Subjective Well-Being and Successful Ageing of Older Adults in Eastern Croatia—Slavonia: Exploring Individual and Contextual Predictors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Abstract of the manuscript says, this manuscript explores individual and contextual factors and predictors which impede the possibility of successful ageing.  

As the title is "Subjective well-being and successful ageing in older adults:  Exploring individual and contextual predictors", which seems like stressing the positive factors for successful ageing. What I confused is that, for example, the last sentence "... can serve in designing strategies which will contribute to the prevention or reduction of the influence of factors which reduce the possibility of successful ageing", there are two negative descriptions in one sentence. May it be changed to "... can serve in designing strategies which will increase the possibility of successful ageing" ?  As the description of the former is relativerly complex and not easy to understand.

There are still some such complex description in the manuscript. It is recommended to make revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Please find detailed responses to each of your comments below. We have highlighted the corresponding revisions and corrections in the re-submitted files using red text.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments. Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is composed of five sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.

The Introduction appears to combine a conventional introduction with a literature review. This observation is not intended as a criticism, but it does prompt two comments:

Firstly, concerning the introduction itself, the authors should provide a justification for their selection of the Slavonia region in eastern Croatia as the focus of their study. Is this region distinct within Croatia due to its natural conditions, economic situation, or other factors, or is it more representative of the country as a whole? If the criterion for selecting this region was different, it would be beneficial to clarify this.

Secondly, at the conclusion of the Introduction, the authors state in general terms, ‘Due to the extensive nature of research confirming the relationship between subjective well-being and successful ageing, this study contributes to the expansion of specific knowledge about these predictive values in the Croatian context, consequently improving social and communal sustainability’ (lines 93-96). The paper would have been strengthened by a discussion of certain aspects of Croatia (or specifically Slavonia) that might influence the respondents' perceptions of ageing. It is difficult to entirely disregard the potential impact of factors such as the economic situation, the quality of healthcare, the extent of social benefits, and social and cultural influences, such as the role of older people in society and their integration into the local community, on respondents' perceptions of quality of life. It is reasonable to assume that under different social, cultural, and economic conditions, the subjective well-being of older people would vary.

The authors might also consider situating their study in the context of other research conducted in different regions of the world, thereby enhancing the paper's contribution to the broader understanding of older people's subjectively perceived quality of life.

In relation to the literature review, it is possible that the omission of a more detailed section on the literature has resulted in the authors not fully considering the significance of economic, social, and cultural factors on older people's subjective well-being. This omission somewhat diminishes the value of the article, as the absence of these considerations limits the interpretation of the study’s results.

The authors have described the research method in considerable detail. The research design is sound, and the study was conducted appropriately. The use of the Diener Scale of Subjective Well-being was a judicious choice, and the sample size is sufficient to render the results reliable.

The results of the study are clearly structured and presented. However, a concern arises regarding the sample: the authors report that 56.6% of respondents identified as female and 43.4% as male. This suggests that no respondents identified differently or declined to indicate their gender identification. It is pertinent to ask whether respondents were given the option to do so, or whether the categories of female and male were imposed by the researchers.

The discussion of the results is appropriate and engaging. However, the conclusions are somewhat superficial. This may be attributable to the authors’ insufficient engagement with the results of similar studies, which could have allowed the conclusions to highlight what is unique about the respondents from the studied region and how local factors (economic, social, and cultural) influenced the findings. Additionally, the authors might have suggested measures to improve the subjective well-being of older people. The lack of a fully developed theoretical section renders the article primarily a presentation of research results, which limits its potential to offer broader insights and recommendations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Please find detailed responses to each of your comments below. We have highlighted the corresponding revisions and corrections in the re-submitted files using red text.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments. Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the study interesting.

First, I think that the title of the paper should have slightly modifications as the results apply to the specific population taken into account - therefore, please include the name of the region of the respondent's residence in the title.

Second, the abstract provides too may statistical values. please try to avoid this situation and discuss the results in a more general manner, without including the values for the OR. 

Please add a roadmap at the end of introduction.

Please add a scheme of your approach within section 2 in which you summarize the main steps considered in the study.

Could you please also include the questions you have used in the paper? Please add them in the annex.

I think that the analysis made in the paper is too simple (basic statistical analysis). It would have been expected to have a more complex approach other than presenting some median, ranges values for the variables, and correlation analysis. I think that the authors should try a structural equations modeling approach, for example. 

The discussion section should be accompanied by the discussion of the limitations of the study and some comparisons in terms of results with other studies from the field. 

The concluding remarks are quite brief. Please extend them. Please add further research directions. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Please find detailed responses to each of your comments below. We have highlighted the corresponding revisions and corrections in the re-submitted files using red text.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments. Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The article is clear, relevant to the field of aging and subjective quality of life and well structured. It presents objectives, methodology, results and conclusions in a logical and coherent manner. The study explores the predictors of successful aging in the Croatian context, making a relevant contribution to the understanding of this phenomenon.

The majority of references cited are recent publications, many of them from the last 5 years. For example, papers from 2020, 2021, 2022 and even 2024 are cited. The references are relevant to the topic studied, covering various aspects of ageing, subjective well-being and associated factors.

The study appears to be scientifically sound. The experimental design - a cross-sectional study with 403 participants - is appropriate for testing the hypothesis on predictors of successful ageing. The statistical methods used (bivariate and multivariate logistic regression) are appropriate for the objectives of the study.

The methods section provides sufficient details about the instruments used, data collection procedures and statistical analyses performed. This information should allow replication of the study by other researchers.

The tables presented are adequate and clearly show demographic data and the results of statistical analysis. They are easy to interpret and understand. Data are interpreted consistently throughout the article. The statistical analysis is detailed, including the use of the Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman correlation coefficient and logistic regression.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented and arguments developed in the manuscript. The authors identify six independent predictors of successful aging, and these conclusions are supported by the results of the statistical analyses performed.

 Good luck!

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Please find detailed responses to each of your comments below. We have highlighted the corresponding revisions and corrections in the re-submitted files using red text.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments. Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors. Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting manuscript. The study’s findings on predictors of successful aging offer meaningful insights into how various factors, such as subjective well-being and place of residence, influence the aging experience among the elderly population in Croatia. These findings can contribute to understanding the dynamics of successful aging in this context. However, some issues have been identified, as listed below:

In general, the transitions between ideas, paragraphs, and sentences need to be enhanced throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Introduction and Methods sections, while the Discussion section has minor issues with transitions/connectors.

ABSTRACT

The abstract needs some work as it is too ambiguous. It should begin with a background on the current situation, explaining why "The process of population aging has spurred interest in researching concepts that contribute to the sustainability of society," allowing the reader to immediately notice the importance of the study.

Lines 21-27: This part should focus more on which individual and contextual predictors were identified, clearly stating the key findings for each. Although the results from the regression models are important, they can be detailed in the Results section.

Lines 28-29: This section should serve as the conclusion of the study. As it is now it is wrapping up the results from the statistical analysis. The authors need to highlight the key takeaways from the study.

INTRODUCTION

Line 32-33: Similar to the abstract, this sentence is quite ambiguous. Please provide specific reasons, supported by examples, to make the statement stronger…. After restructuring, a connector is needed to ensure a smooth transition to the next paragraph/idea in line 35.

Line 37: The statement in this line, “The phenomenon of an ageing population characterized by…,” might serve as a stronger start point for the introduction.

Line 50-51: While mentioning “the concept of well-being” and its relation to happiness and aging, the concept of well-being itself needs to be clearly defined and introduced before discussing its relationships. This will make it easier to understand why the following section, “Subjective Well-being,” presents this concept as a multidimensional construct.

Line 70: The new sub-section “Successful Ageing” should be briefly introduced and linked in the last sentence of section 1.2 to ensure a smooth transition. A similar smooth transition is needed in line 84 for section 1.3.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 124: A citation for the Sample Size Calculator is missing.

Lines 136-140: This section needs to be restructured. Currently, it lists all sections of the survey, but it needs better organization for clarity. This paragraph could conclude with a phrase like, “Each of the scales/surveys included is described below.”

Line 170: An explanation that the data were found to be non-normal using the Shapiro test, leading to the use of non-parametric statistics, could be included for readers less familiarized with statistical methods.

Lines 184-190: The Ethics section should be part of “Study Design,” and a clear statement on how consent was obtained is needed.

DISCUSSION

Lines 271-272: It is unclear whether the authors are referring to their results or results found in the literature. Please clarify.

CONCLUSION

Although the aim of the research was to identify predictors, the conclusion should go beyond this and discuss how these findings are relevant to “Subjective Well-being and Successful Ageing” within the specific context of this study and population.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Please find detailed responses to each of your comments below. We have highlighted the corresponding revisions and corrections in the re-submitted files using red text.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments. Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version  of the paper.

Please add the questionnaire you have used in the paper.

In the previous round of comments I have written:

Comments 5: Could you please also include the questions you have used in the paper? Please add them in the annex.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have included the questions used in the study in the annex, as requested.

Even though the authors have mentioned that the questions are in the annex, I couldn't find them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Please find a detailed response to your comment below. We highlighted the revisions and corrections in the re-submitted files using red text. Thank you once again for your insightful comments. Comments 1: Thank you for the revised version of the paper. Please add the questionnaire you have used in the paper. In the previous round of comments I have written: Comments 5: Could you please also include the questions you have used in the paper? Please add them in the annex. Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have included the questions used in the study in the annex, as requested. Even though the authors have mentioned that the questions are in the annex, I couldn't find them.

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your feedback and for bringing this to our attention. We apologize for any inconvenience caused. We have now included the questionnaire in the manuscript as an Appendix, as requested. Additionally, the same questions were uploaded as the Supplementary Material during Round 1. We are sorry that you did not have immediate access to the questionnaire. Thank you for your understanding and patience. Best regards, Authors