Dear Dr. Miller,

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.

==============================

Thank-you for your patience with the review process. I think there are some final revisions to take into account to ensure theoretical and methodological clarity of your work. Both reviewers have made good suggestions and reviewer two did a very thorough read and picks up on the need to describe why these populations were chosen and some clarification of the sampling design. You do need to make a stronger case for the inclusion of the capabilities approach and justify that more. There is also a need to proofread which is normal and we hope you find their suggestions useful.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2025 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.

• 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 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,

Maria Berghs, 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This study did not receive any funding for the research, but it was supported by Dr. Ben Mortenson’s New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Anonymising qualitative interview transcripts does not make them fully unidentifiable, therefore data can be requested through Borealis (https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/FOJDLJ) by researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. 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.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. 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. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This manuscript was a revised version of already assessed by 3 reviewers.

The authors certainly reply effectively to all comments provided in the appendix

my only comments are as follow:

1) typo line 43 - recommendation with a s

2) line 79 - The authors: can they clarify if it was another

team a sit is difficulty to understand who they are

3) line 95 and 98

please change the word things as it is very vague and do not bring any value or understanding of the useful content

4) line 150 add (BC)

5) line 525 - change 344 to 34

6) great aspect: the authors use evidence based material from previous published studies

7) rigorous method for data analysis

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes the experiences of older adults and people with disabilities during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors describe Sen’s Capability approach and how it was used in their qualitative thematic analysis. There are some very impactful quotes and discussion points, however significant revisions are needed.

Major comments-

There is poor connection as to why these 4 populations were pooled in this publication, as there is little justification as to why these groups are being considered together. How do older adults without disability relate to people with disabilities? It seems like very disparate data and OA is being conflated with disability without justification as to why. This is an issue from the introduction and continues with little linkage or explanation between OA and the other groups in the results and discussion.

For the population group of other disabilities, was there some recruitment strategy for individuals with physical, cognitive, or other disabilities? Strongly suggest clarifying what types of disabilities are/could be includes here would add great value. The disability community is very heterogenous and some description would allow for a better understanding of capabilities/inequities this group experience that are distinct from the stroke or SCI groups. In results there is some of this description attached to quotes but there needs to be a cohesive description earlier. This also ties into the previous comment about the lack of connection between study groups.

The addition of Mitra, Trani et al, etc. based on other reviewer comments does not add value as currently written. As there is no discussion of how/why the authors consider this in their study (line 134). Perhaps this could be further explored in methods (lines 206-20) where capability approach is mentioned (but its use could also be further detailed).

Overall, a careful round of editing is needed as there are syntax and punctuation issues, some noted below.

Minor comments-

General: In some cases oxford comma is used and other times is not, suggest being consistent.

Introduction: lines 57-59 read as though people with disabilities wish to receive higher priority. Whereas their concern lies more with medical ableism and not being fairly assessed based on quality of life bias. Suggest re-phrasing to emphasize the validity of their concern.

Lines 69-71 needs editing to clarify.

Line 98 check comma placement between “broader” and “social”.

Line 109 “lives in place” suggest change to “lives in a place”

Lines 120-123 presents Mirta’s model with and without capitalizations.

Methods: Line 142 used involved twice, would suggest other word choice.

Line 145 suggest adding ethic review #s

Lines 162,166 repeats the same “The majority of participants were born in Canada”.

Lines 189-190 were the interviewers also the coders? IE. Did people use their lived/living experience of disability to inform the analysis? You reference positionality of interviewers but it is not clear for the rest of the research process (lines 211-213).

Lines 189-207 Needs clarification if there were different codes for each of the 4 populations (IE 4 different coding guides were made) or 1 coding book based on all 4 populations. A flowchart to illustrate this process could be a good addition.

This may help you for describing processes of qualitative data integration as well as how you used Sen’s framework in your methods: DiMartino, L., Carroll, A.J., Ridgeway, J.L. et al. Development of a method for qualitative data integration to advance implementation science within research consortia. Implement Sci Commun 6, 21 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00701-4

Results:

Line 216-220 punctuation and syntax issues, including multiple colons in one sentence.

Line 244 missing period

Line 342 “the challenges the experienced” should be “the challenges they experiences”

Line 353 “a physically health life” should be “healthy”

Line 374 In quote - Girl Guide lades – would this not be ladies? Check for typo or note sic?

Line 457-462 Quote about appreciation of healthcare workers is not clear how it links to the sub-theme of “wanting to exert control”

Discussion:

Line 524 citation # not correct

Line 527 “increased disability” should be changed. This is equating health with disability, which does not align with how you describe disability in lines 64-65 as health consequences or how you describe it in the Human Development Model.

Line 547 – “without abilities” should be disabilities?

Limitations:

Line 551- You describe COVID-19 as an epidemic here, but pandemic elsewhere.

**********

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

Pandemic-related experiences of older adults and people with disabilities

PONE-D-24-34362R1

Dear Dr. Miller,

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,

Maria Berghs, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: