Social Representations of Violence among Brazilian Older People with Functional Dependence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for allowing me to review this manuscript. The problem addressed is extremely relevant and unfortunately current, although silent. Studies like this one are necessary to give visibility to the problem and to be able to establish measures to protect the elderly population, which is especially vulnerable.

The manuscript is well written and structured. I recommend its publication, after making some minor corrections that I detail below.

Introduction

Please expand the description of the Theory of Social Representations (line 68) and provide more references.

The aim of the study should be describe, instead of analyze, as it is an exploratory study (line 76).

Materials and methods

It is a qualitative study, please correct (line 79).

I suggest a flowchart to illustrate the sampling procedure of participants (lines 95-102).

Results

I suggest stating subsections, one for each category (3.1/3.2/3.3/3.4).

There are too many citations. I recommend selecting the most representative and leave just a few for each category.

I also suggest expanding the introduction or summary for each category. You should summarize the main ideas expressed in the citations.

Discussion

Please, include the limitations of the study at the end of the discussion.

Conclusions

Please, include the future lines of research opened by this study.

Author Response

REPLY TO REVIEWERS

We are grateful for the careful evaluation carried out and the favorable opinion issued. Regarding the comments, we respond below with an indication of the changes made:

(Reviewer 1)

• Reviewer comment: Please expand the description of the Theory of Social Representations (line 68) and provide more references.

Authors' response: We appreciate the observation. The authors considered the suggestion and the text now includes: (lines 68).

• Reviewer comment: The aim of the study should be describe, instead of analyze, as it is an exploratory study (line 76).

Authors' response: We appreciate the suggestion that allows us to reflect that, rather than describing, the objective of the study would be to explore. Therefore, if the reviewer deems it appropriate, we consider making such a change.

• Reviewer comment: It is a qualitative study; please correct (line 79).

Authors' response: The authors considered the suggestion. Change made.

• Reviewer comment: I suggest a flowchart to illustrate the sampling procedure of participants (lines 95-102).

Authors' response: We appreciate the suggestion. Figure 1 was inserted (line 118), which shows the flowchart of the sampling procedure of the participants, as requested by the reviewer.

• Reviewer comment: I suggest stating subsections, one for each category (3.1/3.2/3.3/3.4).

Authors' response: We appreciate the suggestion. The subsections were created as per observation (lines 187, 213, 237, 257).

• Reviewer comment: There are too many citations. I recommend selecting the most representative and leave just a few for each category.

Authors' response: Selection of the most representative citations was performed according to the reviewer's observation.

• Reviewer comment: I also suggest expanding the introduction or summary for each category. You should summarize the main ideas expressed in the citations.

Authors' response: We appreciate the observation. The description of the categories has been expanded as per the comment (Lines 190-191; 217-219; 242-244; 262-264).

 

• Reviewer comment: Please, include the limitations of the study at the end of the discussion.

Authors' response: Changes were made according to the reviewer's observation. Study limitations were moved to the end of the discussion in lines (397-402).

• Reviewer comment: Please, include the future lines of research opened by this study.

Authors' response: We understand the Reviewer's observations. Changes were made as suggested, including the section (lines 419) as future lines of research opened by this study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Having completed the review of your manuscript, I should congratulate you on a well designed, well executed study that has been a pleasure to read. You've tackled the inquiry in an original way and have conveyed the findings effectively. I shall be recommending that it be accepted for publication. 

My comments are minor and refer to a potential limitation that you may wish to list somewhere in your conclusions. Your research will have had an impact on the participant's ability to construct their reality. How can you ensure that future research in this field becomes more participatory? What will you do to involve participants in the process so that you "research with" them, as opposed to continue to carry out "research on" them. Perhaps this could be summarised in short paragraph that tackles "future directions". 

In addition, the diagrams from NVivo are fairly low resolution. If you could replace these with high res versions for the final submission, that would be appreciated. Thank you. 

I hope my comments are useful and wish you every success with the publication of your paper. 

Kindest regards,

The reviewer 

Author Response

We are grateful for the careful evaluation carried out and the favorable opinion issued. Regarding the comments, we respond below with an indication of the changes made:

• Reviewer comment: My comments are minor and refer to a potential limitation that you may wish to list somewhere in your conclusions. Your research will have had an impact on the participant's ability to construct their reality. How can you ensure that future research in this field becomes more participatory? What will you do to involve participants in the process so that you "research with" them, as opposed to continue to carry out "research on" them. Perhaps this could be summarised in short paragraph that tackles "future directions".
• Authors' response: We understand the Reviewer's observations. Changes were made as suggested, including the section (lines 419) as future lines of research opened by this study.
• Reviewer comment: In addition, the diagrams from NVivo are fairly low resolution. If you could replace these with high res versions for the final submission, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Authors' response: We appreciate the observation. The diagrams have been replaced with higher resolution versions.

Reviewer 3 Report

-The numbers of the bibliographical references in the text must be between [ ].

-The authors must correct the design of the study, since it is of a qualitative type.

-The authors should explain better how the data collection procedure has been

-The researchers play a substantial role in the qualitative research process and it is important, in appraising evidence that is generated in this way. So the authors should indicate the researcher’s cultural and theoretical orientation in the study.

-The authors should report how the researcher responded to events that arose during the study

-The authors should differentiate in some way (italics, between quotation marks, underlining,...) which are the voices of the participants, since as it is written it is very confusing

-The limitations, strengths and future lines of research of the study should be part of the discussion section.

 

 

Author Response

We are grateful for the careful evaluation carried out and the favorable opinion issued. Regarding the comments, we respond below with an indication of the changes made:

 (Reviewer 3)

• Reviewer comment: The numbers of the bibliographical references in the text must be between [ ].

Authors' response: Changes were made according to the reviewer's observation.

 

• Reviewer comment: The authors must correct the design of the study, since it is of a qualitative type.

Authors' response: Change made according to the reviewer's observation (line 90).

• Reviewer comment: The authors should explain better how the data collection procedure has been.

Authors' response: We appreciate the suggestion. Figure 1 was inserted (line 118), which shows the flowchart of the sampling procedure of the participants, as requested by the reviewer.

• Reviewer comment: The researchers play a substantial role in the qualitative research process and it is important, in appraising evidence that is generated in this way. So the authors should indicate the researcher’s cultural and theoretical orientation in the study.

Authors' response: We understand the Reviewer's remarks and possibly were not clear enough, please note lines 65-81. The researcher’s cultural and theoretical orientation in the study is the Theory of Social Representations, the thematic Content Analysis proposed by Bardin, with the aid of the NVivo software. In response to the requested comment, the discussion of the topic was expanded from lines 65 onwards.

• Reviewer comment: The authors should report how the researcher responded to events that arose during the study

Authors' response: The authors are grateful for the observation, and suggest including from line 123

• Reviewer comment: The authors should differentiate in some way (italics, between quotation marks, underlining,...) which are the voices of the participants, since as it is written it is very confusing

Authors' response: Changes were made according to the reviewer's observation. Citations became italicized.

• Reviewer comment: The limitations, strengths and future lines of research of the study should be part of the discussion section.

Authors' response: Changes were made according to the reviewer's observation.

Study limitations were moved to the end of the discussion in lines (397-402).

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for this interesting work. I am happy to review a work on social representations. Everything sounds good, I have only few suggestions for you:

 

Introduction

I suggest adding more literature on social representations and their importance with some work on specific issues.

Is there research on social representations on this topic? If not, you should cite maybe some complex topic, here is an example (https://www.torrossa.com/it/resources/an/5064365)

 

Method

In line 80 you talk about a project, please add the "..."

How did you proceed with the interpretation phase?

 

Results

Please try to make more evident the interview's fragments, for example using italic.

 

Conclusions

I think it would be important to find another way to explore also the violence in elders with cognitive impairments.

 

Please, pay attention to the references in the text

Author Response

We are grateful for the careful evaluation carried out and the favorable opinion issued. Regarding the comments, we respond below with an indication of the changes made:

(Reviewer 4)

• Reviewer comment: I suggest adding more literature on social representations and their importance with some work on specific issues. Is there research on social representations on this topic? If not, you should cite maybe some complex topic, here is an example (https://www.torrossa.com/it/resources/an/5064365)

Authors' response: The authors appreciate the suggestion and understand the relevance of the observation, adding more literature from line 65 onwards.

• Reviewer comment: In line 80 you talk about a project, please add the "..."

Authors' response: Changes were made according to the reviewer's observation.

• Reviewer comment: How did you proceed with the interpretation phase?

Authors' response: For data interpretation, we used the Bardin’s content analysis technique together with the QSR NVivo® software. As indicated in lines 137-159.

• Reviewer comment: Please try to make more evident the interview's fragments, for example using italic.

Authors' response: Changes were made according to the reviewer's observation. Citations became italicized.

• Reviewer comment: I think it would be important to find another way to explore also the violence in elders with cognitive impairments.

Authors' response: In this regard, we understand the issue and appreciate the idea and the discussion proposed by the reviewer, which may serve as a motto for the elaboration of a future article.

• Reviewer comment: Please, pay attention to the references in the text.

Authors' response: The authors considered the observation. References have been adjusted according to guidelines.

Reviewer 5 Report

The study's theme is interesting, and the manuscript is generally well written. I believe it can be published soon, although I believe that some points need to be clarified first.

 

The bibliography of the entire manuscript must be arranged according to the standard of the journal. Usually the following formula is used: "exemple [1]." However, the guidelines of the journal should be checked.

 

Method

Pag. 2, line 90: It is okay to report the total number of inhabitants, but it would be interesting to know the number of how many of these are elderly, and according to which parameters of years they were defined as elderly.

Pag. 3, line 102: The paper states that "21 older persons were selected to participate in this study". Yet by double-checking the accounts, I don't find that 100 minus 52, minus 23 equals 21, but 26. Recheck the data or clarify why they don't add up, or if there have been other defections.

 

The participant section also includes the procedure section. I believe that the two sections need to be divided and explained better. The participant section must include information about the sample (see below), while the procedure section must include all other information about administration and completion of the questionnaire. Finally, in the part of the method, there should be more information about an ethical issue (pag. 3, line 132). Were the participants informed about the research aims? Were the participants informed that their participation in the study was voluntary? It would be better to specify the whole procedure.

 

Pag. 3, line 102: To clarify according to what age the participating subjects were considered elderly. It is also important to add other demographic data such as: age range, age mean, Standard Deviation of age, how many females and males there are in percentage, etc..

 

Results

Pag. 3, Table 1: It is also good to insert in the tables the average and the Standard Deviations of the age of the participants.

Pag. 4, line 147: In the text it is reported that in Figure 1 shows the most frequently mentioned words, but it would be interesting to have the percentages of the most mentioned.

Pag. 5, line 185: The text states that "The social representations that characterize this premise are observed in the following excerpts". However, it is difficult to understand which sentences are reported and which are the considerations of the authors due to the same style of writing. It would be better to make the quotes of the participants explicit in a different format.

Author Response

We are grateful for the careful evaluation carried out and the favorable opinion issued. Regarding the comments, we respond below with an indication of the changes made:

(Reviewer 5)

• Reviewer comment: The bibliography of the entire manuscript must be arranged according to the standard of the journal. Usually the following formula is used: "exemple [1]." However, the guidelines of the journal should be checked.

Authors' response: The authors considered the observation. References have been adjusted according to guidelines.

• Reviewer comment: 2, line 90: It is okay to report the total number of inhabitants, but it would be interesting to know the number of how many of these are elderly, and according to which parameters of years they were defined as elderly.

Authors' response: We appreciate the suggestion. As noted by the reviewer, the text now includes the requested information in lines 102.

• Reviewer comment: 3, line 102: The paper states that "21 older persons were selected to participate in this study". Yet by double-checking the accounts, I don't find that 100 minus 52, minus 23 equals 21, but 26. Recheck the data or clarify why they don't add up, or if there have been other defections.

Authors' response: The authors are grateful for the observation, and emphasize that for a better understanding of the sampling procedure, Figure 1 (line 118) is included in the text. 

• Reviewer comment: The participant section also includes the procedure section. I believe that the two sections need to be divided and explained better. The participant section must include information about the sample (see below), while the procedure section must include all other information about administration and completion of the questionnaire.

Authors' response: We appreciate the suggestion. The methodology was reorganized into subsections according to the reviewer's comments. The sections are now arranged in: “2.1. Study Design” (line 89), “2.2. Sample and data collection procedure” (line 97), “2.3 Data analysis” (line 137), “2.4 Ethical issues” (line 160).

• Reviewer comment: Finally, in the part of the method, there should be more information about an ethical issue (pag. 3, line 132). Were the participants informed about the research aims? Were the participants informed that their participation in the study was voluntary? It would be better to specify the whole procedure.

Authors' response: The authors are grateful for the observation, and if the reviewer deems it appropriate, suggest including more information in lines 163-165.

• Reviewer comment: 3, line 102: To clarify according to what age the participating subjects were considered elderly. It is also important to add other demographic data such as: age range, age mean, Standard Deviation of age, how many females and males there are in percentage, etc..

Authors' response: We appreciate the observation, and if the reviewer considers it adjusted, we suggest including the information on line 116. Regarding the data, they are presented in table 1 (line 170).

 

• Reviewer comment: 3, Table 1: It is also good to insert in the tables the average and the Standard Deviations of the age of the participants.

Authors' response: We understand the reviewer's observation. The mean and the Standard Deviation of the age of the participants were inserted in Table 1.

• Reviewer comment: 4, line 147: In the text it is reported that in Figure 1 shows the most frequently mentioned words, but it would be interesting to have the percentages of the most mentioned.

Authors' response: We understand the Reviewer's observations, however we emphasize that this is an exploratory study, within the qualitative paradigm and that aims to explore the social representations of violence among older people with functional dependence. The authors' intention with the use of word clouds is to create an illustrative resource of the established categories. In response to the Reviewer's comment, and if the Reviewer finds it adjusted, the authors suggest including the justification for the appeal in the methodology (line 154). We ask for your understanding for this more qualitative objective of ours.

• Reviewer comment: 5, line 185: The text states that "The social representations that characterize this premise are observed in the following excerpts". However, it is difficult to understand which sentences are reported and which are the considerations of the authors due to the same style of writing. It would be better to make the quotes of the participants explicit in a different format.

Authors' response: Changes were made according to the reviewer's observation. Citations became italicized.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the great work done