Caring for Elderly People with Severe Conditions: Do Religious Education and Values Make a Difference?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would recommend redoing the Abstract, as it is somewhat misleading vis-a-vis the actual focus of the article. Lines 1-8 are "true" but really serve more as an introduction to the overall project. Lines 9ff are better in that they actually reflect what the article treats.
Author Response
The Abstract has been completely re-written according to the reviewer suggestions
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic you researched seems of great importance. I appreciate your effort and I think that the paper has its potential. However, I have some doubts related to the replicability of your research as it is now described. Please, see my comments before.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Very mature persons – this expression suggests „wisdom” rather than chronological age, so I suggest simply using the word „elderly” or „older”.
In the first paragraph, I propose that Authors provide appropriate statistics to confirm the large increase in the number of elderly people in general or in the context of their social/cultural reality.
In any case – it is more informal than formal way of saying things.
I think that a good solution to enrich the text would be to include appropriate bibliographic references confirming, for example, the loneliness effect or the involvement of children/grandchildren in caring for older family members.
It is: called the (geographically) „mobile generation”. I suggest: called geographically the „mobile generation”
Line 75, p. 2: but but (please, remove one)
Line 79: A very recent survey in UK during the pandemic’s lockdown confirmed that negative impact of 80 caregiving on wellbeing and other psychological factors of the youngsters – I suggest removing „that”
Line 85: a study in (…) found – I suggest: researchers from South Africa found.
Similarly, lines 88-89: Other research studied – does not sound well. Moreover, it would be very ifnormative if the Author/Authors described more precisely what this perception was.
Line 96: It found – It is better: It has been found.
Line 96: gave more positive results, (such as:…) Please, explain what were positive results of caregiving effects of this study.
Line 109: in in a raised (Please, remove „in”).
Line 123: Can Authors specify a role of gender and development (please, say what do you intend by development), on bases of the literature?
Line 127: Please remove „this”.
Line 141: I think it would be interesting to add (in supplementary material) the pictures used in the research. What was the purpose of showing the images? Please, explain briefly.
Line 144: 15 items also could be included in supplementary material.
Line 148: 3 short stories or testimonies could be included in supplementary material, as well.
Line 150: I understand that self-report empathy and self-report religiosity/spirituality are the questionnaires prepared for the purpose of the study. Did the Authors checked for reliability of these measures? What were the items? How do we know that the tools really measure the construct they are supposed to measure? I think this part of the research requires more explanation in order to allow other researchers conduct the similar research.
Line 178: Authors present the Table 1 with factor analysis. I think it would be good – for a major clarity of the paper – to explain more in detail the statistical procedure before the Quantitative Section. Otherwise, a person who reads is surprised with factors that were not mentioned before. Did Authors predict the extraction of the given factors (I mean: the names) or were they named after their extraction?
Since we do not know the original set of quantitative data and qualitative items, it is very hard to replicate this study. This is my biggest concern. The factors are very broadly described.
In presenting the correlation results, there is no need to show them in two diagonals. Please, select top or bottom.
I suggest reserving reflection related to results obttained to Discussion part. Therefore, lines 209-221 should be discussed, based on theories and/or empirical findings from the previous studies.
Authors present much more information about the results than they mentioned in the part of hypotheses. Therefore, I think it would be more understandable to list all hypotheses and after follow them with the results. For example, Author compare the means in the Results part but do not speak about in the part of hypotheses.
The lack of differences between girls and boys in the aspects selected by the Authros may also be related to insufficient strength of the constructs measured. Hence my suggestion, maybe it would be worth describing in more detail the procedure of extracting factors from qualitative data? How did the Authors carry out this analysis? What program did the use?
Line 293: There i san element to be removed.
Line 329: empathy is… moderating factor. What do The Authors intend by saying „moderating”?
Line 343/344: Our expectation is that more research can replicate or confirm these data. And here is my biggest concern. It will be probably difficult to replicate these data since we lack of some crucial details of research.
Author Response
Many thanks for your kind treatment and the rich suggestions to our manuscript. We have tried our best to address all your concerns and points, as we report in the following:
The topic you researched seems of great importance. I appreciate your effort and I think that the paper has its potential. However, I have some doubts related to the replicability of your research as it is now described. Please, see my comments before.
Very mature persons – this expression suggests „wisdom” rather than chronological age, so I suggest simply using the word „elderly” or „older”. Changed
In the first paragraph, I propose that Authors provide appropriate statistics to confirm the large increase in the number of elderly people in general or in the context of their social/cultural reality.
We introduced two quotations of studies on demographics in Western countries
In any case – it is more informal than formal way of saying things. All cases have been corrected
I think that a good solution to enrich the text would be to include appropriate bibliographic references confirming, for example, the loneliness effect or the involvement of children/grandchildren in caring for older family members. Some new references have been added
It is: called the (geographically) „mobile generation”. I suggest: called geographically the „mobile generation”
Word removed and improved expression
Line 75, p. 2: but but (please, remove one) Removed!
Line 79: A very recent survey in UK during the pandemic’s lockdown confirmed that negative impact of 80 caregiving on wellbeing and other psychological factors of the youngsters – I suggest removing „that” Removed!
Line 85: a study in (…) found – I suggest: researchers from South Africa found. Changed
Similarly, lines 88-89: Other research studied – does not sound well. Moreover, it would be very informative if the Author/Authors described more precisely what this perception was.
The content of the article is now better described
Line 96: It found – It is better: It has been found. Changed
Line 96: gave more positive results, (such as:…) Please, explain what were positive results of caregiving effects of this study. A better explanation has been added
Line 109: in in a raised (Please, remove „in”). Done
Line 123: Can Authors specify a role of gender and development (please, say what do you intend by development), on bases of the literature?
We intend the changes during preadolescence towards full adolescence; the sentence now is better explained
Line 127: Please remove „this”. Removed
Line 141: I think it would be interesting to add (in supplementary material) the pictures used in the research. What was the purpose of showing the images? Please, explain briefly.
We add now at the end of the text a section on “Supplementary Material” that provides the link to our instrument including the images we used in this survey. We try to better explain now the purpose of showing the images
Line 144: 15 items also could be included in supplementary material. Now the link to the instrument offers the complete list of those items
Line 148: 3 short stories or testimonies could be included in supplementary material, as well. Again, these stories can be found and read in the respective items of our instrument
Line 150: I understand that self-report empathy and self-report religiosity/spirituality are the questionnaires prepared for the purpose of the study. Did the Authors checked for reliability of these measures? What were the items? How do we know that the tools really measure the construct they are supposed to measure? I think this part of the research requires more explanation in order to allow other researchers conduct the similar research.
The scales on empathy and religiosity are standardized; they are used in several other surveys our team has conducted. The empathy scale is a selection from a set of scales testing empathy, since we could not use an extended scale; the same for the scale on religiosity and spirituality has been tested in former surveys and offering always good levels of reliability, but it has been reduced to few items, those always offering higher scores in their respective factors.
Line 178: Authors present the Table 1 with factor analysis. I think it would be good – for a major clarity of the paper – to explain more in detail the statistical procedure before the Quantitative Section. Otherwise, a person who reads is surprised with factors that were not mentioned before. Did Authors predict the extraction of the given factors (I mean: the names) or were they named after their extraction? We try now to explain better our procedure. The factors were expected but not named before the extraction; we usually proceed after we gather the information on the items that are clustered in each factor.
Since we do not know the original set of quantitative data and qualitative items, it is very hard to replicate this study. This is my biggest concern. The factors are very broadly described.
In our opinion, the present study is relatively easy to replicate, once other colleagues get the same instrument. Possibly giving a look to the instrument would render things much easier.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSctnTV2CRhh0PxJREVEcZ164dZ7Nb6ZUWZ4eFI-6roXB9vGtQ/viewform?usp=sf_link
We recognize that without considering this questionnaire, it would be much harder to replicate it. The instrument sets clearly the quantitative and the qualitative items
In presenting the correlation results, there is no need to show them in two diagonals. Please, select top or bottom. Done
I suggest reserving reflection related to results obtained to Discussion part. Therefore, lines 209-221 should be discussed, based on theories and/or empirical findings from the previous studies.
We have transferred the entire explanation on empathy and religion to the discussion section
Authors present much more information about the results than they mentioned in the part of hypotheses. Therefore, I think it would be more understandable to list all hypotheses and after follow them with the results. For example, Author compare the means in the Results part but do not speak about in the part of hypotheses.
We just wanted to reduce to 3 the main hypotheses, as it is consuetudinary in most empirical studies. Following your interesting suggestion, we have added now a fourth hypothesis: religion affiliation is less relevant, and religious intensity is more significant.
The lack of differences between girls and boys in the aspects selected by the Authors may also be related to insufficient strength of the constructs measured. Hence my suggestion, maybe it would be worth describing in more detail the procedure of extracting factors from qualitative data? How did the Authors carry out this analysis? What program did the use?
We have been able to apply two analyses: the quantitative one using correlations, which gave no significant differences, as can be seen in the table, and so we renounced to apply further tests, like ANOVA or regressions; and second, the qualitative analysis of words, which revealed some nuances comparing between boys and girls, as is described in that section.
After trying the program ATLAS.ti 7, to analyse words, we got a first approach on the frequency of most used words, to compare how many times the different cohorts we selected – like boys and girls - were using more the selected words.
Line 293: There is an element to be removed. Done
Line 329: empathy is… moderating factor. What do The Authors intend by saying „moderating”?
We intend for that expression in the standard statistical way: that empathy is the variable that better connects or mediates between religion or spirituality and concern for elderly. We explain now better in the new version
Line 343/344: Our expectation is that more research can replicate or confirm these data. And here is my biggest concern. It will be probably difficult to replicate these data since we lack of some crucial details of research
Now, with our Instrument available, we are confident that this problem can be fixed and that more colleagues could apply a similar questionnaire in other contexts to find out whether their results confirm or not our own data and analysis.
Reviewer 3 Report
This research report is very difficult to read. It is full of errors in syntax and usage, and it needs a thorough English-language edit and re-write.
Author Response
Extensive copy editing has been applied to this new version of our text, even if the former one was already been copy-edited by an English speaking colleague.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors replayed to all comments. I recommend accepting the text for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
very minor errors in grammar and usage:
e,g, line 19 "less" children should be "fewer"
Sentence at ll 27-29 is not clear.
Line 162-163 there is an unnecessary "and"
lines 316-317 "answers... reflect" (no 's')
