Health improvement of the elderly in five Central Asian countries during COVID-19 based on difference game

Yuntao Bai; Lan Wang; Shuang Xu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294697

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 15, 2023
24 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Vincenzo Alfano, Editor PONE-D-23-25723Health improvement of the elderly in five Central Asian countries during COVID-19 based on difference gamePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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. Please follow both reviewers comments, which I found useful and agree with. Moreover, please improve the literature review. In particular, check the works that specifically studied Central Asian Republics during COVID-19, e.g.: - Alfano, V., Ercolano, S., & Pinto, M. (2023). Modeling Central Asia’s Choices in Containing COVID-19: A Multivariate Study. Administration & Society, 55(9), 1819-1836, that addressed the differences and similarities among Central Asian countries during the first pandemic wave;- Alfano V. COVID-19 in Central Asia: exploring the relationship between governance and non-pharmaceutical intervention. Health Policy Plan. 2022 Sep 13;37(8):952-962, that studied the impact of governance on the evolution of the pandemic in Central Asian countries. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 08 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, Vincenzo Alfano 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. 6. We notice that your supplementary figures (Appendix 1-3) are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Thank you for letting me review this paper! First of all, I have to disclose that I am no expert in the game theory model. I have tried my best to assess the paper and to integrate the knowledge I have in my area of expertise. But if you find that any comment re: game theory is rubbish, please feel absolutely free to say so. I will outline the points that came to my attention under the resp. headlines. Abstract: It would be useful if you could briefly describe in the abstract what is understood by "the green channel", thus one can better assess the results that you outline. 1. Introduction: 1.1 Background and research significance: - I would deem it worthwhile if you included more sources, esp. in the first part where you report the numbers (e.g., WHO sources), bt, importantly, also when you argue that "make some administrative changes to their existing healthcare systems" as this seems to be the starting point for the main argument of your paper. - Please explain "the hospital opens a "green channel" for the elderly" - what exactly does this green channel include? It doesn't get quite clear here either. 1.2 Literature: - You write "Among them, the physical health of the elderly is affected more." To what is this compared? People with existing health issues are also very much affected (compared to those with no existing health issues). Please clarify the comparative figure and indicate a source. Thus, you could condense the following part where you outline who has studied what to a concise argument. - The literature part somewhat looks more like a list of literature evidence than a chain of reasoning. This part could be more strongly summarized/condensed. -The "game" part (parties, theory), on the other hand, is only introduced in the method section. I feel it would be more stringent to bring this part forward in chapter 1. 2. Methodology 2.1.1 Problem description - Here again, you describe the different methods of caretaking (Green channel etc.). If you put this forward in section 1, you take the reader along from the beginning and strengthen the paper's line of argumentation (and save some characters/reading). As I'm not familiar with in the method/ game model, I will refrain from assessing the rest of chapter 2. 3. Results - I like te arguing from proposition to conclusion which makes it easy(ier) for the readers to follow even without fully grasping the calculations. - However, you argue a lot that X enhances or reduces the credibility of the government. Maybe introduce this variable (credibility of the government) already at an earlier stage of the paper so that it becomes clear from the beginning that this is an important part of your line of argumentation. 4. Discussion This part is very well written. I just want to ask the authors to consider to integrate the discussion in the results section. (If you don't find this useful/doable, no problem, it is just what I find useful, esp. when you have a stand-alone chapter on conclusions.) 5. Conclusions - Please discuss what we can learn from your research on Covid19 for other diseases/similar problems that might arise in the future. (You could e.g. further outline the last part on "reference significance for how to effectively reform the medical system of the US government and how to regulate generic drugs in India".) - Please also discuss the limitations of your paper. Reviewer #2: The statements seem to provide a foundation for research hypotheses related to COVID-19 management in Central Asian countries, particularly concerning the elderly population and healthcare infrastructure. To formulate specific hypotheses, you would need to state the research questions you want to address and the relationships you wish to investigate. Additionally, these hypotheses should be framed more precisely, with clear independent and dependent variables, to make them suitable for empirical testing.In general, the conclusions appear to be logically derived from the information presented in the text, with a focus on the dynamic nature of healthcare resource allocation during the pandemic. ****** 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 ******** [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.0294697.r001
Revision 1
1 Nov 2023 Author Response Response to reviewer1 Dear Editors and Reviewers: Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Health improvement of the elderly in five Central Asian countries during COVID-19 based on difference game” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-25723). The comments and suggestions are very helpful for improving our paper. We have made revision based on the comments and suggestions. Please find our response as follows, and we have made revision which marked in blue in the paper. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Point 1： Abstract: It would be useful if you could briefly describe in the abstract what is understood by "the green channel", thus one can better assess the results that you outline. Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, this article explains "the green channel" in the abstract section, which is detailed in blue on lines 12-14. Point 2： 1. Introduction: 1.1 Background and research significance: - I would deem it worthwhile if you included more sources, esp. in the first part where you report the numbers (e.g., WHO sources), bt, importantly, also when you argue that "make some administrative changes to their existing healthcare systems" as this seems to be the starting point for the main argument of your paper. - Please explain "the hospital opens a "green channel" for the elderly" - what exactly does this green channel include? It doesn't get quite clear here either. Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, the sources for the first part of the reported figures are identified, which is detailed in blue on lines 33. At the same time, the source of the sentence "make some administrative changes to their existing healthcare systems" is also noted, which is detailed in blue on lines 48. In the revised version, this article explains that the hospital opens a "green channel" for the elderly, and clarifies what this "green channel" is and what it includes. For details, see lines 57-64 in blue. Point 3： 1.2 Literature: - You write "Among them, the physical health of the elderly is affected more." To what is this compared? People with existing health issues are also very much affected (compared to those with no existing health issues). Please clarify the comparative figure and indicate a source. Thus, you could condense the following part where you outline who has studied what to a concise argument. - The literature part somewhat looks more like a list of literature evidence than a chain of reasoning. This part could be more strongly summarized/condensed. -The "game" part (parties, theory), on the other hand, is only introduced in the method section. I feel it would be more stringent to bring this part forward in chapter 1. Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion. "Among them, the physical health of the elderly is affected more." This is mainly compared to younger people. In the revised draft, this paper lists specific data to illustrate this point, and indicates the source of the data. For details, see lines 69-74 in blue. Through these data, this further illustrates the need to study the elderly population. Meanwhile, in the revised version, this paper has condensed the following section, which Outlines who studied what, into a concise argument, and has added some references along the way. For details, see lines 75-81 in blue. In the revised version, in order to make the literature review part more like an inference chain, the literature review part can be summarized/condensed more effectively in this paper. For details, see lines 75-81 and 84-87 in blue. In the revised version, the "Game" part (Parties, theories) is presented in the first chapter and is introduced in detail. For details, see lines 105-109 in blue. Point 4： 2. Methodology 2.1.1 Problem description - Here again, you describe the different methods of caretaking (Green channel etc.). If you put this forward in section 1, you take the reader along from the beginning and strengthen the paper's line of argumentation (and save some characters/reading). Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, this point(Green channel etc.) is made in Part 1, which strengthens the argument line of the paper. For details, see lines 57-64 in blue. Point 5： 3. Results - I like te arguing from proposition to conclusion which makes it easy(ier) for the readers to follow even without fully grasping the calculations. - However, you argue a lot that X enhances or reduces the credibility of the government. Maybe introduce this variable (credibility of the government) already at an earlier stage of the paper so that it becomes clear from the beginning that this is an important part of your line of argumentation. Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion. This variable was introduced earlier in this article. However, in order to make the research method of the paper more clear, in the revised version, the utility function and state variable X are introduced in detail. For details, see lines 273-292 in blue. Point 6： 5. Conclusions - Please discuss what we can learn from your research on Covid19 for other diseases/similar problems that might arise in the future. (You could e.g. further outline the last part on "reference significance for how to effectively reform the medical system of the US government and how to regulate generic drugs in India".) - Please also discuss the limitations of your paper. Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the modified version, this article further summarizes the last part. "reference significance for how to effectively reform the medical system of the US government and how to regulate generic drugs in India". For details, see lines 593-596 in blue. Meanwhile, this sentence is also explained and discussed in the discussion section. For details, see lines 549-572 in blue. Response to reviewer2 Dear Editors and Reviewers: Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Health improvement of the elderly in five Central Asian countries during COVID-19 based on difference game” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-25723). The comments and suggestions are very helpful for improving our paper. We have made revision based on the comments and suggestions. Please find our response as follows, and we have made revision which marked in blue in the paper. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Point ： The statements seem to provide a foundation for research hypotheses related to COVID-19 management in Central Asian countries, particularly concerning the elderly population and healthcare infrastructure. To formulate specific hypotheses, you would need to state the research questions you want to address and the relationships you wish to investigate. Additionally, these hypotheses should be framed more precisely, with clear independent and dependent variables, to make them suitable for empirical testing.In general, the conclusions appear to be logically derived from the information presented in the text, with a focus on the dynamic nature of healthcare resource allocation during the pandemic. Response : Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised version, in order to form specific hypotheses, this paper states the research problem that is intended to be solved. For details, see lines 226-231 in blue. In a modified version, this article states the relationship you want to investigate in order to form a specific hypothesis. For details, see lines 208-225 in blue. In the revised version, in order that the framework of these assumptions should be more precise, the independent and dependent variables are stated in the assumptions. For details, see lines 239-240, 249-250, 253-255 and 257-258 in blue. In the revised version, this paper describes the dynamic nature of health care resource allocation during a pandemic. For details, see lines 138-168 in blue. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294697.r002
7 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Vincenzo Alfano, Editor Health improvement of the elderly in five Central Asian countries during COVID-19 based on difference game PONE-D-23-25723R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Vincenzo Alfano Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #1: Thank you for addressing my points so thoroughly! Although there were no blue parts (at least not in my version), indicating the lines where you changed sth to the manuscript helped me figure out resp. changes. Happy to read the final paper when it's published. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Manuel Gandoy-Crego ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294697.r003
Formally Accepted
17 Nov 2023 Acceptance Letter - Vincenzo Alfano, Editor PONE-D-23-25723R1 Health improvement of the elderly in five Central Asian countries during COVID-19 based on difference game Dear Dr. Wang: 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 customercare@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. Vincenzo Alfano Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294697.r004

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 .