meaningful insights derived from our study and underscored the utility of the canvas as a valuable reference tool for designing with older adults. Moreover, we dedicated more attention to the qualitative aspect of the pilot study described in the manuscript. Specifically, we focused on evaluating the sustainability, repeatability, and desirability of the proposed experience. As a result, we restructured the theoretical and practical implications, organizing them into broader macro areas. Among these areas, we emphasized the importance of co-designing a multilayered experience that considers the level of technology acceptance and its impact on the perceived social connection of older adults. Finally, we expanded upon the limitations of our study, particularly concerning the narrow format of the pilot study. These limitations encompassed factors such as the participant's level of interest in the contents, the contextual specificity, potential biases stemming from the study sample, the physical and psychological impairments of the end-users, the potential variability in desirability when the study is replicated, and the adaptability of the canvas format to different content domains. We are eager to receive feedback and suggestions for further improvement. Best regards, Reviewer 1 1. The possible sampling bias needs to be clarified. The authors should create a table for descriptive statistics, including the socioeconomic variables of the subjects, if available. Joining a live-streaming event of opera may not be a popular pastime leisure for everyone. The subjects may be skewed by their socioeconomic background. Therefore, the authors should clarify the possible sampling bias by presenting descriptive statistics. If not, the authors should mention the possible sampling bias in the section on research limitations. Thank you for this comment. We have incorporated a table titled "Descriptive Statistics of Participants in the Overall Event" (see Table 3) into the manuscript, providing all the collected information about the participants and explicitly stating that the study was hosted in a private care home. Furthermore, in response to this feedback, we have expanded the limitation section to address the evaluation of the event's reproducibility in different contexts and content. 2. The limitations of the research are not sufficient. People’s emotions may be affected by the atmosphere of the venue, not just by the streaming content. For instance, an excellent performance may look cheap with a terrible sound system and vice versa; and the perception of a romantic story may depend on whom you hear the story with. Furthermore, the impression of the experience may be affected by the personalities, tone, and atmosphere of the interviewers. Thank you for this advice. The limitation section was revised to highlight all possible aspects that influenced the results of this pilot study and to emphasize the reproducibility of the event. The revised section acknowledges the limitations of the results' generalizability because of the qualitative pilot study proposed. It emphasizes the importance of repeating the experience in different contexts and the need to explore the appropriateness of the format for different content beyond opera. The revised section also addresses the novelty factor's potential impact on the event's desirability. It suggests the need for longitudinal studies that analyze communities where such social interaction interventions are a regular part of day-to-day activities and a second study in the same community. The conclusions drawn from the study are summarized, highlighting the feasibility, desirability, reproducibility, and potential for improvement of live-streamed remote cultural events in fostering cultural and social engagement among older adults. Reviewer 2 1. To effectively communicate the aim and objectives of your paper, it is recommended to employ a robust theoretical framework and formulate a clear hypotheses. This approach helps ensure that your research is well-grounded and logically structured, facilitating the comprehension of your work by the reader. Thank you for your comment. A section was added as a conclusion to the literature review, where we better explored opportunities, limitations, and literature gaps related to digital cultural activities for older adults. The section focused on the importance of addressing barriers and designing personalized programs and theoretical frameworks for cultural experiences for older adults. A theoretical canvas (see Figure 1) was developed by reformulating the most relevant theoretical contributions. The canvas acted as an implicit tool throughout the study, guiding the decision-making process and ensuring that the event was aligned with the objectives of enhancing well-being and social connectedness among older adults. It helped define the event's key elements and components, ensuring a comprehensive and cohesive design approach for cultural events tailored to older adults. Moreover, the canvas showcases the systematic and intentional approach taken to design the cultural event and highlights the importance of considering specific factors related to older adults' needs and preferences. Overall, the Cultural Events Model Canvas for Older Adults played a central role in shaping the study's methodology and providing a framework for designing and evaluating the cultural event format. It facilitated the organization and communication of the study's structure, contributing to the overall coherence and effectiveness of the research. In conclusion, the research questions were clarified more clearly to distinguish the main question from the parallel ones. The proposed pilot study investigates cultural events' effectiveness in fostering cultural and social engagement among older adults. However, in parallel, from a business perspective, there has been an interest in investigating this format's desirability, sustainability and reproducibility. 2. I would like to recommend you to provide more contextualization and explanation in the results section, particularly if there is a high frequency of quotes. This would enhance the clarity and coherence of your paper. Thank you for the feedback. The introduction and methodology sections have been implemented to provide more contextual information about the pilot study. The results section has been edited to provide details as suggested. We hope the better context framing allows an easier interpretation of the results and makes the paper more coherent. Reviewer 3 First of all, we are talking about an extremely small sample which does not allow us to generalize in any situation. Basically, the study, although very interesting, must be strictly limited to the sample under investigation and not to draw conclusions valid for a serious sample (of hundreds or thousands of people). The larger the sample, the more the results can change substantially. And they certainly do. The article needs to be restructured and built around the experiment. I recommend removing any sentences that contain generalizations, so that the reader does not understand that the data obtained refer to the whole universe (the community of older adults). The limitations are also insufficient. There is NO serious discussion of the fact that the experiment was possible in an extremely small setting (43 participants). Regarding the statistical analysis, which is discussed in the chapter on methods: first of all, we cannot discuss qualitative or quantitative studies on a sample of 43 people. What kind of quality can we get from such a small sample? From a quantitative point of view, the study has no relevance as it is not representative even for the city where the 43 participants are located. Regarding the chapter on results: it does not include any statistical analysis (discussed in the methodology chapter). Only parts of the interview, statements of the participants are presented. Although these are interesting, they do not belong in a scientific article. From the way the data is presented, it looks more like a journalistic study. I recommend extracting some statistical data and analysing it. Present data in tabular form and, if data are available, make correlations between different variables (before and after the event) in order to be able to determine an eventual change in behaviour. Quality of life is also discussed, but no scientific tool is used to determine its level. We cannot say that we have an increase in the quality of life of the participants after participating in this experiment because we do not have indices measured at the beginning of the experiment and remeasured after its completion. Even if such a measurement had been made, the experiment should have lasted longer. Thank you for your comment. In this revised version of the manuscript, emphasis has been placed on highlighting the qualitative nature of the presented study. Rather than making generalizations, we have focused on discussing the perceived improvements reported by the participants. This approach has allowed us to conclude, albeit specific to the context of this study, regarding the impact of the proposed cultural experience despite its limited format and duration. As mentioned in previous comments, alongside the effect on the well-being of older adults, the equally crucial second objective of this study is to evaluate the proposed format. Unlike the previous version of the manuscript, we have chosen to present explicitly the tools and frameworks implicitly used by the designers during the design phase (see Figure 1) and programming phase (see Figure 2) of the cultural experience. We anticipate that this new approach will bring added value to the study in terms of tailored tools for understanding the complexity of the various levels that need to be considered, as well as new frameworks that can adequately communicate such interventions through ongoing developments and validations in future parallel interventions. The Discussion has been restructured. Specifically, we have identified and discussed four overarching themes, which were already identified as potential barriers and gaps in the literature review: (1) The importance of designing a multi-layered or multi-dimensional experience; (2) The significance of co-designing solutions rather than imposing top-down approaches; (3) Carefully evaluating the level of technology acceptance among end-users; (4) Designing based on the needs, habits, and routines of older adults. These themes consist of the pillars of our approach and will serve as guiding principles for future interventions. The Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research section has also been reorganized and expanded. As anticipated in the previous answers, the limitation section underwent a comprehensive revision to emphasize various aspects that could have influenced this pilot study's outcomes and underscore the event's reproducibility. The revised section acknowledges the limited generalizability of the results due to the qualitative nature of the pilot study. It highlights the significance of conducting the experience in diverse contexts and exploring the suitability of the format for the content beyond opera. Additionally, the revised section delves into the potential influence of the novelty factor on the event's desirability. It suggests the importance of longitudinal studies examining communities where social interaction interventions are integrated into daily activities and a follow-up study within the same community.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
I few suggestions for your considerations:
1. To effectively communicate the aim and objectives of your paper, it is recommended to employ a robust theoretical framework and formulate a clear hypotheses. This approach helps ensure that your research is well-grounded and logically structured, facilitating the comprehension of your work by the reader.
2. I would like to recommend you to provide more contextualization and explanation in the results section, particularly if there is a high frequency of quotes. This would enhance the clarity and coherence of your paper.
All the best.
The paper may require some moderate editing of the English language to enhance its readability
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled "Remote cultural events: Investigating the usefulness of live streaming for creating cultural and social engagement in communities of older adults". We appreciate your expertise and valuable insights in evaluating our work. This revised manuscript presents the major edits to enhance our study's overall structure and content (all edits are marked in blue). These edits encompass several key aspects, including the identification of literature gaps as a conclusion of the literature review, the explication of the canvas referenced in our study, a comprehensive map detailing the activities and stakeholders involved in the research, and a more elaborate discussion of the limitations inherent to our study. More specifically, the first notable change was the establishment of a robust theoretical framework. During this process, we identified a prominent gap in the literature, which pertained to the need for a formalized theory for designing, referencing, and communicating studies involving older adults. This realization prompted us to develop an Operational systematization defined Cultural Events Model Canvas for Older Adults. Drawing inspiration from a key reference taxonomy of arts intervention for older adults and the widely shared Business Model Canvas in UX design, we formulated this canvas as a visual synthesis of the literature review section. The potential of this canvas extended beyond its initial purpose as we explored its applicability in the domains of welfare and the development of new business formats. The refinement of the research questions was another crucial improvement. We placed greater emphasis on highlighting the meaningful insights derived from our study and underscored the utility of the canvas as a valuable reference tool for designing with older adults. Moreover, we dedicated more attention to the qualitative aspect of the pilot study described in the manuscript. Specifically, we focused on evaluating the sustainability, repeatability, and desirability of the proposed experience. As a result, we restructured the theoretical and practical implications, organizing them into broader macro areas. Among these areas, we emphasized the importance of co-designing a multilayered experience that considers the level of technology acceptance and its impact on the perceived social connection of older adults. Finally, we expanded upon the limitations of our study, particularly concerning the narrow format of the pilot study. These limitations encompassed factors such as the participant's level of interest in the contents, the contextual specificity, potential biases stemming from the study sample, the physical and psychological impairments of the end-users, the potential variability in desirability when the study is replicated, and the adaptability of the canvas format to different content domains. We are eager to receive feedback and suggestions for further improvement. Best regards, Reviewer 1 1. The possible sampling bias needs to be clarified. The authors should create a table for descriptive statistics, including the socioeconomic variables of the subjects, if available. Joining a live-streaming event of opera may not be a popular pastime leisure for everyone. The subjects may be skewed by their socioeconomic background. Therefore, the authors should clarify the possible sampling bias by presenting descriptive statistics. If not, the authors should mention the possible sampling bias in the section on research limitations. Thank you for this comment. We have incorporated a table titled "Descriptive Statistics of Participants in the Overall Event" (see Table 3) into the manuscript, providing all the collected information about the participants and explicitly stating that the study was hosted in a private care home. Furthermore, in response to this feedback, we have expanded the limitation section to address the evaluation of the event's reproducibility in different contexts and content. 2. The limitations of the research are not sufficient. People’s emotions may be affected by the atmosphere of the venue, not just by the streaming content. For instance, an excellent performance may look cheap with a terrible sound system and vice versa; and the perception of a romantic story may depend on whom you hear the story with. Furthermore, the impression of the experience may be affected by the personalities, tone, and atmosphere of the interviewers. Thank you for this advice. The limitation section was revised to highlight all possible aspects that influenced the results of this pilot study and to emphasize the reproducibility of the event. The revised section acknowledges the limitations of the results' generalizability because of the qualitative pilot study proposed. It emphasizes the importance of repeating the experience in different contexts and the need to explore the appropriateness of the format for different content beyond opera. The revised section also addresses the novelty factor's potential impact on the event's desirability. It suggests the need for longitudinal studies that analyze communities where such social interaction interventions are a regular part of day-to-day activities and a second study in the same community. The conclusions drawn from the study are summarized, highlighting the feasibility, desirability, reproducibility, and potential for improvement of live-streamed remote cultural events in fostering cultural and social engagement among older adults. Reviewer 2 1. To effectively communicate the aim and objectives of your paper, it is recommended to employ a robust theoretical framework and formulate a clear hypotheses. This approach helps ensure that your research is well-grounded and logically structured, facilitating the comprehension of your work by the reader. Thank you for your comment. A section was added as a conclusion to the literature review, where we better explored opportunities, limitations, and literature gaps related to digital cultural activities for older adults. The section focused on the importance of addressing barriers and designing personalized programs and theoretical frameworks for cultural experiences for older adults. A theoretical canvas (see Figure 1) was developed by reformulating the most relevant theoretical contributions. The canvas acted as an implicit tool throughout the study, guiding the decision-making process and ensuring that the event was aligned with the objectives of enhancing well-being and social connectedness among older adults. It helped define the event's key elements and components, ensuring a comprehensive and cohesive design approach for cultural events tailored to older adults. Moreover, the canvas showcases the systematic and intentional approach taken to design the cultural event and highlights the importance of considering specific factors related to older adults' needs and preferences. Overall, the Cultural Events Model Canvas for Older Adults played a central role in shaping the study's methodology and providing a framework for designing and evaluating the cultural event format. It facilitated the organization and communication of the study's structure, contributing to the overall coherence and effectiveness of the research. In conclusion, the research questions were clarified more clearly to distinguish the main question from the parallel ones. The proposed pilot study investigates cultural events' effectiveness in fostering cultural and social engagement among older adults. However, in parallel, from a business perspective, there has been an interest in investigating this format's desirability, sustainability and reproducibility. 2. I would like to recommend you to provide more contextualization and explanation in the results section, particularly if there is a high frequency of quotes. This would enhance the clarity and coherence of your paper. Thank you for the feedback. The introduction and methodology sections have been implemented to provide more contextual information about the pilot study. The results section has been edited to provide details as suggested. We hope the better context framing allows an easier interpretation of the results and makes the paper more coherent. Reviewer 3 First of all, we are talking about an extremely small sample which does not allow us to generalize in any situation. Basically, the study, although very interesting, must be strictly limited to the sample under investigation and not to draw conclusions valid for a serious sample (of hundreds or thousands of people). The larger the sample, the more the results can change substantially. And they certainly do. The article needs to be restructured and built around the experiment. I recommend removing any sentences that contain generalizations, so that the reader does not understand that the data obtained refer to the whole universe (the community of older adults). The limitations are also insufficient. There is NO serious discussion of the fact that the experiment was possible in an extremely small setting (43 participants). Regarding the statistical analysis, which is discussed in the chapter on methods: first of all, we cannot discuss qualitative or quantitative studies on a sample of 43 people. What kind of quality can we get from such a small sample? From a quantitative point of view, the study has no relevance as it is not representative even for the city where the 43 participants are located. Regarding the chapter on results: it does not include any statistical analysis (discussed in the methodology chapter). Only parts of the interview, statements of the participants are presented. Although these are interesting, they do not belong in a scientific article. From the way the data is presented, it looks more like a journalistic study. I recommend extracting some statistical data and analysing it. Present data in tabular form and, if data are available, make correlations between different variables (before and after the event) in order to be able to determine an eventual change in behaviour. Quality of life is also discussed, but no scientific tool is used to determine its level. We cannot say that we have an increase in the quality of life of the participants after participating in this experiment because we do not have indices measured at the beginning of the experiment and remeasured after its completion. Even if such a measurement had been made, the experiment should have lasted longer. Thank you for your comment. In this revised version of the manuscript, emphasis has been placed on highlighting the qualitative nature of the presented study. Rather than making generalizations, we have focused on discussing the perceived improvements reported by the participants. This approach has allowed us to conclude, albeit specific to the context of this study, regarding the impact of the proposed cultural experience despite its limited format and duration. As mentioned in previous comments, alongside the effect on the well-being of older adults, the equally crucial second objective of this study is to evaluate the proposed format. Unlike the previous version of the manuscript, we have chosen to present explicitly the tools and frameworks implicitly used by the designers during the design phase (see Figure 1) and programming phase (see Figure 2) of the cultural experience. We anticipate that this new approach will bring added value to the study in terms of tailored tools for understanding the complexity of the various levels that need to be considered, as well as new frameworks that can adequately communicate such interventions through ongoing developments and validations in future parallel interventions. The Discussion has been restructured. Specifically, we have identified and discussed four overarching themes, which were already identified as potential barriers and gaps in the literature review: (1) The importance of designing a multi-layered or multi-dimensional experience; (2) The significance of co-designing solutions rather than imposing top-down approaches; (3) Carefully evaluating the level of technology acceptance among end-users; (4) Designing based on the needs, habits, and routines of older adults. These themes consist of the pillars of our approach and will serve as guiding principles for future interventions. The Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research section has also been reorganized and expanded. As anticipated in the previous answers, the limitation section underwent a comprehensive revision to emphasize various aspects that could have influenced this pilot study's outcomes and underscore the event's reproducibility. The revised section acknowledges the limited generalizability of the results due to the qualitative nature of the pilot study. It highlights the significance of conducting the experience in diverse contexts and exploring the suitability of the format for the content beyond opera. Additionally, the revised section delves into the potential influence of the novelty factor on the event's desirability. It suggests the importance of longitudinal studies examining communities where social interaction interventions are integrated into daily activities and a follow-up study within the same community.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The topic is very interesting and topical considering the intertwining of technology with everyday life.
Introduction
This chapter is very well structured. It contains sufficient theoretical data and presents a brief review of the literature.
Methodology
The methodology is well described. It includes data on the organisation of the event, pre-interviews and how to interpret the data statistically.
Results
Present parts of the interviews to show that participants were excited to participate in such an online event.
Discussions
This chapter contains very interesting data relating to the reactions obtained from this experiment.
Conclusions and limitations
The conclusions are sufficient, except for the limitations.
However, the reviewer has some observations and recommendations.
First of all, we are talking about an extremely small sample which does not allow us to generalize in any situation. Basically, the study, although very interesting, must be strictly limited to the sample under investigation and not to draw conclusions valid for a serious sample (of hundreds or thousands of people). The larger the sample, the more the results can change substantially. And they certainly do.
The article needs to be restructured and built around the experiment. I recommend removing any sentences that contain generalizations, so that the reader does not understand that the data obtained refer to the whole universe (the community of older adults).
The limitations are also insufficient. There is NO serious discussion of the fact that the experiment was possible in an extremely small setting (43 participants).
Regarding the statistical analysis, which is discussed in the chapter on methods: first of all, we cannot discuss qualitative or quantitative studies on a sample of 43 people. What kind of quality can we get from such a small sample? From a quantitative point of view, the study has no relevance as it is not representative even for the city where the 43 participants are located.
Regarding the chapter on results: it does not include any statistical analysis (discussed in the methodology chapter). Only parts of the interview, statements of the participants are presented. Although these are interesting, they do not belong in a scientific article. From the way the data is presented, it looks more like a journalistic study.
I recommend extracting some statistical data and analysing it. Present data in tabular form and, if data are available, make correlations between different variables (before and after the event) in order to be able to determine an eventual change in behaviour.
Quality of life is also discussed, but no scientific tool is used to determine its level. We cannot say that we have an increase in the quality of life of the participants after participating in this experiment because we do not have indices measured at the beginning of the experiment and remeasured after its completion. Even if such a measurement had been made, the experiment should have lasted longer. The most we can discuss is the participants' perception of the improvement in their quality of life.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled "Remote cultural events: Investigating the usefulness of live streaming for creating cultural and social engagement in communities of older adults". We appreciate your expertise and valuable insights in evaluating our work. This revised manuscript presents the major edits to enhance our study's overall structure and content (all edits are marked in blue). These edits encompass several key aspects, including the identification of literature gaps as a conclusion of the literature review, the explication of the canvas referenced in our study, a comprehensive map detailing the activities and stakeholders involved in the research, and a more elaborate discussion of the limitations inherent to our study. More specifically, the first notable change was the establishment of a robust theoretical framework. During this process, we identified a prominent gap in the literature, which pertained to the need for a formalized theory for designing, referencing, and communicating studies involving older adults. This realization prompted us to develop an Operational systematization defined Cultural Events Model Canvas for Older Adults. Drawing inspiration from a key reference taxonomy of arts intervention for older adults and the widely shared Business Model Canvas in UX design, we formulated this canvas as a visual synthesis of the literature review section. The potential of this canvas extended beyond its initial purpose as we explored its applicability in the domains of welfare and the development of new business formats. The refinement of the research questions was another crucial improvement. We placed greater emphasis on highlighting the meaningful insights derived from our study and underscored the utility of the canvas as a valuable reference tool for designing with older adults. Moreover, we dedicated more attention to the qualitative aspect of the pilot study described in the manuscript. Specifically, we focused on evaluating the sustainability, repeatability, and desirability of the proposed experience. As a result, we restructured the theoretical and practical implications, organizing them into broader macro areas. Among these areas, we emphasized the importance of co-designing a multilayered experience that considers the level of technology acceptance and its impact on the perceived social connection of older adults. Finally, we expanded upon the limitations of our study, particularly concerning the narrow format of the pilot study. These limitations encompassed factors such as the participant's level of interest in the contents, the contextual specificity, potential biases stemming from the study sample, the physical and psychological impairments of the end-users, the potential variability in desirability when the study is replicated, and the adaptability of the canvas format to different content domains. We are eager to receive feedback and suggestions for further improvement. Best regards, Reviewer 1 1. The possible sampling bias needs to be clarified. The authors should create a table for descriptive statistics, including the socioeconomic variables of the subjects, if available. Joining a live-streaming event of opera may not be a popular pastime leisure for everyone. The subjects may be skewed by their socioeconomic background. Therefore, the authors should clarify the possible sampling bias by presenting descriptive statistics. If not, the authors should mention the possible sampling bias in the section on research limitations. Thank you for this comment. We have incorporated a table titled "Descriptive Statistics of Participants in the Overall Event" (see Table 3) into the manuscript, providing all the collected information about the participants and explicitly stating that the study was hosted in a private care home. Furthermore, in response to this feedback, we have expanded the limitation section to address the evaluation of the event's reproducibility in different contexts and content. 2. The limitations of the research are not sufficient. People’s emotions may be affected by the atmosphere of the venue, not just by the streaming content. For instance, an excellent performance may look cheap with a terrible sound system and vice versa; and the perception of a romantic story may depend on whom you hear the story with. Furthermore, the impression of the experience may be affected by the personalities, tone, and atmosphere of the interviewers. Thank you for this advice. The limitation section was revised to highlight all possible aspects that influenced the results of this pilot study and to emphasize the reproducibility of the event. The revised section acknowledges the limitations of the results' generalizability because of the qualitative pilot study proposed. It emphasizes the importance of repeating the experience in different contexts and the need to explore the appropriateness of the format for different content beyond opera. The revised section also addresses the novelty factor's potential impact on the event's desirability. It suggests the need for longitudinal studies that analyze communities where such social interaction interventions are a regular part of day-to-day activities and a second study in the same community. The conclusions drawn from the study are summarized, highlighting the feasibility, desirability, reproducibility, and potential for improvement of live-streamed remote cultural events in fostering cultural and social engagement among older adults. Reviewer 2 1. To effectively communicate the aim and objectives of your paper, it is recommended to employ a robust theoretical framework and formulate a clear hypotheses. This approach helps ensure that your research is well-grounded and logically structured, facilitating the comprehension of your work by the reader. Thank you for your comment. A section was added as a conclusion to the literature review, where we better explored opportunities, limitations, and literature gaps related to digital cultural activities for older adults. The section focused on the importance of addressing barriers and designing personalized programs and theoretical frameworks for cultural experiences for older adults. A theoretical canvas (see Figure 1) was developed by reformulating the most relevant theoretical contributions. The canvas acted as an implicit tool throughout the study, guiding the decision-making process and ensuring that the event was aligned with the objectives of enhancing well-being and social connectedness among older adults. It helped define the event's key elements and components, ensuring a comprehensive and cohesive design approach for cultural events tailored to older adults. Moreover, the canvas showcases the systematic and intentional approach taken to design the cultural event and highlights the importance of considering specific factors related to older adults' needs and preferences. Overall, the Cultural Events Model Canvas for Older Adults played a central role in shaping the study's methodology and providing a framework for designing and evaluating the cultural event format. It facilitated the organization and communication of the study's structure, contributing to the overall coherence and effectiveness of the research. In conclusion, the research questions were clarified more clearly to distinguish the main question from the parallel ones. The proposed pilot study investigates cultural events' effectiveness in fostering cultural and social engagement among older adults. However, in parallel, from a business perspective, there has been an interest in investigating this format's desirability, sustainability and reproducibility. 2. I would like to recommend you to provide more contextualization and explanation in the results section, particularly if there is a high frequency of quotes. This would enhance the clarity and coherence of your paper. Thank you for the feedback. The introduction and methodology sections have been implemented to provide more contextual information about the pilot study. The results section has been edited to provide details as suggested. We hope the better context framing allows an easier interpretation of the results and makes the paper more coherent. Reviewer 3 First of all, we are talking about an extremely small sample which does not allow us to generalize in any situation. Basically, the study, although very interesting, must be strictly limited to the sample under investigation and not to draw conclusions valid for a serious sample (of hundreds or thousands of people). The larger the sample, the more the results can change substantially. And they certainly do. The article needs to be restructured and built around the experiment. I recommend removing any sentences that contain generalizations, so that the reader does not understand that the data obtained refer to the whole universe (the community of older adults). The limitations are also insufficient. There is NO serious discussion of the fact that the experiment was possible in an extremely small setting (43 participants). Regarding the statistical analysis, which is discussed in the chapter on methods: first of all, we cannot discuss qualitative or quantitative studies on a sample of 43 people. What kind of quality can we get from such a small sample? From a quantitative point of view, the study has no relevance as it is not representative even for the city where the 43 participants are located. Regarding the chapter on results: it does not include any statistical analysis (discussed in the methodology chapter). Only parts of the interview, statements of the participants are presented. Although these are interesting, they do not belong in a scientific article. From the way the data is presented, it looks more like a journalistic study. I recommend extracting some statistical data and analysing it. Present data in tabular form and, if data are available, make correlations between different variables (before and after the event) in order to be able to determine an eventual change in behaviour. Quality of life is also discussed, but no scientific tool is used to determine its level. We cannot say that we have an increase in the quality of life of the participants after participating in this experiment because we do not have indices measured at the beginning of the experiment and remeasured after its completion. Even if such a measurement had been made, the experiment should have lasted longer. Thank you for your comment. In this revised version of the manuscript, emphasis has been placed on highlighting the qualitative nature of the presented study. Rather than making generalizations, we have focused on discussing the perceived improvements reported by the participants. This approach has allowed us to conclude, albeit specific to the context of this study, regarding the impact of the proposed cultural experience despite its limited format and duration. As mentioned in previous comments, alongside the effect on the well-being of older adults, the equally crucial second objective of this study is to evaluate the proposed format. Unlike the previous version of the manuscript, we have chosen to present explicitly the tools and frameworks implicitly used by the designers during the design phase (see Figure 1) and programming phase (see Figure 2) of the cultural experience. We anticipate that this new approach will bring added value to the study in terms of tailored tools for understanding the complexity of the various levels that need to be considered, as well as new frameworks that can adequately communicate such interventions through ongoing developments and validations in future parallel interventions. The Discussion has been restructured. Specifically, we have identified and discussed four overarching themes, which were already identified as potential barriers and gaps in the literature review: (1) The importance of designing a multi-layered or multi-dimensional experience; (2) The significance of co-designing solutions rather than imposing top-down approaches; (3) Carefully evaluating the level of technology acceptance among end-users; (4) Designing based on the needs, habits, and routines of older adults. These themes consist of the pillars of our approach and will serve as guiding principles for future interventions. The Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research section has also been reorganized and expanded. As anticipated in the previous answers, the limitation section underwent a comprehensive revision to emphasize various aspects that could have influenced this pilot study's outcomes and underscore the event's reproducibility. The revised section acknowledges the limited generalizability of the results due to the qualitative nature of the pilot study. It highlights the significance of conducting the experience in diverse contexts and exploring the suitability of the format for the content beyond opera. Additionally, the revised section delves into the potential influence of the novelty factor on the event's desirability. It suggests the importance of longitudinal studies examining communities where social interaction interventions are integrated into daily activities and a follow-up study within the same community.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I'm glad some of my pointers were taken on board. However, I still think that in the chapter `results` there is no reason to look for extracts from the interview. These should be attached in an appendix. These reasons, or explanations, of the participants should be summarised in the form of an explanation given by the self and a reference to the appendix made.
Otherwise the article has been significantly improved.
Author Response
Thank you for this feedback.
Based on the comments of Reviewer 3, major revisions focused on the Result section. Specifically, extracts from the interview have been removed from the text and collected in a new Appendix (see Appendix B). Additionally, we have carefully reformulated and paraphrased the content of each citation to integrate them seamlessly into the text as explanatory statements. All the edits are marked in the text in blue.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors for considering my suggestions. I have the feeling that the article has been improved. I hope that you will also take note of this. I agree with the publication of the material. Congratulations.
