Comparing actuarial and subjective healthy life expectancy estimates: A cross-sectional survey among the general population in Hungary

Zsombor Zrubka; Áron Kincses; Tamás Ferenci; Levente Kovács; László Gulácsi; Márta Péntek

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264708

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 4, 2021
6 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Rashidul Alam Mahumud, Editor PONE-D-21-03658Comparing Actuarial and Subjective Healthy Life Expectancy Estimates: a Cross-Sectional Survey Among the General Population in HungaryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zrubka, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 2022 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, Rashidul Alam Mahumud, MPH, MSc, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please upload a copy of Figure 5 & 6, to which you refer in your text on page 26 & 27. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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 ****** 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: Overall Interesting paper and authors did hard work on it. However, it needs extensive revision to make publishable. It looks like directly copied from the report and too long which need entire revision. The general comments are as follows: Abstract Methods line 29; GALI? write full form that appears first time. Results line 32: 504? Replace it with the word. Introduction Page 3: line 56-57 (last sentence); looks like unnecessary. Page 4: line 59; What are multiple methods? It might be better to introduce the paragraph with multiple methods and start describing them. Page 4: line 68-83; this looks to long description, please merge the important things in a single sentence. Page 5-6: Line 108-104; not necessary such details you can finish in a single sentence Methods Page 6: line 121; first sentence not needed. Page 6: line 122 and 126; you already mentioned >50 in the objective; Why you collect 18-65 years? Make it clear. Page 6: Please write sample and design section clearly and sequentially by referring one published article from the journal. It looks like mixed everything here. Page 7: line 139-143; I suggest not to write the whole questions and answer here. (E.g. The opinion question was formulated …… and response was generated ……..) Page 7-10: Line 132-201; I don’t think we need this much long explanation here. Page 11-12: Line 221-247; explanatory variables section; please rewrite this no need to describe each questions in that details. Page 20: line 376; Full form of GALI is already mentioned in the previous section so write short form GALI only. Page 32: line 612: Can you make clear it clear? Page 32: line 614: What is the reason behind ‘need of more explanation’? ****** 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 [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.0264708.r001
Revision 1
22 Jan 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Title: Comparing Actuarial and Subjective Healthy Life Expectancy Estimates: a Cross-Sectional Survey Among the General Population in Hungary Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-03658 Dear Editors, Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We supplied the missing figures, updated supplementary files and revised file-naming conventions as per the journal authors’ guide. Our responses to reviewers’ comments are detailed below. Jan 20th, 2022 The Authors Reviewer #1: Overall Interesting paper and authors did hard work on it. However, it needs extensive revision to make publishable. It looks like directly copied from the report and too long which need entire revision. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestions about making our manuscript more accessible by readers. We have abbreviated and simplified the entire paper and moved several technical details to supplementary files. The general comments are as follows: Abstract Methods line 29; GALI? write full form that appears first time. [Authors] Thank you for pointing out, we introduced the acronym in the abstract (see Revised Manuscript line 12) Results line 32: 504? Replace it with the word. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion, we replaced to „five hundred and five”. (see Revised Manuscript line 16) Introduction Page 3: line 56-57 (last sentence); looks like unnecessary. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion, we shortened the sentence. (see Revised Manuscript lines 37-40) Page 4: line 59; What are multiple methods? It might be better to introduce the paragraph with multiple methods and start describing them. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion, we re-edited and shortened this section. (see Revised Manuscript line 41) Page 4: line 68-83; this looks to long description, please merge the important things in a single sentence. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion, we re-edited and shortened this section. (see Revised Manuscript lines 41-51) Page 5-6: Line 108-104; not necessary such details you can finish in a single sentence [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion, we re-edited and shortened this section. (see Revised Manuscript lines 70-73) Methods Page 6: line 121; first sentence not needed. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion, we re-edited and clarified this section. (see Revised Manuscript line 80) Page 6: line 122 and 126; you already mentioned >50 in the objective; Why you collect 18-65 years? Make it clear. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion, we re-edited and clarified this section. The analysis was conducted on a sub-sample of a larger survey on health- and longevity-related expectations. While subjective life expectancy was inquired on the 18–65-year-old sample via a single point estimate (expected age of death), healthy life expectancy was computed from disability expectations for 60,70,80 and 90 years of age. To limit the inflation of measurement error for those respondents, who expected the onset of disability before age 60, we limited the study of healthy life expectancy to individuals who were 50+ years old. (e.g., healthy at age 18 vs age 50, if both expect disability by age 60). We added the following sentence: „Those respondents were selected in the study sample, who were ≥50-year-old and provided coherent answers to questions related to future health expectations from 60 years of age. Younger individuals were excluded to avoid inflated measurement error when the onset of expected disability was �60 years.” (see Revised Manuscript lines 88-91) Page 6: Please write sample and design section clearly and sequentially by referring one published article from the journal. It looks like mixed everything here. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion, we re-edited this section. We hope that the sequence of reported information provides more clarity about our survey. (see Revised Manuscript lines 80-91) Page 7: line 139-143; I suggest not to write the whole questions and answer here. (E.g. The opinion question was formulated …… and response was generated ……..) Page 7-10: Line 132-201; I don’t think we need this much long explanation here. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion. We abbreviated the methods section and moved most of the technical details to supplementary files. (see Revised Manuscript lines 94-129) Page 11-12: Line 221-247; explanatory variables section; please rewrite this no need to describe each questions in that details. [Authors] Thank you for the suggestion. We abbreviated this section. (see Revised Manuscript lines 148-166) Page 20: line 376; Full form of GALI is already mentioned in the previous section so write short form GALI only. [Authors] Thank you for noting. We suggest keeping this caption text to Fig. 2 unchanged, so readers can interpret all figures without looking up information elsewhere in the manuscript. (see Revised Manuscript lines 287-296) Page 32: line 612: Can you make clear it clear? [Authors] Thank you for noting. We corrected the sentence as follows: „sHLE and sLE were determined by different factors.” (see Revised Manuscript line 532) Page 32: line 614: What is the reason behind ‘need of more explanation’? [Authors] Thank you for the question. There are considerable geographical inequalities of health in Hungary. One may hypothesize that low health expectations are determined culturally and contribute to the unhealthy lifestyles and overall inferior health of rural populations. However, low health expectations may as well be determined by structural factors, such as inferior health infrastructure and low access to healthcare, unemployment and poverty in rural Hungary. Therefore, we amended this sentence as follows: “In Hungary, the association between geographical health inequalities, regional differences in sHLE and their cultural and structural determinants deserve more exploration.” (see Revised Manuscript line 533-534) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264708.r002
16 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Rashidul Alam Mahumud, Editor Comparing Actuarial and Subjective Healthy Life Expectancy Estimates: a Cross-Sectional Survey Among the General Population in Hungary PONE-D-21-03658R1 Dear Dr. Zrubka, 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, Rashidul Alam Mahumud, MPH, MSc, PhD 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: (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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264708.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Mar 2022 Acceptance Letter - Rashidul Alam Mahumud, Editor PONE-D-21-03658R1 Comparing Actuarial and Subjective Healthy Life Expectancy Estimates: a Cross-Sectional Survey Among the General Population in Hungary Dear Dr. Zrubka: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Rashidul Alam Mahumud Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264708.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 .