Factors related to subjective well-being among community-dwelling older adults living alone: A stratified analysis by sex and marital status from the JAGES

Nana Abe; Nanami Oe; Etsuko Tadaka; Toshiyuki Ojima

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289571

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 15, 2023
20 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Shaonong Dang, Editor PONE-D-23-04435Factors Related to Subjective Well-being Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living Alone: A Stratified Analysis by Sex and Marital Status from the JAGESPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tadaka, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== It is an interesting study in which authors investigated actors related to subjective well-being among community-dwelling Older Adults Living Alone, which is kind of significant implicaition. However, some technical issues, as mentioned by the reviewers, should be addressed in order to further improve the mauscript in terms of scientificity, especially about methodology. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Shaonong Dang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The comments are as follows: 1. I am really confused about the objective and hypothesis of the present study. 2. I think authors have done the polled data analysis...If yes? why they did not adopted other longitudinal data analysis techniques? 3. The data is so rich; therefore using a pooled data analysis which is largely appropriate for cross-sectional studies is a matter of concern for me. Reviewer #2: Comments This study examined factors related to subjective well-being (SWB) among Japanese community-dwelling elderly stratified by sex and marital status. This manuscript may contribute to this area of research. Further attention to the issues presented below would strengthen the manuscript. Major points #1 Regarding participant groups. In this study, only older adults who live alone were included in the analysis, and they were divided into groups by gender and marital status to compare their SWB. It would be better to state in the text body about the reason why the analysis was conducted only for those living alone in this study. If the authors are interested in the SWB states of older adults who live alone, it would be better to have a comparison group (i.e., older individuals who live with their families) to better clarify the nature of older adults living alone. For those who are married but living alone, it would be helpful to specify their specific situation in the method (e.g., married, but their husband institutionalized?). How many of these are included in the data set? Are there any problems in analyzing these as the same group as those who have divorced from spouses or have been bereaved of his/her spouse? #2 Regarding outcomes. The authors should specify in the statistical analyses section how the outcomes (binary values) of the longitudinal analyses were defined and analyzed. Also, since it appears that the baseline values were controlled for in the multivariate analysis (Table 5), the statistical adjustments should be clearly stated in the text. In addition, the proportion of events occurring in the outcome should be noted in the results. #3 Regarding multivariate analysis. It should be clearly stated whether all the independent variables were entered simultaneously or not in multivariate analysis. In particular, interpersonal relationship factors include variables that have a high correlation with each other, but are there any problems in such analysis? Is there any possibility of over-adjustment? Similarly, if the subscales of the TMIG-IC were simultaneously entered into the model, would this pose any problems? It is theoretically unlikely that the total score and the subscale score would be entered at the same time, I believe. The authors' opinion should be stated on this point. Minor points #4 In Table 5, TMIG-IC subscale names should be used from the official names provided by the previous study (Koyano et al. 1991). #5 Typos? Notes in Table5. SWB H and group --> SWB H and L group Reviewer #3: 1. In the Abstract, what is the meaning of "SWB" ? Pleased add the information at this word firstly appeared. 2. In the table 1, add the collected time of variables. 3. “How happy are you currently? Please provide a score on a 10-point scale from 0 (very unhappy) to 10 (very happy).” Is this question suitable for assessing the SWB? Added reference. 4. How to assess the the transitions of marital status from 2016 ot 2019? And presented the associaiton between the transition of SWB and transitions of marital status? 5.Why used logistic regression inseaded of COX? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289571.r001
Revision 1
26 Jun 2023 Author Response To Reviewer #1 Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, Factors Related to Subjective Well-being Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living Alone: A Stratified Analysis by Sex and Marital Status from the JAGES (PONE-D-23-04435). 1. I am really confused about the objective and hypothesis of the present study. ⇒The number of older adults living alone, which is expected to increase in Japan and other developed countries, is likely to be diverse with regard to sex and marital status. Therefore, focusing on the four population categories of older adults living alone based on sex and marital status (married men, unmarried men, married women and unmarried women) —rather than on the overall group of older adults living alone—while also focusing on not only negative health outcomes but also positive health outcomes such as SWB is necessary. Moreover, studying representative populations in longitudinal studies from which causal relationships between SWB over time and their association can be inferred is critical for developing evidence-based health policy that is responsive to new populations and diversity. Therefore, in this study, by using a longitudinal study of a representative population (the Japan Agency for Gerontological Evaluation Study), our aim was to determine changes in SWB over time and their association with independent functioning factors and interpersonal factors by sex and marital status (married men, unmarried men, married women and unmarried women) among older adults living alone in the community. Independent functioning factors are critical for performing daily living tasks without help [21, 22]. The achievement of functional independence ensures that older adults can participate fully in meaningful and purposeful life events—a requirement for SWB. Interpersonal factors are individual elements or a group of factors that positively or negatively influence the quality of relationships [21, 23] and are integral to creating and maintaining meaningful personal relationships that ensure SWB among older adults in the community. Our hypotheses were as follows: Hypothesis 1: SWB is more likely to transition to a high level in women rather than men and in married versus unmarried individuals among community-dwelling older adults living alone. Hypothesis 2: Independent functioning factors and interpersonal factors are significantly associated with SWB in older adults living alone and differ by sex and marital status among community-dwelling older adults living alone. (L95～) 2. I think authors have done the polled data analysis...If yes? why they did not adopted other longitudinal data analysis techniques? 3. The data is so rich; therefore using a pooled data analysis which is largely appropriate for cross-sectional studies is a matter of concern for me. ⇒This study is not a polled data analysis but a longitudinal data analysis (⇒the statistical method). To Reviewer #2 Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, Factors Related to Subjective Well-being Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living Alone: A Stratified Analysis by Sex and Marital Status from the JAGES (PONE-D-23-04435). This study examined factors related to subjective well-being (SWB) among Japanese community-dwelling elderly stratified by sex and marital status. This manuscript may contribute to this area of research. Further attention to the issues presented below would strengthen the manuscript. Major points #1Regarding participant groups. In this study, only older adults who live alone were included in the analysis, and they were divided into groups by gender and marital status to compare their SWB. a) It would be better to state in the text body about the reason why the analysis was conducted only for those living alone in this study. If the authors are interested in the SWB states of older adults who live alone, it would be better to have a comparison group (i.e., older individuals who live with their families) to better clarify the nature of older adults living alone. b)For those who are married but living alone, it would be helpful to specify their specific situation in the method (e.g., married, but their husband institutionalized?). How many of these are included in the data set? Are there any problems in analyzing these as the same group as those who have divorced from spouses or have been bereaved of his/her spouse? ⇒Thank you for your comments. 　a) We agree with you that it would be better to have a comparison group (i.e., older individuals who live with their families) to better clarify the nature of older adults living alone. However, while it is already clear that older adults living alone are risk factors for a various health outcome, including SWB, compared to older adults living with family members, it is not clear whether SWB and related factors differ by sex and marital status among older adults living alone. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed a sample of older adults living alone, stratified by sex and marital status (married men, non-married men, married women, and non-married women).　b) Those who are married but living alone situation assumes that the spouse is an institutionalized resident, as you pointed out. Since the main purpose of this survey is to compare men and women, married and unmarried, those who were divorced, bereaved, or separated (institutionalized) were included in the married group. We would like to research on comparison of divorced, bereaved, or separated (institutionalized) in the married group as you recommended in the next step. Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. Additional information: The married men group consisted of 1,803 men, among whom 63 (3.5%) were currently married, 1,005 (55.7%) were widowed, and 735 (40.8%) were divorced. The married women group consisted of 1,803 women, among whom 63 (3.5%) were married, 1005 (55.7%) were widowed, and 735 (40.8%) were divorced. In addition, individuals in the “married with a spouse” group were assumed to be those whose spouses lived alone because they were moved to an institution or for other reasons.　(L.152～) #2 Regarding outcomes. The authors should specify in the statistical analyses section how the outcomes (binary values) of the longitudinal analyses were defined and analyzed. Also, since it appears that the baseline values were controlled for in the multivariate analysis (Table 5), the statistical adjustments should be clearly stated in the text. In addition, the proportion of events occurring in the outcome should be noted in the results. ⇒Thank you for your important comments. We have added a note about a detailed description of the analytical method in statistical analyses section, as follows: The logistic regression analysis was conducted with the dependent variables as “1” for high level SWB in 2019 and “0” for low level SWB in 2019. The analysis was conducted with sex and SWB level at baseline as adjustment variable (L.229～). This study did not evaluate the occurrence of SWB-related events (e.g., death of a friend). This is the next issue as you commented. #3 Regarding multivariate analysis. It should be clearly stated whether all the independent variables were entered simultaneously or not in multivariate analysis. In particular, interpersonal relationship factors include variables that have a high correlation with each other, but are there any problems in such analysis? Is there any possibility of over-adjustment? Similarly, if the subscales of the TMIG-IC were simultaneously entered into the model, would this pose any problems? It is theoretically unlikely that the total score and the subscale score would be entered at the same time, I believe. The authors' opinion should be stated on this point. ⇒As you indicated, we did not perform a multivariate analysis because of multicollinearity. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed for each independent variable, and in each univariate logistic regression analysis, gender and SWB level at baseline were entered and adjusted. Similarly, univariate logistic regression analysis was also performed for the total score and subscales, taking into account multicollinearity for the TMIG-IC. Minor points #4 In Table 5, TMIG-IC subscale names should be used from the official names provided by the previous study (Koyano et al. 1991). ⇒We are sorry. The Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index of Competence (TMIG-IC). [22]. (L.181～) #5 Typos? Notes in Table5. SWB H and group --> SWB H and L group ⇒We are sorry. Notes in Table5 has been revised. To Reviewer #3 Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, Factors Related to Subjective Well-being Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living Alone: A Stratified Analysis by Sex and Marital Status from the JAGES (PONE-D-23-04435). 1. In the Abstract, what is the meaning of "SWB" ? Pleased add the information at this word firstly appeared. ⇒We are sorry and thank you for your comment. We added the information of subjective well-being (SWB) in the Abstract. 2. In the table 1, add the collected time of variables. ⇒Thank you for your suggestion. We added the collected time of variables in table 1. 3. “How happy are you currently? Please provide a score on a 10-point scale from 0 (very unhappy) to 10 (very happy).” Is this question suitable for assessing the SWB? Added reference. ⇒Thank you for your suggestion. The SWB 10-point scale has been used in JAGES. We have added a reference regarding SWB in JAGES [21]. 4. How to assess the transitions of marital status from 2016 to 2019? And presented the association between the transition of SWB and transitions of marital status? ⇒Thank you for your comment. We did not assessed the transitions in marital status from 2016 to 2019 since we exclude subject whose marital status has changed. 5.Why used logistic regression inseaded of COX? ⇒Thank you for your comment. We used logistic regression since Cox proportional hazards regression assumes proportionality, but logistic regression is not subject to this restriction. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289571.r002
5 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Shaonong Dang, Editor PONE-D-23-04435R1Factors Related to Subjective Well-being Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living Alone: A Stratified Analysis by Sex and Marital Status from the JAGESPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tadaka, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Authors have addressed most of comments from the reviewers. Now a few minor concerns have been raised, so authors are suggested to address further them in order to improve the manuscript. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Shaonong Dang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: Responses to the manuscript R1. Regarding #1. I understand the rational for participant classification regarding marital status. Thank you so much. By the way, in the "additional information" (L152-), the number of persons (percentages) for each classes in married men and women were identical. Please confirm it. Regarding #3. Thank you for explaining regarding "whether all the independent variables were entered simultaneously or not in multivariate analysis". Since this is very important information for interpreting findings, the authors should clearly state the information in the text body (in the statistical analyses section), I believe. Reviewer #3: This study analyzed the changes in subjective well-being over time and the factors associated with this change. The finding will be useful for policy-making to promote subjective well-being. In the current manuscript, author has addressed my all comments. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289571.r003
Revision 2
6 Jul 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewers To Reviewer #2: We sincerely thank you again for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, PONE-D-23-04435R1：Factors Related to Subjective Well-being Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living Alone: A Stratified Analysis by Sex and Marital Status from the JAGES. Regarding #1. I understand the rational for participant classification regarding marital status. Thank you so much. By the way, in the "additional information" (L152-), the number of persons (percentages) for each classes in married men and women were identical. Please confirm it. ⇒We apologize for our typo and thank you for your careful peer review. We have made the following corrections：　　Additional information: The married men group consisted of 1,803 men, among whom 63 (3.5%) were currently married, 1,005 (55.7%) were widowed, and 735 (40.8%) were divorced. The married women group consisted of 5,372 women, among whom 54 (1.0%) were married, 4,319 (80.4%) were widowed, and 999 (18.6%) were divorced. In addition, individuals in the “married with a spouse” group were assumed to be those whose spouses lived alone because they were moved to an institution or for other reasons.　(L.152～) Regarding #3. Thank you for explaining regarding "whether all the independent variables were entered simultaneously or not in multivariate analysis". Since this is very important information for interpreting findings, the authors should clearly state the information in the text body (in the statistical analyses section), I believe. ⇒Thank you for your important comments. We have added a note about a detailed description of the analytical method in statistical analyses section, as follows: Multivariate analyses were not performed for each independent variable, because of multicollinearity. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed for each independent variable, and in each univariate logistic regression analysis, gender and SWB level at baseline were entered and adjusted to determine whether the 3-year change in SWB was associated with independent functional factors and interpersonal relationship factors, adjusting for age and SWB level at baseline. (L.231～) Reviewer #3: This study analyzed the changes in subjective well-being over time and the factors associated with this change. The finding will be useful for policy-making to promote subjective well-being. In the current manuscript, author has addressed my all comments. ⇒Thank you again for the constructive feedback. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289571.r004
21 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Shaonong Dang, Editor Factors Related to Subjective Well-being Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living Alone: A Stratified Analysis by Sex and Marital Status from the JAGES PONE-D-23-04435R2 Dear Dr. Tadaka, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Shaonong Dang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Authors have addressed the concerns from the reviewers. And the manuscript has been improved much for publication. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289571.r005
Formally Accepted
14 Aug 2023 Acceptance Letter - Shaonong Dang, Editor PONE-D-23-04435R2 Factors Related to Subjective Well-being Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living Alone: A Stratified Analysis by Sex and Marital Status from the JAGES Dear Dr. Tadaka: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Shaonong Dang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289571.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .