Development and Implementation of an Intergenerational Bonding Program in a Co-Located Model: A Case Study in Singapore

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article focusing on the development and implementation of an intergenerational bonding program with a co-located model addresses the gap in the literature in Asian context. It is especially relevant to have Singapore as a case study given the scarcity of research in this area in the country.

In general, the article is well structured and provides valuable insights on the realities of the complexities involved in implementing IGP in a co-located model, especially during the COVID-19 period. It will certainly be a good reference for others planning for an IGP.  Below are some suggestions for minor revision to further improve the article:

-In 1.2, there should be a paragraph or so of discourses on shared sites included in the literature review as the case study is essentially a shared site.    

-In 1.3, it is unclear if this is the only co-located model in Singapore?

Also it would also be good to include references of IG programs in Singapore to show awareness of the literature. Below are some examples of articles which surfaced from a brief search:

Leong, KS., Klainin-Yobas, P., Fong S.D., Wu, V.X. Older adults' perspective of intergenerational programme at senior day care centre in Singapore: A descriptive qualitative study. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30 (1). 2021

Lim, C.C.L., Low, C.L.T, S,B.H., Thang, L.L. And Thian, A.L. Generativity: Establishing and Nurturing the Next Generation. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships . 17(3):368-379. 2019

-In conclusion, please briefly mention why the case study has shown to be helpful towards an understanding of IGP in the Asian context?

-Please do a careful proof-reading to improve the language, e.g. some of the sentences are too long and there are some places requiring re-phrasing etc. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is an interesting read in terms of learning how an IGP program evolved from its conceptualization to its implementation and some reflections by the staff, managers, and teachers. I will outline my comments and questions below and hopefully, they will help author(s) to articulate their study better and inform their readers from theoretical lenses.

 

1. I understand the purpose of the study is to describe the evolution of the IGP program, and therefore, interviewing staff, managers, and teachers is appropriate. However, I still am surprised that author(s) did not consider interviewing at least older residents to include their perspectives in this case study. Their inputs should help shed light on the analyses pertaining to evaluations of the impact of the program.

2. Author(s) need to do a better job describing the analyses. Specifically,

            1) Author(s) stated on page 4 line 144 that the nursing staff were interviewed together as a group so that members of the group could assist those less proficient in English. If language was a concern, why didn’t author(s) train an interviewer who was fluent in their language so he/she could conduct the one-on-one interview with the nursing staff. On-on-one interview and focus group are different in terms of the dynamics between interviewer and interviewee(s) and the depth and amount of information shared. I am curious why author(s) chose two different data collection methods when the language issue can be addressed by training an interviewer who can speak other languages.  

            2) On page 4, line 141 to line 150, author(s) stated that there were two phases of interviews and findings from phase 1 were used to inform focus group discussions in phase 2. Please provide a bit more clarification in terms of what were found from phase 1 and how did these findings help inform discussions in phase 2.

            3) Were the data collected in phase 2 also analyzed using NVivo? If yes, please provide more information as to how analyses were conducted to yield the findings. It is unclear how the author(s) identified the “themes” discussed in the results section.  

            4) It is conventional to provide some descriptions of the data, such as the average length of the interviews, the total number of pages of transcription produced, how the triangulation was conducted, for instance.

            5) If possible, please provide a list of interview questions and include it in the appendix. It may help readers understand the results better.  

3. In the results section, it is difficult to tell whether the “descriptions” are based on interview data or based on other existing documents author(s) reviewed. This issue can be addressed by articulating the methods section better (see my comments above), by providing more excerpts, or by explaining how the existing documents were used.

4. My overall impression of the writing of this paper is that it feels less of an analysis but more of a report generated by the organizational managers. It highly praises the effort, the collaborative environment, and the commitment of the staff. I am not questioning that it is possible all these were true. But the extremely positive tone throughout the paper conveys that impression. This may be amended by providing, again, better explanations of the analyses, or more excerpts from the focus groups and/or interviews to help illustrate the points made in the results section. Author(s) can also remove some of the flowering language, so the paper reflects an “analysis” of the case.

5. Another point about tones of the writing, I would caution author(s)’ relatively negative descriptions of older adults. For example, on page 1, line 22, author(s) stated that aging implies significant health burdens and increasing social isolation; on page 16, line 251, author(s) stated that community engagement with aspects of aging such as disability, sickness, and death. While all of these are important to discuss and acknowledge, the implied negativity about aging throughout the paper should be avoided as many older adults live a very active life and enjoy good health and strong ties with the community. If this is not the case in Singapore, relevant studies and/or statistics should be provided to support the claims.

6. One of the reasons author(s) mentioned to support the significance of the study is that there is not much research on IGP programs in Asian countries. I agree with this assessment. Is it possible to help us understand whether Asian culture plays a role in the establishment and implementation of IGP programs in Asian countries?

7. On page 9, line 401, author(s) discussed the issue of Singapore being a multi-lingual and multi-ethnic society. I really appreciate this analysis and would encourage author(s) to provide more analyses pertaining to this issue. Was this a concern raised by many participants? Was this language barrier a possible reason why intergenerational communication is less likely to occur in Singapore? How can this issue be addressed through a holistic approach of IGP programs so that second language acquisition could be facilitated through this type of interaction (rather than pairing older adults and younger children who speak the same language, which will only reinforce such language division)?

8. In terms of discussion, I would recommend two theoretical lenses for author(s) to consider so discussion is not so much of a repetition of the result section. The first one is contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; later Pettigrew (1988) adopted it and proposed Intergroup Contact Theory; ICT). ICT has been used to explain interactions between different social groups, including intergenerational communication. This theoretical framework may help discuss the points about leadership vision and support and building a community around IGP. The second one is communication accommodation theory (CAT). This theory has been used a lot to study intergenerational communication and a major outcome variable theorized by CAT is relational quality. It may help explain the discussion on sustainability of IGP.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a great topic, but there are some structural and methodological areas of concern.

1.     Introduction: clear and concise. The intergenerational bonding is presented as a conceptual guide for this study, but it would be stronger if this was described as a conceptual framework.

2.     Methods: Those appears to be a qualitative descriptive study that uses thematic analysis. Please provide more support for your methods and frame them more clearly. How did you address trustworthiness? Also, provide an example of how the team knew thematic saturation had been met.

3.     Results: The demographics should be reported. The themes are all major themes. Did you find patterns within these major themes? These should be explicitly identified and discussed. A table with theme definitions and exemplar quotes would strengthen this discussion.

4.     Discussion: More emphasis on how this adds to the literature, what more needs to be done, and how this might impact the wellbeing of the older adults and young children, including support they might need.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors stated that they have inserted Table 2 to highlight the generation of key findings in the three developmental phases, but I cannot find Table 2 in present manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for our response to the reviewer. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf