PONE-D-23-40834A Study on the Determination of the Factors Affecting the Happiness Levels of Older Individuals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkish SocietyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alkan,

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 Jul 06 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,

Boshra Ismael Ahmed Arnout

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data is available only on request from a third party. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the contact details for the third party, such as an email address or a link to where data requests can be made]. Please update your statement with the missing information. 

[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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

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: I am pleased that you have invited me to review a manuscript titled “A Study on the Determination of the Factors Affecting the Happiness Levels of Older Individuals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkish Society”. The manuscript is easy to read and understand. Also, the manuscript is nicely presented, following a thorough reading and comprehension of the paper, I forwarded the following comments.

1. There are numerous typographical and grammatical issues that should be handled.

2. In the abstract section “1,863 individuals aged 60 and participated in this survey”. Write as 60 and above.

3. From lines 257-260 the manuscript mentions about chi-square test and it says, that the test not only determines the significance of observed differences but also provides information about the specific categories where differences occur. Is that true? The chi-square test didn’t provide any information about in which category the differences occur. It should be corrected.

4. Regarding Education Level, the categories are not exhaustive. What about those who have a Diploma, and TVET colleges’ certificate, MSc and above? What does that mean no degree?

5. Categories of some variables are ambiguous. If we see the variable “Source of Happiness as a Person”: (Himself/herself/spouse, Children/mother/father, Friends/ nephews/ grandchildren/ other, All family members), and

• “Source of Happiness”: (Success, Job/money/other, Health, Love), you have used the word other. This leads to confusion. Because if we use this term (other), all other categories are also included which leads miss conception. Should take measures.

6. Even if in line 305 you expressed the absence of a multicollinearity problem between the variables, variables like Hope for the future and Hope full scale are nearly similar and redundant variables. In addition frequency for neither hopeful nor not hopeful is missed. So better if you use either variable only.

7. In lines 336-337, it says that “Individuals with very satisfied/satisfied health satisfaction are 10.8% less likely to be “moderately happy” in the reference category”. What does that mean? Re-write it. Similarly for a statement on lines 339-340, “The probability of being “very happy/happy is 19.6% and 22.2% lower than the hopeful reference category”

8. The major issue I saw in this study is the lack of justification. For example, the results of the study state that “men are less likely to be very happy/happy than women. …. Contrary to this study, some studies concluded that men are happier than women [34, 75]”. This needs justification as to why men are less likely to be “very happy/happy” than women and why the results of this study contradict with other studies done in different places at different times. Similarly for all the rest variables.

Reviewer #2: Referee report for “A Study on the Determination of the Factors Affecting the Happiness Levels of Older Individuals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkish Society”

Summary

The study aimed to identify factors influencing the happiness levels of older individuals in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic. It utilized data from the 2020 Life Satisfaction Survey conducted by TURKSTAT, involving 1,863 participants aged 60 and above. The relationship between happiness levels and various factors was analyzed using the chi-square independence test and generalized ordered logistic regression analysis. Results showed that individuals aged 60-64 were 10.1% less likely to be happy compared to those aged 65 and older, while men were 4.3% less likely to be happy than women. Moreover, individuals with lower education levels had higher probabilities of happiness, and those hopeful about the future were less likely to be happy. The study identified gender, age, education, source of happiness, health satisfaction, hope scale, and homeownership as factors impacting happiness levels in older individuals, suggesting societal support as an indicator of happiness.

Comments to author

Major issues:

1. The introduction provides a general overview of happiness and its importance but lacks a clear statement of the research objectives. The abstract and introduction should clearly outline the aim of the study, which seems to be identifying factors influencing the happiness levels of older individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. However, this should be explicitly stated.

2. While the study mentions various factors affecting happiness, it lacks a theoretical framework that would provide a structured understanding of how these factors interact and influence happiness levels among older individuals during the pandemic.

3. The methods section lacks detail on certain crucial aspects, such as the selection criteria for the sample and the specific measures used to assess happiness levels. Additionally, the description of the statistical analysis could be more detailed to provide clarity on the modeling approach employed.

4. The study relies on self-reported data from the Life Satisfaction Survey, which may introduce bias due to participants' subjective interpretations of their happiness levels.

5. The study's cross-sectional design limits its ability to establish causal relationships between happiness and socio-economic factors. It acknowledges this limitation but does not propose avenues for further longitudinal research.

6. The study lacks information on participants' COVID-19 status, which could be crucial in understanding the pandemic's direct impact on happiness levels.

7. While the study provides insights into the factors affecting the happiness of older individuals in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic, its findings may not be directly applicable to other cultural or demographic contexts.

8. While the study employs statistical methods like chi-square tests and logistic regression, it lacks detailed discussion on the assumptions underlying these techniques and potential limitations.

9. While the study presents regression coefficients and odds ratios, there's a lack of detailed interpretation of these results. Providing more context and discussing the practical implications of the findings would enrich the discussion section.

Minor issues:

10. There are minor typographical errors, such as missing punctuation marks (e.g., comma after "In addition" in line 202) and inconsistencies in capitalization (e.g., "Türkiye" vs. "TURKSTAT"). Proofreading for such errors would enhance the readability of the manuscript.

11. Certain sections could be clearer, especially in explaining the rationale behind the choice of variables and the interpretation of results.

12. The discussion section briefly touches on each variable but could benefit from a deeper exploration of the literature and theoretical frameworks supporting the study's findings.

13. There are occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that could be smoothed out for clarity and readability.

14. The study does not explicitly mention any limitations or potential biases in the methodology or data analysis. Acknowledging these limitations would provide transparency and help readers interpret the findings more accurately.

15. The study briefly mentions the need for further research but could provide more specific suggestions for future studies, such as exploring longitudinal data or conducting qualitative research to complement quantitative findings.

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your efforts in revising the manuscript titled "A Study on the Determination of the Factors Affecting the Happiness Levels of Older Individuals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkish Society."

Overall Analysis:

The manuscript analyzes data collected by TURKSTAT in 2020, focusing on factors influencing the happiness levels of elderly individuals in Türkiye during the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis offers valuable insight into the socio-psychological trends among Turkish seniors during this challenging period. While the studied factors have been explored previously in both Turkish and non-Turkish populations, your focus on the pandemic sheds light on the unique struggles, concerns, and challenges faced by older adults during this stressful time.

Minor Suggestions:

1. Data Subgroup Analysis: While I am not a statistical expert, I recommend considering dividing the data of 1863 individuals into age groups (e.g., 60-69, 70-79, 80-89) for a more precise analysis of the studied factors. This would allow for a nuanced understanding of happiness across different age segments within the elderly population.

2. Happiness Factors by Region: In the discussion of happiness factors, consider categorizing references geographically (e.g., continents, developed vs. developing countries) to highlight potential similarities or differences based on socio-economic characteristics. This would provide a more structured approach to the existing analysis.

3. Reference Refinement: In lines 129-132, you mention research conducted in the Americas and South Africa. While both regions fall under the Americas classification, there might be significant cultural and socio-economic differences. For a more focused comparison, consider referencing research specific to South Africa or separately addressing research from the Americas and South Africa.

Additionally, I suggest Hou et al. (2023) as a potential reference – a valuable addition to support the discussion on religious belief and happiness.

Hou B, Wu Y and Huang Y. How Does Religious Belief Affect Happiness of Older Adults: The Participation Effect and Support Effect. Religions.2023; 14: 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14020243

4. Explaining Results: In the discussion section, consider providing explanations for some of the findings. For example, line 370-371 suggests individuals with less education might be happier than those with a university degree. Including a possible explanation for this result would strengthen your analysis.

The same approach could be applied to other unexpected findings to enrich the discussion.

Thank you again for your work. These suggestions aim to further enhance the clarity and impact of your manuscript.

Sincerely,

**********

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: Yes: Seid Ali Tareke

Reviewer #2: Yes: Bibhuti Sarker

Reviewer #3: Yes: Assist. Prof. Luma H. A. Al Obaidy

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-2340834 REVIWER REPORT revised on 20-5-2024.docx

PONE-D-23-40834R1A Study on the Determination of the Factors Affecting the Happiness Levels of Older Individuals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkish SocietyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alkan,

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 Nov 28 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,

Boshra A Arnout

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: To the authors,

Thank you for completing the required amendments in the review and I would like to point out that the conclusions should be limited to the factors studied in the study.

Best wishes

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The study examined the factors influencing happiness levels among different demographic groups in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic. While I appreciate the efforts put into conducting this research, I have observed significant overlaps in the overarching themes, methodologies, and some aspects of the analysis with another recently published work, by some of the same authors (https://doi.org/10.5455/PBS.20230512053548).

Such similarities raise concerns about the originality and incremental contribution of this manuscript. It is crucial for the advancement of scholarly work that each publication offers a distinct and significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge. In light of this, I would recommend clarifying how this manuscript distinctly advances our understanding compared to previously published works, especially those conducted using the same dataset and similar methodology.

In addition, I have a major concern about the reproducibility of the current findings. Although the raw data may be subject to third-party restrictions in reproduction, providing the statistical scripts and models used in the research would enhance transparency and verifiability. This is crucial for allowing future researchers to validate and reproduce your findings and facilitates comparative studies in cross-cultural or similar contexts. I recommend including the scripts for data preprocessing and analysis in the supplementary materials.

Thank you for addressing these concerns.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Luma Hassan Alwan Al Obaidy

Reviewer #4: 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.

A Study on the Determination of the Factors Affecting the Happiness Levels of Older Individuals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkish Society

PONE-D-23-40834R2

Dear Dr. Alkan,

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 Editorial Manager® 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,

Boshra A. Arnout

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: While the study acknowledges its limitations, such as reliance on self-reported data and exclusion of certain demographics, a more thorough discussion of these limitations and their implications would enhance transparency. Additionally, potential biases related to the pandemic context (e.g., heightened anxiety or stress affecting responses) should be considered.

The study concludes that various socio-demographic and economic factors significantly affect the happiness levels of older individuals during the pandemic. This has practical implications for policymakers and mental health practitioners aiming to support this demographic. Recommendations for future research could include longitudinal studies to assess changes in happiness over time or qualitative studies to explore the lived experiences of older adults during the pandemic.

**********

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 #3: Yes: Dr. Luma Hassan Alwan Al Obaidy

Reviewer #5: No

**********