Pandemic Disruptions of Older Adults’ Meaningful Connections: Linking Spirituality and Religion to Suffering and Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this important paper, which provides a thorough and remarkably up-to-date overview of the gerontological research on the pandemic and how it does, does not, and might in the future incorporate questions related to religion and spirituality. I especially appreciated how questions of race are woven throughout the manuscript. I believe this paper will make a significant contribution to the literature. That said, I have a few minor suggestions re: wording, elaboration and argument for the author to consider, along with one suggestion for the overall organizational structure of the piece.

1)    Ln. 69-74: A bit more elaboration on the concepts of age, period and cohort, and the relationship between them, might be useful since this is not a gerontology journal (and since the colloquial usage of cohort, especially, is different than specialists’ use of the term).

2)    Ln. 74-80: The outline of the paper could include mention of the fact that the author’s personal experiences and observations are also included in the discussion. Here might also be the place to insert some details about the author’s positionality, such as country of residence (presumably the United States) or the fact that they are a practising Christian, to help set up the paper’s emphasis on U.S. data and current affairs (though see my next point) and the anecdote that opens section 3 on Pandemic Resilience.

3)    Given the international readership of the journal, a few more international examples could be inserted or explicitly underscored. Some ideas for where these might be inserted: Death rates among older adults in countries other than the U.S. (ln. 26) or examples of social suffering (ln. 384-418; the death toll in Canadian long-term care facilities, for example, has been reported to be particularly high, with horrifying stories of dehydration and malnutrition, lack of hygiene provision, and other neglect). If the cited resources in this section are based on research from non-U.S. countries, the locations can be named in text. Alternatively, if there is not an abundance of non-U.S. sources, a note to this effect can be incorporated in section 6 on Some Unanswered Questions.

4)    One of the main points of the paper is that matters of religion and spirituality are as yet inadequately explored in the gerontological literature on the pandemic. As such, it seems to me that some of the statements in the fourth paragraph (ln. 43-64) appear to “jump the gun” by obliquely referring to this point before any of the evidence is spelled out. For example, “one might have assumed that this would have been included in studies of responses to pandemic disruptions” and “a topic that begs for research that has yet to be conducted” seem to be a bit premature and unclear. Consider rewording such statements (perhaps to be clearer that these are the conclusions to which the evidence to be reviewed in the paper point) or moving such statements to a later part of the paper altogether.

5)    (Sub)Title: I wonder if a more accurate description of the paper’s contents would be “Linking Spirituality and Religion to Resilience and Suffering” (to me, the way it reads now implies that certain faith traditions’ teachings/positions on resilience and suffering are going to be explored).

6)    Finally, I have one suggestion re: organization, which may or may not be desirable to the author or even doable given what else is going on in the paper. The author, including in the title, uses the phrase “resilience and suffering” repeatedly in the paper. To my mind, however, suffering is a precondition for resilience or, put another way, resilience arises in the face of suffering. If this is so, then it would make sense to deal with Pandemic Suffering (section 4) before Pandemic Resilience (section 3). If the paper is reorganized in this way, then the two terms in the title (and in other uses of the phrase resilience and suffering throughout) would also have to be transposed. If there is some deeper reason that a discussion of resilience should precede suffering, it might be instructive for the author to explain this rationale.

I hope these comments are helpful. I wish the author and editorial staff, and their loved ones, health and safety in these continued pandemic times.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful review. I have attached my letter showing my responses to all three reviewers since some comments relate to more than one review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the interesting manuscript. It is a relevant study with significant potential for deepening theoretical reflection on spirituality/religiosity, resilience, and suffering of older adults beyond the context of the COVID 19 Pandemic.

The structure of the study, however, needs to be improved:

1. Method

The applied method was absent. The method section should state:

a) The research question: what was precisely the investigative question?

b) The type of literature employed in the study: Was it an Integrative Review? Narrative? A scope literature review?

c) Procedures: in which databases were the searching carried out? Gerontology Journals (which ones?), PsycInfo, any other else?;

d) What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting studies for analysis?

A scientific review of the literature must present detailed information on the applied method.

2. Results and Discussion section

The presentation of the results and discussion in separate sections favors greater clarity of what was possible to advance in terms of theoretical-practical reflection on the topic based on the findings in the search carried out. The authors enriched the reflection by adding some personal experiences that are proper for discussing section.

3. Regarding the "lessons learned"  section, its presentation should be done in a more didactic way, for instance, numbered and stating a sentence that summarizes/explains the lesson learned.

The content of the manuscript is very relevant. So, I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments on my paper. I have attached my letter with responses to all three reviewers because some of the revisions responded to more than one reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Religions – 1759867 review:  Pandemic Disruptions of older adults’ meaningful connections: Spiritual and Religious Perspectives on Resilience and Suffering

This article addresses an important and current topic. An excellent paper overall. It has done exactly what was set out in the abstract. I have made a few suggestions, but none of them is essential to the quality of the paper. It has been a refreshing experience for this reviewer to read and critique this paper.

Comments and editing points:

I toyed with the thought of adding spirituality and religion to the key words, it’s up to the author, as the key words used already address major aspects of spirituality and religion, it may not be needed.

I wondered whether the paragraph below should appear at the end of the introduction, after the rational for the paper had been completed:

Line 37 to 42

“This paper focuses on older adults and asks how spirituality and religion enabled some to create meaningful connections that supported their resilience and sustained them 38 in this time of great suffering. To answer this question, peer-reviewed papers about the pandemic’s effects on older people that appeared between January 2020 and April were examined in order to ascertain whether spirituality and religion had been considered in studies of olde people’s responses to the pandemic.”

Perhaps better to insert at line 65, just after the end of the paragraph ending:

“The disconnect between findings from decades of re search on religion, spirituality, and older adults’ health, and the fact that 75% of the deaths from Covid-19 occurred among older people, is a topic that begs for research that has yet to be conducted.”

P3. line 101-103:

“In the second special issue of The Gerontologist, two papers out of 16 included something related to religiousness or spirituality. The editors of that issue wrote one of those papers and stated we need much more research to understand elders’ responses to the pandemic.”

The second sentence above needs rewording for greater clarity

For example, “The editors of the second special issue wrote one of those two papers and stated we need much more research to be able to understand elders’ responses to the pandemic”

p.3. Line 119: “Black and Brown people were two to three times more likely to die compared to whites …”  should the first letter of Brown and Black and also whites be capitalised,  or none of them be capitalised?? Is there a convention to be observed there?

P3 line 128 “These dynamics” as this is a new paragraph but carries on discussion from the previous paragraph, it may be helpful to begin by stating what dynamics the author is referring to.

P4. Paragraph 3: Just a thought, this is probably the first time there has been a major health emergency where social media played such a central part for many people in obtaining information? Would it be worth mentioning, or making reference to the sources of communication during the pandemic that were often social media and the challenges of disinformation as well as health-based information? It is already there, but expressed implicitly.

That could tie in nicely to the following paragraph

P6, line 303: “and found that 11.5% of respondent …” respondent needs an ‘s’

P8. Line 410: ‘the vaccine’ maybe would be better as ‘vaccines’ as different types of vaccine were widely used during the pandemic.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful review. I have attached my letter with responses to all three reviewers because some of the changes reflect suggestions from more than one reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the paper can be accepted in its current form.

One small note for consideration: the reference to age-period-cohort has been removed from the beginning of the paper. However, a brief reference to period effects still exists in the first sentence of section 7. Inserting a parenthetical reference after "period effects" (for readers unfamiliar with the terminology) might be a good idea. Or not. It's just something to consider.

In any case, congratulations to the author for the quick revisions that make this fine paper even better.

Reviewer 2 Report

The improvements made in the paper are satisfactory. Congratulations!

Reviewer 3 Report

I am happy with the revised article.