Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan

Negative perceptions toward older adults and life... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467" }, "headline": "Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in...", "datePublished": "2024-05-09T17:00:50", "dateModified": "2025-03-11T18:08:02", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Yuho Shimizu" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kenichiro Sato" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Susumu Ogawa" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Daisuke Cho" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Yoshifumi Takahashi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Daichi Yamashiro" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Yan Li" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Tomoya Takahashi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Keigo Hinakura" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ai Iizuka" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Tomoki Furuya" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hiroyuki Suzuki" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background With the rapid aging of the population, increasing life satisfaction among older adults is essential. Negative perceptions of older adults are internalized, leading to poor mental health. This study hypothesized that participants with more negative perceptions of older adults would have lower life satisfaction. Methods A cross-sectional survey of older adults was conducted across five wards and four cities in Tokyo, Japan. Participants responded to questions regarding demographics, life satisfaction, and negative perceptions of older adults. Data from 285 participants (264 women, M = 71.97 years) were analyzed. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient for life satisfaction concerning residential areas was. 03 (95% confidence interval [CI] = [-.03, .10]). Instead of multilevel models, a multiple regression model with life satisfaction as the dependent variable and negative perceptions of older adults and demographics as the independent variables yielded the best fit. Results indicated that participants with more negative perceptions of older adults reported lower life satisfaction (β = -.16, 95% CI = [-.28, -.04], p = .008), supporting our hypothesis. Conclusions This study was constrained by limited variance in residential areas and a predominantly female participant pool. Previous studies have shown that higher life satisfaction is associated with increased social participation and extended life expectancy, and interventions aimed at enhancing life satisfaction in older adults are significant. Further exploration is warranted to ascertain whether a causal relationship exists, wherein more negative perceptions of older adults diminish life satisfaction. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467", "name": "Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among..." } } ] } Home Browse Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Shimizu Y, Sato K, Ogawa S et al. Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Brief Report Revised Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Yuho Shimizu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0841-1205 1-3 , Kenichiro Sato 3 , Susumu Ogawa 3 , [...] Daisuke Cho 4 , Yoshifumi Takahashi 3 , Daichi Yamashiro 3 , Yan Li 3 , Tomoya Takahashi 3 , Keigo Hinakura 3 , Ai Iizuka 3 , Tomoki Furuya 3 , Hiroyuki Suzuki 3 Yuho Shimizu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0841-1205 1-3 , Kenichiro Sato 3 , [...] Susumu Ogawa 3 , Daisuke Cho 4 , Yoshifumi Takahashi 3 , Daichi Yamashiro 3 , Yan Li 3 , Tomoya Takahashi 3 , Keigo Hinakura 3 , Ai Iizuka 3 , Tomoki Furuya 3 , Hiroyuki Suzuki 3 PUBLISHED 11 Mar 2025 Author details Author details 1 Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan 2 The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 3 Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 4 Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan Yuho Shimizu Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Kenichiro Sato Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Susumu Ogawa Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Daisuke Cho Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Yoshifumi Takahashi Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Daichi Yamashiro Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Yan Li Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Tomoya Takahashi Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Keigo Hinakura Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Ai Iizuka Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Tomoki Furuya Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Hiroyuki Suzuki Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background With the rapid aging of the population, increasing life satisfaction among older adults is essential. Negative perceptions of older adults are internalized, leading to poor mental health. This study hypothesized that participants with more negative perceptions of older adults would have lower life satisfaction. Methods A cross-sectional survey of older adults was conducted across five wards and four cities in Tokyo, Japan. Participants responded to questions regarding demographics, life satisfaction, and negative perceptions of older adults. Data from 285 participants (264 women, M = 71.97 years) were analyzed. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient for life satisfaction concerning residential areas was. 03 (95% confidence interval [CI] = [-.03, .10]). Instead of multilevel models, a multiple regression model with life satisfaction as the dependent variable and negative perceptions of older adults and demographics as the independent variables yielded the best fit. Results indicated that participants with more negative perceptions of older adults reported lower life satisfaction ( β = -.16, 95% CI = [-.28, -.04], p = .008), supporting our hypothesis. Conclusions This study was constrained by limited variance in residential areas and a predominantly female participant pool. Previous studies have shown that higher life satisfaction is associated with increased social participation and extended life expectancy, and interventions aimed at enhancing life satisfaction in older adults are significant. Further exploration is warranted to ascertain whether a causal relationship exists, wherein more negative perceptions of older adults diminish life satisfaction. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Psychological Well-Being, Quality of Life, Stereotyping, Life Satisfaction, Multilevel Models Corresponding Author(s) Yuho Shimizu ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Yuho Shimizu Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (22H01098). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Shimizu Y et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Shimizu Y, Sato K, Ogawa S et al. Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.4 ) First published: 09 May 2024, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.1 ) Latest published: 11 Mar 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.4 ) Revised Amendments from Version 3 The following modifications were made in this study in line with the reviewers' suggestions. For example, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Discussion: “However, the association between negative perceptions toward seniors and life satisfaction is not strong enough, so we should be careful about over-interpreting the results.” Moreover, we have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction: “There are other psychological variables that affect the life satisfaction of older people, although these are not examined in detail in this study. For a review of variables that contribute to life satisfaction among older adults in Asia, please refer to the following literature. 15 ” In addition, we have also added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion: “In this study, we mainly analyzed data from older women, but we should also consider older men in the future.” Thus, the Introduction and Discussion were mainly revised. The following modifications were made in this study in line with the reviewers' suggestions. For example, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Discussion: “However, the association between negative perceptions toward seniors and life satisfaction is not strong enough, so we should be careful about over-interpreting the results.” Moreover, we have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction: “There are other psychological variables that affect the life satisfaction of older people, although these are not examined in detail in this study. For a review of variables that contribute to life satisfaction among older adults in Asia, please refer to the following literature. 15 ” In addition, we have also added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion: “In this study, we mainly analyzed data from older women, but we should also consider older men in the future.” Thus, the Introduction and Discussion were mainly revised. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Chang Hyun Seo See the authors' detailed response to the review by Michiko Iwasaki See the authors' detailed response to the review by Joanne Hudson See the authors' detailed response to the review by Susiana Nugraha See the authors' detailed response to the review by Anna Zalewska READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Globally, the population is aging rapidly. This is especially evident in Japan, where 29.0% of the population will be 65 years or older by 2022. 1 While social problems associated with aging have become more apparent, older adults generally have a higher level of life satisfaction than other generations. 2 , 3 However, life satisfaction among older adults in Japan has declined in recent years. 4 As life satisfaction among older people is closely associated with a higher level of physical health, 5 increased social participation, 6 and longer life expectancy, 7 , 8 efforts to increase life satisfaction in this demographic are of great importance. One variable that could be related to life satisfaction among them is negative perceptions toward older adults, which is how older citizens perceive the social group of “older adults.” Some people view older adults in a positive light, while others view them in a negative light. Stereotype embodiment theory (SET) assumes that older adults internalize negative old-age perceptions. 9 Moreover, the SET argues that older adults who hold more negative perceptions are more likely to experience various negative effects. Previous studies have shown that older adults with more negative perceptions have poorer mental health, 10 , 11 lower cognitive function, 12 and slower recovery from illness. 13 Similar to the SET, the risks of ageism model 14 suggest that three factors broadly inhibit active aging: “stereotype embodiment,” “stereotype threat,” and “being a target of ageism.” Based on the above findings, negative perceptions toward older adults among the older participants will be associated with lower life satisfaction. There are other psychological variables that affect the life satisfaction of older people, although these are not examined in detail in this study. For a review of variables that contribute to life satisfaction among older adults in Asia, please refer to the following literature. 15 This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults in Tokyo, Japan, was conducted. The hypothesis is that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults would have lower levels of life satisfaction. The study will also focus on the effect of the participant’s residential area. In a large survey of residents in a wide range of Japanese cities, it has been reported that people in more urban areas have fewer close neighbors who greet each other. 16 Thus, results may vary depending on the participant’s residential area. Details regarding their residential area are provided in the next section. Methods Participants A paper-based questionnaire survey was used in this study. Participants read the questionnaire themselves and responded using a writing instrument. A power analysis assuming a small to moderate effect size ( ρ = .20, α = .05, 1– β = .80) yielded a required sample size of 193. Three hundred and two older Japanese individuals from Tokyo participated in this study. However, 17 participants were excluded from the analysis because they were < 65 years old. Thus, the data of 285 participants (aged 65–92, M = 71.97 years, SD = 5.16) were analyzed. The participants comprised 21 men and 264 women. They were older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children, which was held in five wards and four cities in Tokyo from 2021–2022. In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). Participants were informed in advance of the objective(s) of the course. Thus, an exploratory multilevel analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesis, considering the effect of participants’ residential areas. Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. A summary of the participants by residential area is available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X6JSN ). 17 Participants were required to attend the health course venue independently. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. Note that the data for this study were collected before the implementation of the health course; therefore, results in this study do not include course effects. This study was approved by the first author’s institution for ethical review. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology (approval number: 748; June 10, 2020) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all participants in written format. Measurements Negative perceptions toward older adults were measured using the eight adjectives (five-point Likert scale). 18 Participants were asked the following question: “To what extent do you think older adults fit each of the following adjectives?” Adjectives presented to participants included “depressed” and “passive.” The mean was taken as the score (α = .89), with higher scores indicating more negative perceptions toward older adults. Life satisfaction was measured using the five-items of the Satisfaction with Life Scale 19 measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Examples of items include: “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.” The mean was taken as the score (α = .86), with higher scores indicating a higher level of life satisfaction. Demographic variables included years of education, age, and sex. Although there may be other confounding individual difference variables, other variables were not measured in this study in consideration of participants’ burden. Procedure and analysis Participants received an explanation regarding the use of survey data for research purposes and agreed to participate in the study. Subsequently, they responded to demographic variables, life satisfaction, and negative perceptions toward older adults. The statistical software R (ver.4.1.0) was used for all analyses. The list of questions, data used in the analysis, scripts for R, histograms for each variable, and summary statistics can be accessed through the OSF. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for life satisfaction concerning residential areas was.03 (95% CI = [-.03, .10]). Therefore, applying a multilevel analysis was not necessary. However, in this study, a simple multiple regression analysis (Model 1), a random effect with an analysis of covariance (RANCOVA) model, including the effect of residential area (Model 2), a random intercept and slope model with a group-level effect of negative perceptions toward older adults (Model 3), and a random intercept and slope model with a cross-level interaction (Model 4) were conducted. These models were compared in Table 1 . Table 1. Results for each model with life satisfaction as the dependent variable. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β 95%CI β 95%CI β 95%CI β 95%CI NP -.16 ** [-.28, -.04] — — — NP (individual) — -.18 ** [-.30, -.05] -.16 [-.33, .02] -.15 [-.33, .04] NP (area) — — -.07 [-.58, .42] -.08 [-.66, .44] NP (ind.×area) — — — .02 [-.14, .18] Education years .06 [-.06, .18] .06 [-.06, .18] .06 [-.05, .19] .06 [-.05, .19] Age -.07 [-.19, .06] -.05 [-.17, .08] -.03 [-.16, .09] -.03 [-.16, .09] Sex -.09 [-.20, .03] -.09 [-.20, .03] -.09 [-.20, .03] -.09 [-.20, .03] AIC 808.53 826.30 831.20 836.38 BIC 830.44 851.87 867.72 876.56 ** p < .01. Life satisfaction was used as the dependent variable in each analysis. In Model 1, a multiple regression analysis including the demographics (years of education, age, and sex) showed that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults had lower life satisfaction ( β = -.16, 95% CI = [-.28, -.04], p = .008). In Model 2, a RANCOVA model with an individual-level effect (group-mean centering) of negative perceptions toward older adults was conducted and a similar effect to Model 1 ( β = -.18, 95% CI = [-.30, -.05], p = .005) was found. In Model 3, a random intercept and slope model, including a group-level effect (deviating from regional means) of the negative perceptions toward older adults, was employed. The results showed that the individual-level effect ( β = -.16, 95% CI = [-.33, .02], p = .11) and the group-level effect ( β = -.07, 95% CI = [-.58, .42], p = .80) were not significant. In Model 4, a random intercept and slope model, including cross-level interaction, was employed. The results showed that the individual-level effect ( β = -.15, 95% CI = [-.33, .04], p = .18), the group-level effect ( β = -.08, 95% CI = [-.66, .44], p = .77), and the cross-level interaction ( β = .02, 95% CI = [-.14, .18], p = .85) were not significant. Model comparisons were conducted using the Akaike’s information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion, and Model 1 was determined to fit the data best. Note that when participants aged under 70 ( n = 103) and 70 or over ( n = 182) were analyzed separately; the results for both groups were similar to those in the main manuscript (see OSF). Similar results were obtained in a multiple regression analysis using a dummy variable for the residential area, with zero for the ward and one for the city (see OSF). Thus, the hypothesis in this study that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults have lower levels of life satisfaction was supported. Discussion In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults in nine areas in Tokyo was conducted to examine the relationship between negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. Each multilevel model fits the data worse than the simple multiple regression analysis. The results showed that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults had lower life satisfaction, thus supporting the hypothesis. However, the association between negative perceptions toward seniors and life satisfaction is not strong enough, so we should be careful about over-interpreting the results. Note that a reverse relationship could also be assumed: individuals with lower life satisfaction have more negative perceptions toward older adults. The same association was found when this possibility was examined, as in the main manuscript (see OSF). In this study, the ICC for life satisfaction in residential areas was small, and the fit of each multilevel model was relatively low. One reason for this may be that the participants were limited to those in a health course, training volunteers to read picture books. While detailed motivations for participating in the course varied from individual to individual, the attitude of “I am interested in picture books” and “I want to work as a volunteer” was probably shared by almost all participants. Thus, possibly, the group-level effect was relatively small due to the presence of factors common to participants across residential areas. As this study is a cross-sectional survey, it should be examined whether a causal relationship exists between more negative perceptions toward older adults and decreased life satisfaction. Meanwhile, given that older adults with negative perceptions toward themselves have poorer mental health, 10 , 11 positively changing their perceptions toward older adults is important. One way to achieve this is to present people with information that contradicts negative old-age stereotypes. For example, negative stereotypes exist that “older adults are prone to illness,” but it was shown that presenting people with the content that “many older adults are healthy enough and able to live on their own” decreased ageism toward older adults. 20 , 21 Although these findings targeted younger people, a similar experimental manipulation for older adults may affirm their perceptions toward older adults. Future empirical studies are required to positively change the perceptions toward old age among older adults. In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children in Tokyo was conducted. Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. For example, reducing negative perceptions toward older adults prior to enrolling in a program may make it easier for them to achieve greater life satisfaction. As noted above, this study is limited to the examination of correlations, and longitudinal experiments should be conducted in the future. This study had three major limitations. First, the areas covered in this study were all located in Tokyo, Japan, and the regional differences were small. Compared with Japan’s underpopulated regions, all nine regions in this study share a high population density and a very small number of people engaged in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Therefore, follow-up studies are required to select regions with significantly different geopolitical characteristics from a wide range of prefectures. Second, the participation was skewed toward women. Since this study was conducted before a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children, women comprised the majority of the participants. Note that results similar to those in the main manuscript were obtained when the analysis was limited to women’s data (see OSF); however, this study could not make adequate comparisons between men and women. It may be important to promote post-retirement social participation, especially with regard to men. Therefore, the findings in this study should be re-examined with a sufficient number of male participants. Third, 95% Cis for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 were wide. This indicates that the estimates contained large uncertainties. This may be due to insufficient sample size for each area. While it is significant that the survey was conducted in a wide range of areas, the number of participants in each area was insufficient. Therefore, elaborate estimates of group-level effects and interactions should be made in the future. In this study, a significant association between negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction was found among community-dwelling older adults. Interventions that increase life satisfaction in older adults are meaningful because higher life satisfaction leads to increased social participation and longer life expectancies. Thus, it would be useful to focus on the negative perceptions toward older adults. The strength of this study is that the analysis of the relationship between negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction takes into account the effects of residential areas. Future studies on life satisfaction and negative perceptions toward older adults in a broader geographic area should consider regional effects. In this study, we mainly analyzed data from older women, but we should also consider older men in the future. Ethical considerations All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the research committee of Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, (approval number: 748; June 10, 2020 and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Data availability The data used in the analysis is available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X6JSN . 17 The project contains the following data: • old image place4.csv (dataset), • old image place code_3.R (the R codes for analysis), • OSF_supplemental_1.pdf (supplementary file of the manuscript). This data was collected and formed by the authors of this paper. The license of this data is CC-BY 4.0 International. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the continued efforts in the management of survey by Senior Citizen Activities Promotion Section in Welfare Division of Hachioji City in Tokyo, Japan. The authors also thank members of the Research Team for Social Participation and Community Health, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology. References 1. Japan Cabinet Office: White paper on aging society in 2023. Accessed 2 March, 2024. Reference Source 2. Blanchflower DG, Oswald AJ: Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Soc. Sci. Med. 2008; 66 : 1733–1749. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Kurokawa H, Ohtake F: Age and cohort effects on happiness, satisfaction, and stress. J. Behav. Econ. Financ. 2013; 6 : 1–36. Publisher Full Text 4. Japan Cabinet Office: White paper on aging society in 2021. Accessed 2 March, 2024. Reference Source 5. Kim ES, Delaney SW, Tay L, et al. : Life satisfaction and subsequent physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health in older adults. Milbank Q. 2021; 99 : 209–239. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 6. Baeriswyl M, Oris M: Social participation and life satisfaction among older adults: Diversity of practices and social inequality in Switzerland. Ageing Soc. 2023; 43 : 1259–1283. Publisher Full Text 7. Diener ED, Chan MY: Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Appl. Psychol.: Health Well-Being. 2011; 3 : 1–43. Publisher Full Text 8. Diener ED, Ryan K: Subjective well-being: A general overview. S. Afr. J. Psychol. 2009; 39 : 391–406. Publisher Full Text 9. Levy BR: Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2009; 18 : 332–336. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Werner P, Stein-Shvachman I, Heinik J: Perceptions of self-stigma and its correlates among older adults with depression: A preliminary study. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2009; 21 : 1180–1189. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 11. Wettstein M, Wahl HW, Siebert JS: 20-year trajectories of health in midlife and old age: Contrasting the impact of personality and attitudes toward own aging. Psychol. Aging. 2020; 35 : 910–924. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 12. Siebert JS, Braun T, Wahl HW: Change in attitudes toward aging: Cognitive complaints matter more than objective performance. Psychol. Aging. 2020; 35 : 357–368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 13. Levy BR, Slade MD, May J, et al. : Physical recovery after acute myocardial infarction: Positive age self-stereotypes as a resource. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2006; 62 : 285–301. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 14. Swift JH, Abrams D, Lamont RA, et al. : The risks of ageism model: How ageism and negative attitudes toward age can be a barrier to active aging. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2017; 11 : 195–231. Publisher Full Text 15. Khodabakhsh S: Factors affecting life satisfaction of older adults in Asia: A systematic review. J. Happiness Stud. 2022; 23 : 1289–1304. Publisher Full Text 16. Harada K, Sugisawa H: Urbanism and personal networks: Multilevel analyses of kin, neighbors, and friends. Japanese Sociol. Rev. 2014; 65 : 80–96. Publisher Full Text 17. Shimizu Y: Negative perceptions of older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan. [Dataset]. OSF. 2024. Publisher Full Text 18. Toyoshima A, Tabuchi M, Sato S: Relationship between recognition of elder abuse and attitude toward elderly people among young adults. Japanese J. Gerontol. 2016; 38 : 308–318. Publisher Full Text 19. Diener ED, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, et al. : The satisfaction with life scale. J. Pers. Assess. 1985; 49 : 71–75. Publisher Full Text 20. Lytle A, Levy SR: Reducing ageism: Education about aging and extended contact with older adults. Gerontologist. 2019; 59 : 580–588. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Shimizu Y, Suzuki M, Hata Y, et al. : Older adults are healthier than many people expect: Reducing anti-old attitudes. Educ. Gerontol. 2023; 49 : 1116–1127. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 09 May 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan 2 The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 3 Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 4 Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan Yuho Shimizu Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Kenichiro Sato Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Susumu Ogawa Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Daisuke Cho Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Yoshifumi Takahashi Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Daichi Yamashiro Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Yan Li Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Tomoya Takahashi Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Keigo Hinakura Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Ai Iizuka Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Tomoki Furuya Roles: Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing Hiroyuki Suzuki Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (22H01098). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (4) version 4 Revised Published: 11 Mar 2025, 13:467 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.4 version 3 Revised Published: 24 Feb 2025, 13:467 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.3 version 2 Revised Published: 23 Aug 2024, 13:467 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.2 version 1 Published: 09 May 2024, 13:467 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.1 Copyright © 2025 Shimizu Y et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Shimizu Y, Sato K, Ogawa S et al. Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.149132.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 11 Mar 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Nugraha S. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370479 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370479 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Apr 2025 Susiana Nugraha , Public Health Department, Faculty of Health Science, Universitas Indonesia, University of Respati Indonesia, Jakarta, Special Region of Jakarta, Indonesia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370479 Thank you for making significant improvements to the review given. All of reviewer comments have been revised accordingly. ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for making significant improvements to the review given. All of reviewer comments have been revised accordingly. I have no other comment for this article. In my opinion, this article is very worthy of being accepted. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Gerontology, Public Health, Mental Health, Health Promotion I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Nugraha S. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370479 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370479 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Seo CH. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370476 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370476 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Apr 2025 Chang Hyun Seo , University of Nevada Reno, Reno, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370476 I have reviewed the revised version and the authors’ responses to my previous comments. The revisions appear appropriate ... Continue reading READ ALL I have reviewed the revised version and the authors’ responses to my previous comments. The revisions appear appropriate and sufficiently address the concerns I raised. I would be happy to update my review status to Approved. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Social Policy analysis I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Seo CH. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370476 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370476 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hudson J. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370477 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370477 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 Mar 2025 Joanne Hudson , Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370477 No further ... Continue reading READ ALL No further comments from me. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Exercise Psychology; Older adults I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hudson J. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370477 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370477 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 24 Feb 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hudson J. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178089.r368208 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v3#referee-response-368208 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 05 Mar 2025 Joanne Hudson , Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178089.r368208 Thank you for making the changes to your ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for making the changes to your manuscript. These have clarified the issues I raised. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Exercise Psychology; Older adults I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hudson J. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178089.r368208 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v3#referee-response-368208 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Aug 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Iwasaki M. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r360867 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-360867 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 11 Feb 2025 Michiko Iwasaki , Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r360867 This study includes community-dwelling older adults who volunteer to support children's reading or take a dementia prevention course. Despite differing motivations, both groups engage in community-based services, justifying their treatment as one. A key limitation is the inclusion of 21 ... Continue reading READ ALL This study includes community-dwelling older adults who volunteer to support children's reading or take a dementia prevention course. Despite differing motivations, both groups engage in community-based services, justifying their treatment as one. A key limitation is the inclusion of 21 men. Given gender differences in health and ageism, focusing solely on women enhances internal validity while preserving a strong sample (n = 264). Clear reporting of effect sizes is essential, as the Beta coefficient for negative perception (0.18 or 0.16) on life satisfaction is small and should be interpreted accordingly. Lastly, the literature review on life satisfaction is weak, and I strongly recommend updating the introduction and discussion to emphasize older women. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Assessment of ageism; caregiving, and minority mental health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Iwasaki M. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r360867 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-360867 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 11 Mar 2025 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 11 Mar 2025 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 5 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 5 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. 1) This study includes community-dwelling older adults who volunteer to support children's reading or take a dementia prevention course. Despite differing motivations, both groups engage in community-based services, justifying their treatment as one. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The same point was also raised by Reviewer 3. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” 2) A key limitation is the inclusion of 21 men. Given gender differences in health and ageism, focusing solely on women enhances internal validity while preserving a strong sample ( n = 264). We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As stated in the fifth paragraph of Discussion , we have already confirmed that the same results can be obtained by analyzing only women’s data. Please see the supplemental material on the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository. 3) Clear reporting of effect sizes is essential, as the Beta coefficient for negative perception (0.18 or 0.16) on life satisfaction is small and should be interpreted accordingly. We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As you pointed out, the relationship between the variables is not strong enough. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Discussion : “ However, the association between negative perceptions toward seniors and life satisfaction is not strong enough, so we should be careful about over-interpreting the results. ” 4) Lastly, the literature review on life satisfaction is weak, and I strongly recommend updating the introduction and discussion to emphasize older women. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ There are other psychological variables that affect the life satisfaction of older people, although these are not examined in detail in this study. For a review of variables that contribute to life satisfaction among older adults in Asia, please refer to the following lite rature. 15 ” We have also added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, we mainly analyzed data from older women, but we should also consider older men in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 5 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. 1) This study includes community-dwelling older adults who volunteer to support children's reading or take a dementia prevention course. Despite differing motivations, both groups engage in community-based services, justifying their treatment as one. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The same point was also raised by Reviewer 3. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” 2) A key limitation is the inclusion of 21 men. Given gender differences in health and ageism, focusing solely on women enhances internal validity while preserving a strong sample ( n = 264). We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As stated in the fifth paragraph of Discussion , we have already confirmed that the same results can be obtained by analyzing only women’s data. Please see the supplemental material on the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository. 3) Clear reporting of effect sizes is essential, as the Beta coefficient for negative perception (0.18 or 0.16) on life satisfaction is small and should be interpreted accordingly. We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As you pointed out, the relationship between the variables is not strong enough. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Discussion : “ However, the association between negative perceptions toward seniors and life satisfaction is not strong enough, so we should be careful about over-interpreting the results. ” 4) Lastly, the literature review on life satisfaction is weak, and I strongly recommend updating the introduction and discussion to emphasize older women. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ There are other psychological variables that affect the life satisfaction of older people, although these are not examined in detail in this study. For a review of variables that contribute to life satisfaction among older adults in Asia, please refer to the following lite rature. 15 ” We have also added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, we mainly analyzed data from older women, but we should also consider older men in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 11 Mar 2025 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 11 Mar 2025 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 5 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 5 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. 1) This study includes community-dwelling older adults who volunteer to support children's reading or take a dementia prevention course. Despite differing motivations, both groups engage in community-based services, justifying their treatment as one. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The same point was also raised by Reviewer 3. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” 2) A key limitation is the inclusion of 21 men. Given gender differences in health and ageism, focusing solely on women enhances internal validity while preserving a strong sample ( n = 264). We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As stated in the fifth paragraph of Discussion , we have already confirmed that the same results can be obtained by analyzing only women’s data. Please see the supplemental material on the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository. 3) Clear reporting of effect sizes is essential, as the Beta coefficient for negative perception (0.18 or 0.16) on life satisfaction is small and should be interpreted accordingly. We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As you pointed out, the relationship between the variables is not strong enough. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Discussion : “ However, the association between negative perceptions toward seniors and life satisfaction is not strong enough, so we should be careful about over-interpreting the results. ” 4) Lastly, the literature review on life satisfaction is weak, and I strongly recommend updating the introduction and discussion to emphasize older women. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ There are other psychological variables that affect the life satisfaction of older people, although these are not examined in detail in this study. For a review of variables that contribute to life satisfaction among older adults in Asia, please refer to the following lite rature. 15 ” We have also added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, we mainly analyzed data from older women, but we should also consider older men in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 5 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. 1) This study includes community-dwelling older adults who volunteer to support children's reading or take a dementia prevention course. Despite differing motivations, both groups engage in community-based services, justifying their treatment as one. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The same point was also raised by Reviewer 3. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” 2) A key limitation is the inclusion of 21 men. Given gender differences in health and ageism, focusing solely on women enhances internal validity while preserving a strong sample ( n = 264). We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As stated in the fifth paragraph of Discussion , we have already confirmed that the same results can be obtained by analyzing only women’s data. Please see the supplemental material on the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository. 3) Clear reporting of effect sizes is essential, as the Beta coefficient for negative perception (0.18 or 0.16) on life satisfaction is small and should be interpreted accordingly. We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As you pointed out, the relationship between the variables is not strong enough. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Discussion : “ However, the association between negative perceptions toward seniors and life satisfaction is not strong enough, so we should be careful about over-interpreting the results. ” 4) Lastly, the literature review on life satisfaction is weak, and I strongly recommend updating the introduction and discussion to emphasize older women. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ There are other psychological variables that affect the life satisfaction of older people, although these are not examined in detail in this study. For a review of variables that contribute to life satisfaction among older adults in Asia, please refer to the following lite rature. 15 ” We have also added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, we mainly analyzed data from older women, but we should also consider older men in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Seo CH. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r360865 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-360865 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 07 Feb 2025 Chang Hyun Seo , University of Nevada Reno, Reno, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r360865 1. The title wording remains slightly ambiguous regarding the meaning of "negative perceptions toward older adults." Adding a clarification sentence in the Introduction would improve clarity. 2. The sample is heavily skewed toward women (264 women, 21 men), which limits the ... Continue reading READ ALL 1. The title wording remains slightly ambiguous regarding the meaning of "negative perceptions toward older adults." Adding a clarification sentence in the Introduction would improve clarity. 2. The sample is heavily skewed toward women (264 women, 21 men), which limits the generalizability of findings. A clearer discussion of this limitation is needed. 3. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 are quite wide (e.g., [-0.66, 0.44] in Model 4), indicating a high level of uncertainty in these estimates. Discussing the implications of wide CIs in the limitations section would strengthen the manuscript. 4. The claim that these findings can improve programs promoting the health of older adults appears somewhat speculative, as the study does not directly test interventions. I recommend softening this statement or rewording it to reflect the exploratory nature of the study. For example, instead of stating that the findings 'can improve programs,' the authors could clarify that the results may provide insights for designing future interventions. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Social Policy analysis I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Seo CH. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r360865 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-360865 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 24 Feb 2025 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 4 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 4 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title wording remains slightly ambiguous regarding the meaning of “negative perceptions toward older adults.” Adding a clarification sentence in the Introduction would improve clarity. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ …negative perceptions toward older adults, which is how older citizens perceive the social group of “older adults.” Some people view older adults in a positive light, while others view them in a negative light. ” The sample is heavily skewed toward women (264 women, 21 men), which limits the generalizability of findings. A clearer discussion of this limitation is needed. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The fact that the participants are biased toward women is already discussed in the second to last paragraph of Discussion . To elaborate on the content, we have added the following statement to the paragraph: “ It may be important to promote post-retirement social participation, especially with regard to men. ” The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 are quite wide (e.g., [-0.66, 0.44] in Model 4), indicating a high level of uncertainty in these estimates. Discussing the implications of wide CIs in the limitations section would strengthen the manuscript. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the second to last paragraph of Discussion : “ Third, 95% Cis for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 were wide. This indicates that the estimates contained large uncertainties. This may be due to insufficient sample size for each area. While it is significant that the survey was conducted in a wide range of areas, the number of participants in each area was insufficient. Therefore, elaborate estimates of group-level effects and interactions should be made in the future. ” The claim that these findings can improve programs promoting the health of older adults appears somewhat speculative, as the study does not directly test interventions. I recommend softening this statement or rewording it to reflect the exploratory nature of the study. For example, instead of stating that the findings ‘can improve programs,’ the authors could clarify that the results may provide insights for designing future interventions. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 4 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title wording remains slightly ambiguous regarding the meaning of “negative perceptions toward older adults.” Adding a clarification sentence in the Introduction would improve clarity. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ …negative perceptions toward older adults, which is how older citizens perceive the social group of “older adults.” Some people view older adults in a positive light, while others view them in a negative light. ” The sample is heavily skewed toward women (264 women, 21 men), which limits the generalizability of findings. A clearer discussion of this limitation is needed. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The fact that the participants are biased toward women is already discussed in the second to last paragraph of Discussion . To elaborate on the content, we have added the following statement to the paragraph: “ It may be important to promote post-retirement social participation, especially with regard to men. ” The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 are quite wide (e.g., [-0.66, 0.44] in Model 4), indicating a high level of uncertainty in these estimates. Discussing the implications of wide CIs in the limitations section would strengthen the manuscript. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the second to last paragraph of Discussion : “ Third, 95% Cis for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 were wide. This indicates that the estimates contained large uncertainties. This may be due to insufficient sample size for each area. While it is significant that the survey was conducted in a wide range of areas, the number of participants in each area was insufficient. Therefore, elaborate estimates of group-level effects and interactions should be made in the future. ” The claim that these findings can improve programs promoting the health of older adults appears somewhat speculative, as the study does not directly test interventions. I recommend softening this statement or rewording it to reflect the exploratory nature of the study. For example, instead of stating that the findings ‘can improve programs,’ the authors could clarify that the results may provide insights for designing future interventions. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 24 Feb 2025 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 4 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 4 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title wording remains slightly ambiguous regarding the meaning of “negative perceptions toward older adults.” Adding a clarification sentence in the Introduction would improve clarity. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ …negative perceptions toward older adults, which is how older citizens perceive the social group of “older adults.” Some people view older adults in a positive light, while others view them in a negative light. ” The sample is heavily skewed toward women (264 women, 21 men), which limits the generalizability of findings. A clearer discussion of this limitation is needed. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The fact that the participants are biased toward women is already discussed in the second to last paragraph of Discussion . To elaborate on the content, we have added the following statement to the paragraph: “ It may be important to promote post-retirement social participation, especially with regard to men. ” The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 are quite wide (e.g., [-0.66, 0.44] in Model 4), indicating a high level of uncertainty in these estimates. Discussing the implications of wide CIs in the limitations section would strengthen the manuscript. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the second to last paragraph of Discussion : “ Third, 95% Cis for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 were wide. This indicates that the estimates contained large uncertainties. This may be due to insufficient sample size for each area. While it is significant that the survey was conducted in a wide range of areas, the number of participants in each area was insufficient. Therefore, elaborate estimates of group-level effects and interactions should be made in the future. ” The claim that these findings can improve programs promoting the health of older adults appears somewhat speculative, as the study does not directly test interventions. I recommend softening this statement or rewording it to reflect the exploratory nature of the study. For example, instead of stating that the findings ‘can improve programs,’ the authors could clarify that the results may provide insights for designing future interventions. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 4 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title wording remains slightly ambiguous regarding the meaning of “negative perceptions toward older adults.” Adding a clarification sentence in the Introduction would improve clarity. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ …negative perceptions toward older adults, which is how older citizens perceive the social group of “older adults.” Some people view older adults in a positive light, while others view them in a negative light. ” The sample is heavily skewed toward women (264 women, 21 men), which limits the generalizability of findings. A clearer discussion of this limitation is needed. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The fact that the participants are biased toward women is already discussed in the second to last paragraph of Discussion . To elaborate on the content, we have added the following statement to the paragraph: “ It may be important to promote post-retirement social participation, especially with regard to men. ” The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 are quite wide (e.g., [-0.66, 0.44] in Model 4), indicating a high level of uncertainty in these estimates. Discussing the implications of wide CIs in the limitations section would strengthen the manuscript. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the second to last paragraph of Discussion : “ Third, 95% Cis for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 were wide. This indicates that the estimates contained large uncertainties. This may be due to insufficient sample size for each area. While it is significant that the survey was conducted in a wide range of areas, the number of participants in each area was insufficient. Therefore, elaborate estimates of group-level effects and interactions should be made in the future. ” The claim that these findings can improve programs promoting the health of older adults appears somewhat speculative, as the study does not directly test interventions. I recommend softening this statement or rewording it to reflect the exploratory nature of the study. For example, instead of stating that the findings ‘can improve programs,’ the authors could clarify that the results may provide insights for designing future interventions. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hudson J. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r359028 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-359028 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 29 Jan 2025 Joanne Hudson , Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r359028 (1) Exploring the role of residential area in the relationship under investigation is relevant but it would be helpful if some literature were included in the Introduction to provide a rationale for including residential area as a factor in the ... Continue reading READ ALL (1) Exploring the role of residential area in the relationship under investigation is relevant but it would be helpful if some literature were included in the Introduction to provide a rationale for including residential area as a factor in the study. (2) Please identify which Wards and Cities were categorised as volunteering and dementia prevention in the supplemental material if this is relevant. (3) Were the volunteers aware of the main goal for the health course (dementia prevention or volunteering)? If so, would this have influenced participant recruitment? (4) I'm not quite clear on whether or not residential areas with different main goals for the health course were compared - this is particularly important if volunteers were aware of these (see comment above). Please could you clarify this? (5) Please review the following statement in the Discussion as the study was not aimed at finding out how to improve such programmes but at the relationships between individual difference factors in people attending them : "The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults." This comment is related to the answer "partly" to the final question above. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Exercise Psychology; Older adults I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hudson J. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r359028 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-359028 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 24 Feb 2025 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 3 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 3 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. Exploring the role of residential area in the relationship under investigation is relevant but it would be helpful if some literature were included in the Introduction to provide a rationale for including residential area as a factor in the study. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Introduction : “ In a large survey of residents in a wide range of Japanese cities, it has been reported that people in more urban areas have fewer close neighbors who greet each other. 15 Thus, results may vary depending on the participant’s residential area. Details regarding their residential area are provided in the next section. ” Please identify which Wards and Cities were categorized as volunteering and dementia prevention in the supplemental material if this is relevant. Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Were the volunteers aware of the main goal for the health course (dementia prevention or volunteering)? If so, would this have influenced participant recruitment? Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Participants were informed in advance of the objective(s) of the course. ” I'm not quite clear on whether or not residential areas with different main goals for the health course were compared. This is particularly important if volunteers were aware of these (see comment above). Please could you clarify this? Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As indicated in the above response, participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” Please review the following statement in the Discussion as the study was not aimed at finding out how to improve such programmes but at the relationships between individual difference factors in people attending them: “The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults.” This comment is related to the answer “partly” to the final question above. Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 3 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. Exploring the role of residential area in the relationship under investigation is relevant but it would be helpful if some literature were included in the Introduction to provide a rationale for including residential area as a factor in the study. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Introduction : “ In a large survey of residents in a wide range of Japanese cities, it has been reported that people in more urban areas have fewer close neighbors who greet each other. 15 Thus, results may vary depending on the participant’s residential area. Details regarding their residential area are provided in the next section. ” Please identify which Wards and Cities were categorized as volunteering and dementia prevention in the supplemental material if this is relevant. Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Were the volunteers aware of the main goal for the health course (dementia prevention or volunteering)? If so, would this have influenced participant recruitment? Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Participants were informed in advance of the objective(s) of the course. ” I'm not quite clear on whether or not residential areas with different main goals for the health course were compared. This is particularly important if volunteers were aware of these (see comment above). Please could you clarify this? Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As indicated in the above response, participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” Please review the following statement in the Discussion as the study was not aimed at finding out how to improve such programmes but at the relationships between individual difference factors in people attending them: “The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults.” This comment is related to the answer “partly” to the final question above. Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 24 Feb 2025 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 3 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 3 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. Exploring the role of residential area in the relationship under investigation is relevant but it would be helpful if some literature were included in the Introduction to provide a rationale for including residential area as a factor in the study. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Introduction : “ In a large survey of residents in a wide range of Japanese cities, it has been reported that people in more urban areas have fewer close neighbors who greet each other. 15 Thus, results may vary depending on the participant’s residential area. Details regarding their residential area are provided in the next section. ” Please identify which Wards and Cities were categorized as volunteering and dementia prevention in the supplemental material if this is relevant. Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Were the volunteers aware of the main goal for the health course (dementia prevention or volunteering)? If so, would this have influenced participant recruitment? Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Participants were informed in advance of the objective(s) of the course. ” I'm not quite clear on whether or not residential areas with different main goals for the health course were compared. This is particularly important if volunteers were aware of these (see comment above). Please could you clarify this? Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As indicated in the above response, participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” Please review the following statement in the Discussion as the study was not aimed at finding out how to improve such programmes but at the relationships between individual difference factors in people attending them: “The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults.” This comment is related to the answer “partly” to the final question above. Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 3 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. Exploring the role of residential area in the relationship under investigation is relevant but it would be helpful if some literature were included in the Introduction to provide a rationale for including residential area as a factor in the study. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Introduction : “ In a large survey of residents in a wide range of Japanese cities, it has been reported that people in more urban areas have fewer close neighbors who greet each other. 15 Thus, results may vary depending on the participant’s residential area. Details regarding their residential area are provided in the next section. ” Please identify which Wards and Cities were categorized as volunteering and dementia prevention in the supplemental material if this is relevant. Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Were the volunteers aware of the main goal for the health course (dementia prevention or volunteering)? If so, would this have influenced participant recruitment? Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Participants were informed in advance of the objective(s) of the course. ” I'm not quite clear on whether or not residential areas with different main goals for the health course were compared. This is particularly important if volunteers were aware of these (see comment above). Please could you clarify this? Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As indicated in the above response, participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” Please review the following statement in the Discussion as the study was not aimed at finding out how to improve such programmes but at the relationships between individual difference factors in people attending them: “The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults.” This comment is related to the answer “partly” to the final question above. Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Zalewska A. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r316523 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-316523 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 Aug 2024 Anna Zalewska , Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Lomza, Lomza, Poland Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r316523 I thank the authors for making corrections according ... Continue reading READ ALL I thank the authors for making corrections according to the comments. I have no more comments. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: health sciences I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Zalewska A. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r316523 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-316523 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 09 May 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Nugraha S. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163548.r297567 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v1#referee-response-297567 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 16 Jul 2024 Susiana Nugraha , Public Health Department, Faculty of Health Science, Universitas Indonesia, University of Respati Indonesia, Jakarta, Special Region of Jakarta, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163548.r297567 This paper discusses about the negative perception of being older adult is associated with life satisfaction. The title of this paper is little bit biased in wording. the term of "negative perception of older adult" tend to created ambiguous meaning ... Continue reading READ ALL This paper discusses about the negative perception of being older adult is associated with life satisfaction. The title of this paper is little bit biased in wording. the term of "negative perception of older adult" tend to created ambiguous meaning for reader. I suggest you to add some sentence to avoid any ambiguity. The introduction part does not clearly highlight the important of this study, as well as the state of art of this study has not well described. The method section does not clearly explain the instrument being used and its measurement techniques. The role of other confounding variable might necessary to identify. I would like to see some discussion of the finding of the papers in relation to recent findings and development in active ageing program in Tokyo. The conclusion should concisely mention the finding as well as the implication of the study to the program and policy development. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Gerontology and Public Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Nugraha S. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163548.r297567 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v1#referee-response-297567 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Aug 2024 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 23 Aug 2024 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 2 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 2 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title of this paper is little bit biased in wording. the term of “negative perception of older adults” tend to created ambiguous meaning for reader. I suggest you to add some sentence to avoid any ambiguity. We thank the reviewer for this point. We have revised the title of our paper. The introduction part does not clearly highlight the important of this study, as well as the state of art of this study has not well described. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this point. We have added the study’s aim and strength to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults in Tokyo, Japan, was conducted. The hypothesis is that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults would have lower levels of life satisfaction. The study will also focus on the effect of the participant's residential area, details of which are provided in the next section, along with information about the participant. ” The method section does not clearly explain the instrument being used and its measurement techniques. The role of other confounding variable might necessary to identify. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants section of Methods : “ A paper-based questionnaire survey was used in this study. Participants read the questionnaire themselves and responded using a writing instrument. ” We have also added the following statement to the second paragraph of Measurements section of Methods : “ Although there may be other confounding individual difference variables, other variables were not measured in this study in consideration of participants’ burden. ” I would like to see some discussion of the finding of the papers in relation to recent findings and development in active ageing program in Tokyo. The conclusion should concisely mention the finding as well as the implication of the study to the program and policy development. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statemen to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children in Tokyo was conducted. The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. For example, reducing negative perceptions toward older adults prior to enrolling in a program may make it easier for them to achieve greater life satisfaction. As noted above, this study is limited to the examination of correlations, and longitudinal experiments should be conducted in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 2 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title of this paper is little bit biased in wording. the term of “negative perception of older adults” tend to created ambiguous meaning for reader. I suggest you to add some sentence to avoid any ambiguity. We thank the reviewer for this point. We have revised the title of our paper. The introduction part does not clearly highlight the important of this study, as well as the state of art of this study has not well described. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this point. We have added the study’s aim and strength to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults in Tokyo, Japan, was conducted. The hypothesis is that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults would have lower levels of life satisfaction. The study will also focus on the effect of the participant's residential area, details of which are provided in the next section, along with information about the participant. ” The method section does not clearly explain the instrument being used and its measurement techniques. The role of other confounding variable might necessary to identify. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants section of Methods : “ A paper-based questionnaire survey was used in this study. Participants read the questionnaire themselves and responded using a writing instrument. ” We have also added the following statement to the second paragraph of Measurements section of Methods : “ Although there may be other confounding individual difference variables, other variables were not measured in this study in consideration of participants’ burden. ” I would like to see some discussion of the finding of the papers in relation to recent findings and development in active ageing program in Tokyo. The conclusion should concisely mention the finding as well as the implication of the study to the program and policy development. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statemen to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children in Tokyo was conducted. The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. For example, reducing negative perceptions toward older adults prior to enrolling in a program may make it easier for them to achieve greater life satisfaction. As noted above, this study is limited to the examination of correlations, and longitudinal experiments should be conducted in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Aug 2024 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 23 Aug 2024 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 2 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 2 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title of this paper is little bit biased in wording. the term of “negative perception of older adults” tend to created ambiguous meaning for reader. I suggest you to add some sentence to avoid any ambiguity. We thank the reviewer for this point. We have revised the title of our paper. The introduction part does not clearly highlight the important of this study, as well as the state of art of this study has not well described. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this point. We have added the study’s aim and strength to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults in Tokyo, Japan, was conducted. The hypothesis is that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults would have lower levels of life satisfaction. The study will also focus on the effect of the participant's residential area, details of which are provided in the next section, along with information about the participant. ” The method section does not clearly explain the instrument being used and its measurement techniques. The role of other confounding variable might necessary to identify. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants section of Methods : “ A paper-based questionnaire survey was used in this study. Participants read the questionnaire themselves and responded using a writing instrument. ” We have also added the following statement to the second paragraph of Measurements section of Methods : “ Although there may be other confounding individual difference variables, other variables were not measured in this study in consideration of participants’ burden. ” I would like to see some discussion of the finding of the papers in relation to recent findings and development in active ageing program in Tokyo. The conclusion should concisely mention the finding as well as the implication of the study to the program and policy development. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statemen to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children in Tokyo was conducted. The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. For example, reducing negative perceptions toward older adults prior to enrolling in a program may make it easier for them to achieve greater life satisfaction. As noted above, this study is limited to the examination of correlations, and longitudinal experiments should be conducted in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 2 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title of this paper is little bit biased in wording. the term of “negative perception of older adults” tend to created ambiguous meaning for reader. I suggest you to add some sentence to avoid any ambiguity. We thank the reviewer for this point. We have revised the title of our paper. The introduction part does not clearly highlight the important of this study, as well as the state of art of this study has not well described. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this point. We have added the study’s aim and strength to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults in Tokyo, Japan, was conducted. The hypothesis is that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults would have lower levels of life satisfaction. The study will also focus on the effect of the participant's residential area, details of which are provided in the next section, along with information about the participant. ” The method section does not clearly explain the instrument being used and its measurement techniques. The role of other confounding variable might necessary to identify. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants section of Methods : “ A paper-based questionnaire survey was used in this study. Participants read the questionnaire themselves and responded using a writing instrument. ” We have also added the following statement to the second paragraph of Measurements section of Methods : “ Although there may be other confounding individual difference variables, other variables were not measured in this study in consideration of participants’ burden. ” I would like to see some discussion of the finding of the papers in relation to recent findings and development in active ageing program in Tokyo. The conclusion should concisely mention the finding as well as the implication of the study to the program and policy development. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statemen to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children in Tokyo was conducted. The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. For example, reducing negative perceptions toward older adults prior to enrolling in a program may make it easier for them to achieve greater life satisfaction. As noted above, this study is limited to the examination of correlations, and longitudinal experiments should be conducted in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Zalewska A. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163548.r297565 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v1#referee-response-297565 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 05 Jul 2024 Anna Zalewska , Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Lomza, Lomza, Poland Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163548.r297565 Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. This is a timely issue to explore. It is mostly clear paper, there is, however, issues that must be resolved before the study can be accepted for indexing. Several comments and ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. This is a timely issue to explore. It is mostly clear paper, there is, however, issues that must be resolved before the study can be accepted for indexing. Several comments and suggestions for the authors. - In the abstract, instead of a hypothesis, the authors should state the aim. - In the abstract, authors should not describe limitations in their conclusions. - In the abstract, authors should not refer to other studies in their conclusions, but present a conclusion from their own research. - The introduction does not exhaust the topic. - There is no clearly defined aim of the study. - The last part of the introduction regarding the organization of research should not be included in it (it is part of the material and methods subsection). - Lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. - The results lack an all-encompassing table, a flowchart for the selection of patients included with the step-by-step reasons for exclusion. - Can the authors provide the Cronbach’s alpha value for scales used? - In addition to the limitations, it is also worth describing the strengths of the study. - Research articles usually do not use the word „we”, „our” and regularly use passive verbs. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: health sciences I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Zalewska A. Reviewer Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163548.r297565 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v1#referee-response-297565 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Aug 2024 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 23 Aug 2024 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 1 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 1 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. In the abstract, instead of a hypothesis, the authors should state the aim. In the abstract, authors should not describe limitations in their conclusions. In the abstract, authors should not refer to other studies in their conclusions, but present a conclusion from their own research. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. Along with the reviewer’s comments, we have revised the Abstract . The introduction does not exhaust the topic. There is no clearly defined aim of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. ” The last part of the introduction Regarding the organization of research should not be included in it (it is part of the material and methods subsection). We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training and/or dementia prevention). Thus, an exploratory multilevel analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesis, considering the effect of participants’ residential areas. ” Lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results lack an all-encompassing table, a flowchart for the selection of patients included with the step-by-step reasons for exclusion. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this study, participants were older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. Therefore, we have determined that the flowchart regarding participant exclusions is unnecessary. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ Participants were required to attend the health course venue independently. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. ” Can the authors provide the Cronbach’s alpha value for scales used? We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the Cronbach’ alpha for each scale. In addition to the limitations, it is also worth describing the strengths of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ The strength of this study is that the analysis of the relationship between negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction takes into account the effects of residential areas. Future studies on life satisfaction and negative perceptions toward older adults in a broader geographic area should consider regional effects. ” Research articles usually do not use the word “we”, “our” and regularly use passive verbs. We thank the reviewer for this point. The text has been corrected to a form that does not use “we” or “our.” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 1 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. In the abstract, instead of a hypothesis, the authors should state the aim. In the abstract, authors should not describe limitations in their conclusions. In the abstract, authors should not refer to other studies in their conclusions, but present a conclusion from their own research. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. Along with the reviewer’s comments, we have revised the Abstract . The introduction does not exhaust the topic. There is no clearly defined aim of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. ” The last part of the introduction Regarding the organization of research should not be included in it (it is part of the material and methods subsection). We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training and/or dementia prevention). Thus, an exploratory multilevel analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesis, considering the effect of participants’ residential areas. ” Lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results lack an all-encompassing table, a flowchart for the selection of patients included with the step-by-step reasons for exclusion. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this study, participants were older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. Therefore, we have determined that the flowchart regarding participant exclusions is unnecessary. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ Participants were required to attend the health course venue independently. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. ” Can the authors provide the Cronbach’s alpha value for scales used? We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the Cronbach’ alpha for each scale. In addition to the limitations, it is also worth describing the strengths of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ The strength of this study is that the analysis of the relationship between negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction takes into account the effects of residential areas. Future studies on life satisfaction and negative perceptions toward older adults in a broader geographic area should consider regional effects. ” Research articles usually do not use the word “we”, “our” and regularly use passive verbs. We thank the reviewer for this point. The text has been corrected to a form that does not use “we” or “our.” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Aug 2024 Yuho Shimizu , Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan 23 Aug 2024 Author Response Reply to Reviewer 1 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have ... Continue reading Reply to Reviewer 1 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. In the abstract, instead of a hypothesis, the authors should state the aim. In the abstract, authors should not describe limitations in their conclusions. In the abstract, authors should not refer to other studies in their conclusions, but present a conclusion from their own research. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. Along with the reviewer’s comments, we have revised the Abstract . The introduction does not exhaust the topic. There is no clearly defined aim of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. ” The last part of the introduction Regarding the organization of research should not be included in it (it is part of the material and methods subsection). We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training and/or dementia prevention). Thus, an exploratory multilevel analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesis, considering the effect of participants’ residential areas. ” Lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results lack an all-encompassing table, a flowchart for the selection of patients included with the step-by-step reasons for exclusion. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this study, participants were older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. Therefore, we have determined that the flowchart regarding participant exclusions is unnecessary. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ Participants were required to attend the health course venue independently. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. ” Can the authors provide the Cronbach’s alpha value for scales used? We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the Cronbach’ alpha for each scale. In addition to the limitations, it is also worth describing the strengths of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ The strength of this study is that the analysis of the relationship between negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction takes into account the effects of residential areas. Future studies on life satisfaction and negative perceptions toward older adults in a broader geographic area should consider regional effects. ” Research articles usually do not use the word “we”, “our” and regularly use passive verbs. We thank the reviewer for this point. The text has been corrected to a form that does not use “we” or “our.” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Reply to Reviewer 1 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. In the abstract, instead of a hypothesis, the authors should state the aim. In the abstract, authors should not describe limitations in their conclusions. In the abstract, authors should not refer to other studies in their conclusions, but present a conclusion from their own research. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. Along with the reviewer’s comments, we have revised the Abstract . The introduction does not exhaust the topic. There is no clearly defined aim of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. ” The last part of the introduction Regarding the organization of research should not be included in it (it is part of the material and methods subsection). We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training and/or dementia prevention). Thus, an exploratory multilevel analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesis, considering the effect of participants’ residential areas. ” Lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results lack an all-encompassing table, a flowchart for the selection of patients included with the step-by-step reasons for exclusion. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this study, participants were older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. Therefore, we have determined that the flowchart regarding participant exclusions is unnecessary. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ Participants were required to attend the health course venue independently. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. ” Can the authors provide the Cronbach’s alpha value for scales used? We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the Cronbach’ alpha for each scale. In addition to the limitations, it is also worth describing the strengths of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ The strength of this study is that the analysis of the relationship between negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction takes into account the effects of residential areas. Future studies on life satisfaction and negative perceptions toward older adults in a broader geographic area should consider regional effects. ” Research articles usually do not use the word “we”, “our” and regularly use passive verbs. We thank the reviewer for this point. The text has been corrected to a form that does not use “we” or “our.” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. Competing Interests: None Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 09 May 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 Version 4 (revision) 11 Mar 25 read read read Version 3 (revision) 24 Feb 25 read Version 2 (revision) 23 Aug 24 read read read read Version 1 09 May 24 read read Anna Zalewska , University of Lomza, Lomza, Poland Susiana Nugraha , Universitas Indonesia, University of Respati Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia Joanne Hudson , Swansea University, Swansea, UK Chang Hyun Seo , University of Nevada Reno, Reno, USA Michiko Iwasaki , Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Nugraha S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 Apr 2025 | for Version 4 Susiana Nugraha , Public Health Department, Faculty of Health Science, Universitas Indonesia, University of Respati Indonesia, Jakarta, Special Region of Jakarta, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Nugraha S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for making significant improvements to the review given. All of reviewer comments have been revised accordingly. I have no other comment for this article. In my opinion, this article is very worthy of being accepted. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Gerontology, Public Health, Mental Health, Health Promotion I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Nugraha S. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370479) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370479 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Seo C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 Apr 2025 | for Version 4 Chang Hyun Seo , University of Nevada Reno, Reno, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Seo C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have reviewed the revised version and the authors’ responses to my previous comments. The revisions appear appropriate and sufficiently address the concerns I raised. I would be happy to update my review status to Approved. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Social Policy analysis I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Seo CH. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370476) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370476 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hudson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 Mar 2025 | for Version 4 Joanne Hudson , Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hudson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions No further comments from me. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Exercise Psychology; Older adults I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Hudson J. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178731.r370477) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4#referee-response-370477 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hudson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 05 Mar 2025 | for Version 3 Joanne Hudson , Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hudson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for making the changes to your manuscript. These have clarified the issues I raised. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Exercise Psychology; Older adults I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Hudson J. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178089.r368208) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v3#referee-response-368208 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Iwasaki M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Feb 2025 | for Version 2 Michiko Iwasaki , Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Iwasaki M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study includes community-dwelling older adults who volunteer to support children's reading or take a dementia prevention course. Despite differing motivations, both groups engage in community-based services, justifying their treatment as one. A key limitation is the inclusion of 21 men. Given gender differences in health and ageism, focusing solely on women enhances internal validity while preserving a strong sample (n = 264). Clear reporting of effect sizes is essential, as the Beta coefficient for negative perception (0.18 or 0.16) on life satisfaction is small and should be interpreted accordingly. Lastly, the literature review on life satisfaction is weak, and I strongly recommend updating the introduction and discussion to emphasize older women. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Assessment of ageism; caregiving, and minority mental health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 11 Mar 2025 Yuho Shimizu, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan Reply to Reviewer 5 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. 1) This study includes community-dwelling older adults who volunteer to support children's reading or take a dementia prevention course. Despite differing motivations, both groups engage in community-based services, justifying their treatment as one. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The same point was also raised by Reviewer 3. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, in the past modification, we had added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” 2) A key limitation is the inclusion of 21 men. Given gender differences in health and ageism, focusing solely on women enhances internal validity while preserving a strong sample ( n = 264). We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As stated in the fifth paragraph of Discussion , we have already confirmed that the same results can be obtained by analyzing only women’s data. Please see the supplemental material on the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository. 3) Clear reporting of effect sizes is essential, as the Beta coefficient for negative perception (0.18 or 0.16) on life satisfaction is small and should be interpreted accordingly. We thank the reviewer for your helpful comment regarding this point. As you pointed out, the relationship between the variables is not strong enough. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Discussion : “ However, the association between negative perceptions toward seniors and life satisfaction is not strong enough, so we should be careful about over-interpreting the results. ” 4) Lastly, the literature review on life satisfaction is weak, and I strongly recommend updating the introduction and discussion to emphasize older women. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ There are other psychological variables that affect the life satisfaction of older people, although these are not examined in detail in this study. For a review of variables that contribute to life satisfaction among older adults in Asia, please refer to the following lite rature. 15 ” We have also added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, we mainly analyzed data from older women, but we should also consider older men in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. View more View less Competing Interests None. reply Respond Report a concern Iwasaki M. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r360867) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-360867 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Seo C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Feb 2025 | for Version 2 Chang Hyun Seo , University of Nevada Reno, Reno, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Seo C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. The title wording remains slightly ambiguous regarding the meaning of "negative perceptions toward older adults." Adding a clarification sentence in the Introduction would improve clarity. 2. The sample is heavily skewed toward women (264 women, 21 men), which limits the generalizability of findings. A clearer discussion of this limitation is needed. 3. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 are quite wide (e.g., [-0.66, 0.44] in Model 4), indicating a high level of uncertainty in these estimates. Discussing the implications of wide CIs in the limitations section would strengthen the manuscript. 4. The claim that these findings can improve programs promoting the health of older adults appears somewhat speculative, as the study does not directly test interventions. I recommend softening this statement or rewording it to reflect the exploratory nature of the study. For example, instead of stating that the findings 'can improve programs,' the authors could clarify that the results may provide insights for designing future interventions. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Social Policy analysis I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Yuho Shimizu, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan Reply to Reviewer 4 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title wording remains slightly ambiguous regarding the meaning of “negative perceptions toward older adults.” Adding a clarification sentence in the Introduction would improve clarity. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the following statement to the second paragraph of Introduction : “ …negative perceptions toward older adults, which is how older citizens perceive the social group of “older adults.” Some people view older adults in a positive light, while others view them in a negative light. ” The sample is heavily skewed toward women (264 women, 21 men), which limits the generalizability of findings. A clearer discussion of this limitation is needed. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The fact that the participants are biased toward women is already discussed in the second to last paragraph of Discussion . To elaborate on the content, we have added the following statement to the paragraph: “ It may be important to promote post-retirement social participation, especially with regard to men. ” The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 are quite wide (e.g., [-0.66, 0.44] in Model 4), indicating a high level of uncertainty in these estimates. Discussing the implications of wide CIs in the limitations section would strengthen the manuscript. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the second to last paragraph of Discussion : “ Third, 95% Cis for the group-level and cross-level interaction effects in Models 3 and 4 were wide. This indicates that the estimates contained large uncertainties. This may be due to insufficient sample size for each area. While it is significant that the survey was conducted in a wide range of areas, the number of participants in each area was insufficient. Therefore, elaborate estimates of group-level effects and interactions should be made in the future. ” The claim that these findings can improve programs promoting the health of older adults appears somewhat speculative, as the study does not directly test interventions. I recommend softening this statement or rewording it to reflect the exploratory nature of the study. For example, instead of stating that the findings ‘can improve programs,’ the authors could clarify that the results may provide insights for designing future interventions. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. View more View less Competing Interests None. reply Respond Report a concern Seo CH. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r360865) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-360865 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hudson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 Jan 2025 | for Version 2 Joanne Hudson , Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hudson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions (1) Exploring the role of residential area in the relationship under investigation is relevant but it would be helpful if some literature were included in the Introduction to provide a rationale for including residential area as a factor in the study. (2) Please identify which Wards and Cities were categorised as volunteering and dementia prevention in the supplemental material if this is relevant. (3) Were the volunteers aware of the main goal for the health course (dementia prevention or volunteering)? If so, would this have influenced participant recruitment? (4) I'm not quite clear on whether or not residential areas with different main goals for the health course were compared - this is particularly important if volunteers were aware of these (see comment above). Please could you clarify this? (5) Please review the following statement in the Discussion as the study was not aimed at finding out how to improve such programmes but at the relationships between individual difference factors in people attending them : "The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults." This comment is related to the answer "partly" to the final question above. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Exercise Psychology; Older adults I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Yuho Shimizu, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan Reply to Reviewer 3 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. Exploring the role of residential area in the relationship under investigation is relevant but it would be helpful if some literature were included in the Introduction to provide a rationale for including residential area as a factor in the study. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Introduction : “ In a large survey of residents in a wide range of Japanese cities, it has been reported that people in more urban areas have fewer close neighbors who greet each other. 15 Thus, results may vary depending on the participant’s residential area. Details regarding their residential area are provided in the next section. ” Please identify which Wards and Cities were categorized as volunteering and dementia prevention in the supplemental material if this is relevant. Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. There were some other objectives for the course in addition to those listed in the original manuscript. Some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, the objectives of the course may have differed depending on the year of implementation. Therefore, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training, dementia prevention, long-term care prevention, and/or social participation). ” Were the volunteers aware of the main goal for the health course (dementia prevention or volunteering)? If so, would this have influenced participant recruitment? Response: We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Participants were informed in advance of the objective(s) of the course. ” I'm not quite clear on whether or not residential areas with different main goals for the health course were compared. This is particularly important if volunteers were aware of these (see comment above). Please could you clarify this? Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As indicated in the above response, participants knew the objective(s) of the course in advance. However, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results (In fact, the effect of the area has not been seen). Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Based on the above, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants : “ Note that, some areas had more than one of those objectives, while others had only one. In addition, as the course content remains largely the same between areas, the objectives of the course might not have a significant impact on the results. Moreover, it was unclear how strongly participants understood the course objectives. Therefore, this study analyzed the effect of merely residential areas and did not focus on the differences in the objectives of the course. ” Please review the following statement in the Discussion as the study was not aimed at finding out how to improve such programmes but at the relationships between individual difference factors in people attending them: “The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults.” This comment is related to the answer “partly” to the final question above. Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As course improvement is not the main objective of this study, we have added the following statement to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ Although course improvement is not the main objective of this study, the findings of this study can be partially utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. ” We have attached the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Hudson J. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r359028) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-359028 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Zalewska A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Aug 2024 | for Version 2 Anna Zalewska , Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Lomza, Lomza, Poland 0 Views copyright © 2024 Zalewska A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I thank the authors for making corrections according to the comments. I have no more comments. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise health sciences I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Zalewska A. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.169305.r316523) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v2#referee-response-316523 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Nugraha S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Jul 2024 | for Version 1 Susiana Nugraha , Public Health Department, Faculty of Health Science, Universitas Indonesia, University of Respati Indonesia, Jakarta, Special Region of Jakarta, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Nugraha S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This paper discusses about the negative perception of being older adult is associated with life satisfaction. The title of this paper is little bit biased in wording. the term of "negative perception of older adult" tend to created ambiguous meaning for reader. I suggest you to add some sentence to avoid any ambiguity. The introduction part does not clearly highlight the important of this study, as well as the state of art of this study has not well described. The method section does not clearly explain the instrument being used and its measurement techniques. The role of other confounding variable might necessary to identify. I would like to see some discussion of the finding of the papers in relation to recent findings and development in active ageing program in Tokyo. The conclusion should concisely mention the finding as well as the implication of the study to the program and policy development. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Gerontology and Public Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Aug 2024 Yuho Shimizu, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan Reply to Reviewer 2 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The title of this paper is little bit biased in wording. the term of “negative perception of older adults” tend to created ambiguous meaning for reader. I suggest you to add some sentence to avoid any ambiguity. We thank the reviewer for this point. We have revised the title of our paper. The introduction part does not clearly highlight the important of this study, as well as the state of art of this study has not well described. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this point. We have added the study’s aim and strength to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults in Tokyo, Japan, was conducted. The hypothesis is that participants with more negative perceptions toward older adults would have lower levels of life satisfaction. The study will also focus on the effect of the participant's residential area, details of which are provided in the next section, along with information about the participant. ” The method section does not clearly explain the instrument being used and its measurement techniques. The role of other confounding variable might necessary to identify. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Participants section of Methods : “ A paper-based questionnaire survey was used in this study. Participants read the questionnaire themselves and responded using a writing instrument. ” We have also added the following statement to the second paragraph of Measurements section of Methods : “ Although there may be other confounding individual difference variables, other variables were not measured in this study in consideration of participants’ burden. ” I would like to see some discussion of the finding of the papers in relation to recent findings and development in active ageing program in Tokyo. The conclusion should concisely mention the finding as well as the implication of the study to the program and policy development. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statemen to the fourth paragraph of Discussion : “ In this study, a cross-sectional survey of community-dwelling older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children in Tokyo was conducted. The findings of this study can be utilized to improve programs aimed at promoting the health of older adults. For example, reducing negative perceptions toward older adults prior to enrolling in a program may make it easier for them to achieve greater life satisfaction. As noted above, this study is limited to the examination of correlations, and longitudinal experiments should be conducted in the future. ” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Nugraha S. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163548.r297567) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v1#referee-response-297567 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Zalewska A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 05 Jul 2024 | for Version 1 Anna Zalewska , Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Lomza, Lomza, Poland 0 Views copyright © 2024 Zalewska A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. This is a timely issue to explore. It is mostly clear paper, there is, however, issues that must be resolved before the study can be accepted for indexing. Several comments and suggestions for the authors. - In the abstract, instead of a hypothesis, the authors should state the aim. - In the abstract, authors should not describe limitations in their conclusions. - In the abstract, authors should not refer to other studies in their conclusions, but present a conclusion from their own research. - The introduction does not exhaust the topic. - There is no clearly defined aim of the study. - The last part of the introduction regarding the organization of research should not be included in it (it is part of the material and methods subsection). - Lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. - The results lack an all-encompassing table, a flowchart for the selection of patients included with the step-by-step reasons for exclusion. - Can the authors provide the Cronbach’s alpha value for scales used? - In addition to the limitations, it is also worth describing the strengths of the study. - Research articles usually do not use the word „we”, „our” and regularly use passive verbs. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise health sciences I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Aug 2024 Yuho Shimizu, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan Reply to Reviewer 1 We express our appreciation to the reviewer for their insightful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. Additionally, we have revised our manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. In the abstract, instead of a hypothesis, the authors should state the aim. In the abstract, authors should not describe limitations in their conclusions. In the abstract, authors should not refer to other studies in their conclusions, but present a conclusion from their own research. We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. Along with the reviewer’s comments, we have revised the Abstract . The introduction does not exhaust the topic. There is no clearly defined aim of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the third paragraph of Introduction : “ This study’s aim is examining the relationship between their negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction. ” The last part of the introduction Regarding the organization of research should not be included in it (it is part of the material and methods subsection). We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ In addition to population and economic size, each area had different main goals for the health course presented when recruiting participants (e.g., volunteer training and/or dementia prevention). Thus, an exploratory multilevel analysis was conducted to examine the hypothesis, considering the effect of participants’ residential areas. ” Lack of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results lack an all-encompassing table, a flowchart for the selection of patients included with the step-by-step reasons for exclusion. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In this study, participants were older adults who voluntarily applied for a health course to train volunteers to read picture books to children. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. Therefore, we have determined that the flowchart regarding participant exclusions is unnecessary. Accordingly, we have added the following statement to the first paragraph of Methods : “ Participants were required to attend the health course venue independently. There were no other exclusion criteria specifically, as long as the participants met the criteria of being 65 years of age or older. ” Can the authors provide the Cronbach’s alpha value for scales used? We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added the Cronbach’ alpha for each scale. In addition to the limitations, it is also worth describing the strengths of the study. We thank the reviewer’s helpful comment regarding this point. We have added the following statement to the last paragraph of Discussion : “ The strength of this study is that the analysis of the relationship between negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction takes into account the effects of residential areas. Future studies on life satisfaction and negative perceptions toward older adults in a broader geographic area should consider regional effects. ” Research articles usually do not use the word “we”, “our” and regularly use passive verbs. We thank the reviewer for this point. The text has been corrected to a form that does not use “we” or “our.” We have submitted the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our revised manuscript and would happily respond to any further questions and comments you may have. View more View less Competing Interests None reply Respond Report a concern Zalewska A. Peer Review Report For: Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction among community-dwelling older citizens in Japan [version 4; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :467 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163548.r297565) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v1#referee-response-297565 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Negative perceptions toward older adults...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Shimizu Y et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467", templates : { twitter : "Negative perceptions toward older adults and life satisfaction.... Shimizu Y et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-467/v4" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/149132/178731") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "178731"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "370477": 6, "370476": 4, "370479": 2, "291630": 0, "370478": 0, "291631": 0, "370475": 0, "291636": 0, "291637": 0, "291638": 0, "291639": 0, "291632": 0, "291633": 0, "291634": 0, "291635": 0, "320319": 0, "320324": 0, "320325": 0, "320326": 0, "320327": 0, "320320": 0, "320321": 0, "320322": 0, "320323": 0, "368205": 0, "368207": 0, "368206": 0, "320328": 0, "346964": 0, "297559": 0, "346966": 0, "368209": 0, "368208": 4, "346963": 0, "346962": 0, "297564": 0, "333149": 0, "297565": 23, "297566": 0, "333151": 0, "297567": 20, "333150": 0, "297560": 0, "297561": 0, "297562": 0, "297563": 0, "333157": 0, "333156": 0, "346980": 0, "333158": 0, "297568": 0, "333153": 0, "346977": 0, "333152": 0, "333155": 0, "346979": 0, "333154": 0, "346978": 0, "359021": 0, "359017": 0, "316522": 0, "316523": 8, "344437": 0, "359029": 0, "344436": 0, "359028": 20, "344439": 0, "359031": 0, "344438": 0, "359030": 0, "344435": 0, "359027": 0, "344434": 0, "329597": 0, "329596": 0, "329598": 0, "344441": 0, "359033": 0, "344440": 0, "359032": 0, "344443": 0, "329595": 0, "344442": 0, "359034": 0, "329604": 0, "329603": 0, "341653": 0, "341655": 0, "341654": 0, "341661": 0, "341660": 0, "360863": 0, "341662": 0, "341657": 0, "341656": 0, "341659": 0, "341658": 0, "360869": 0, "360868": 0, "360871": 0, "360870": 0, "360865": 18, "303777": 0, "360864": 0, "360867": 11, "360866": 0, "360872": 0, "352463": 0, "356822": 0, "352465": 0, "352464": 0, "356829": 0, "356828": 0, "356831": 0, "356830": 0, "356827": 0, "356826": 0, "356833": 0, "356832": 0, "356834": 0, "277484": 0, "283884": 0, "277485": 0, "283885": 0, "277486": 0, "283886": 0, "277487": 0, "283887": 0, "277492": 0, "283892": 0, "277493": 0, "283893": 0, "277488": 0, "283888": 0, "277489": 0, "283889": 0, "277490": 0, "283890": 0, "277491": 0, "283891": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "5b568b94-a4ef-47d8-961e-0c2bf32de436"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });