PONE-D-23-34398The impact of epidemic infectious diseases on the relationship between subjective well-being and social class identity in older adults: the mediating role of Self-rated healthPLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Author,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2024 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,

Roghieh Nooripour, Ph.D

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 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.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“No conflict of interest”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author,

I hope this message finds you well. I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled "The Impact of Epidemic Infectious Diseases on the Relationship between Subjective Well-being and Social Class Identity in Older Adults: The Mediating Role of Self-rated Health." Thank you for the effort and time you have put into your research.

After a thorough evaluation, it is my responsibility to provide feedback on the current status of your manuscript. I believe that your work has substantial potential, but it requires significant revisions to meet the academic standards and expectations of our journal.

I understand that revising a manuscript can be a challenging task, but I believe that addressing these issues will significantly enhance the quality and impact of your research. I encourage you to carefully consider these recommendations and make the necessary revisions.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or need further clarification on any of the suggested revisions. Once you have completed the revisions, please resubmit your manuscript through our submission portal. I look forward to reviewing the revised version of your work.

Best regards,

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: I have thoroughly reviewed your paper and appreciate your efforts. I've given constructive feedback to improve your article's quality. Please consider my suggestions to enhance clarity and impact. Once you make revisions, I will gladly review the updated version. Your commitment to improvement is commendable, and I look forward to seeing how your article evolves.

Best regards.

Abstract

• Start the abstract with a clear and concise title that encapsulates the main focus of the study. The purpose of the study is well-articulated, but consider rephrasing it for more clarity. For instance, "This study explores the relationship between subjective well-being, social class identity, and self-rated health among older persons in China, focusing on the mediating role of health and the impact of epidemic infectious diseases on these relationships."

• The methods section is concise and mentions the use of the CGSS databases, Stata17 software, and specific statistical techniques. Consider adding a brief explanation of why these specific methods were chosen to enhance the reader's understanding. For example, "Using Stata17, we employed ordered probit regression to examine the relationships among variables and Bootstrap methods to assess mediation effects."

• This section effectively summarizes key findings. However, it could benefit from a clearer presentation. For instance, "Our results revealed that factors such as social class identity, health status, and personal income significantly positively impact older persons' subjective well-being (P<0.01). Notably, health status partially mediated the relationship between subjective well-being and social class identity. This med

Introduction

1. Provide a brief overview of global aging trends and their implications for public health. This sets the stage for why your study is timely and significant.

2. The definition of subjective well-being (SWB) is well-placed. Consider expanding on how SWB specifically pertains to the elderly population, perhaps referencing key studies that have demonstrated its importance in this demographic.

3. The introduction of individual and social factors influencing SWB is good. Elaborate slightly more on why these factors are crucial in understanding SWB among the elderly.

4. Clearly highlight the gap in current research, particularly the unexplored role of Self-rated health in the SWB-social class identity relationship among the elderly. This strengthens the rationale for your study.

5. Each hypothesis is well-founded and logically flows from the preceding discussion. Ensure that each hypothesis is distinctly stated and directly linked to the literature or theory it draws from.

6. For enhanced readability, consider formatting each hypothesis as a separate point or paragraph.

7. The discussion on the influence of Self-rated health on SWB is insightful. Expand on how this relationship might be unique or particularly pronounced in the elderly population, as compared to other age groups.

Method

• Clearly justify the selection of the CGSS 2018 and 2021 datasets. Explain why these specific years were chosen and their relevance to your study objectives.

• Elaborate on the criteria used to exclude invalid responses, extreme values, and missing data. This will help in understanding how you ensured the quality and reliability of your sample.

• Clearly define how each variable was operationalized. For the subjective well-being variable, explain why you chose that specific question from the CGSS and how it effectively represents SWB.

• Similarly, for social class identity and Self-rated health, justify the selection of these specific measures. Discuss any potential limitations or biases in self-report measures.

• Provide a rationale for the selection of each control variable. Explain how gender, household registration, personal income, education level, social trust, and social fairness are relevant to your study.

• Clearly describe how each control variable is measured and quantified.

• Justify the choice of correlation and mediation effect tests. Explain why these methods are appropriate for your research questions and hypotheses.

• Provide more details on the sequential test method and the Bootstrap test method. Explain how these methods complement each other and address any potential shortcomings.

Results

1. The descriptive statistics provide a clear picture of the sample characteristics. Consider briefly interpreting these findings, highlighting any notable changes or trends between 2018 and 2021. For example, the increase in the proportion of elderly individuals with higher social class identity could be discussed in terms of its potential implications.

Discussion

• Clearly articulate how your findings align or differ from previous research. Discuss the reasons behind the observed significant positive correlation between SWB, social class identity, and health status.

• Explain how the findings relate to the specific socio-economic context of China, considering the high rate of intergenerational upward mobility.

• Elaborate on why individuals with higher social class identity might have better self-rated health status. Discuss the potential psychological and material factors contributing to this finding.

• Suggest specific policies or interventions that could enhance the health and SWB of the elderly, based on your findings.

• Delve into the mechanisms through which health status mediates the relationship between social class identity and SWB. Discuss the implications of this 'diversionary' effect of health status.

• Suggest how public health initiatives could leverage these insights to improve elderly well-being.

• Discuss how the pandemic has specifically affected the elderly's health, SWB, and social class identity. Explain why these changes have occurred and what they mean for future public health strategies.

Reviewer #2: Hello and thank you for giving me the opportunity to read and review this valuable article. After reviewing the submitted version, some tips to improve the quality and better understanding of the readers are mentioned in the following section:

The subject of the article is unique and valuable. The results section is well explained.

1. The title of the article mentions infectious diseases, but it is not mentioned except in the conclusion, even in the introduction.

2. It seems that the title needs to be changed because it has been discussed in relation to the impacts of infectious disease, but in principle, the key role of the variable of self-rated health in the relationship between subjective wellbeing and social class identity has been discussed.

3. It is suggested to provide a definition of the topic or mention its importance in the background section (abstract) rather than simply repeating the purpose of the article.

3. The first three lines of the introduction have no reference.

4. In the introduction, you have mentioned that self-rated and its effect on the relationship between subjective wellbeing and social class identity have not been investigated. A question arises in the reader's mind that why this factor should affect the relationship between these two variables and is there a need for a research? It is suggested to explain its importance in one line.

5. Defining the main variables in the opening paragraphs makes the text better understood, so it is recommended to define the variables first and mention their importance in the introduction section, and then mention the importance of research about them.

6. It is not mentioned in the method section what age group is meant by elderly people and what age range is considered?

7. In the method section, it is not mentioned how the information was collected? on the phone? In person? Internet?

8. In relation to CGSS questionnaire, a brief explanation should be provided.

9. The elderly usually suffer from memory-related diseases. What solution did you think for this group of people? Were they identified and were the samples excuded?

10. It is suggested to explain the limitations in more detail.

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-34398R1The impact of epidemic infectious diseases on the relationship between subjective well-being and social class identity in older adults: the mediating role of Self-rated healthPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wei,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 2024 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,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Introduction

• Elaborate more on the broader significance and implications of the study in the context of healthy aging. Highlight the potential contributions of the research to the existing literature and how it addresses gaps in understanding the relationship between SWB, social class identity, and Self-rated health in older adults.
• To enhance the quality of your introduction, consider incorporating the following references

1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12126-022-09492-8
2. https://jrh.gmu.ac.ir/article-1-1745-en.html
3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-020-01151-z
4. https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-022-00852-2
5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-021-00617-9
6. https://brieflands.com/articles/ijhrba-93481
7. https://jpcp.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-895-en.html

Method:

• Consider including the reliability or validity measures of the chosen items or questions used to measure subjective well-being, social class identity, and Self-rated health. This adds credibility to the chosen instruments.
• Clarify how missing data were handled, particularly in the exclusion criteria. Specify if imputation techniques were used or if cases with missing values were excluded from the analysis

Discussion

1. When referring to theoretical frameworks such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory or social-emotional choice theory, provide a brief explanation of these theories for readers who may not be familiar with them
2. When discussing the temporal comparisons between 2018 and 2021, elaborate on the reasons behind the changes observed. Discuss potential societal or economic factors that may have influenced the increase in economic income, SWB, and social class identity.

The impact of epidemic infectious diseases on the relationship between subjective well-being and social class identity in older adults: the mediating role of Self-rated health

PONE-D-23-34398R2

Dear Dr. Wei,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE