Dancing toward Well-Being: Effects on Mood and Well-Being of a 12-Week Flamenco Dance Workshop in Women Aged 60–80 Years

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, we would like to thank the authors for reviewing this manuscript and congratulate them on their work.

The aim of this research is to find out the effects of flamenco dance on mood and subjective well-being 14 in older women.

Although the author indicates older woman, women aged 62 are not considered to be older but middle-aged. Include a citation that justifies this age range as older or modify both the title, abstract and manuscript.

Although the authors describe two objectives, it is considered that it would be better to write it as a single objective on how the independent variable influences the two dependent variables. In addition, the authors only include one hypothesis, an example of how the objective can be unified.

Information on method is included at the end of the introduction. This is not correct.

Include information on results and/or discussion/conclusion at the end of the introduction. Not correct.

Unless specified in the guidelines, the order of the sections is not considered correct. The authors indicate the method after the results.

The description of the method information is considered relevant and valuable. The authors have made a great effort, however, certain aspects have not been included. Researchers are advised to use the Consort guide to complete the information. 

The calculation of power and sample size should be included.

The study design should be identified in the title or abstract.

Table 2 is specific to the results section.

There is a lack of information on the intervention carried out. Describe in depth as well as the professionals who delivered it.

Lack of information on group randomisation and blinding.

No indication of ethics committee or protocol registration in databases such as Clinical Trial.

The statistical analysis section is not included.

In the results section there is a lot of redacted information. It is recommended to include it in tables for greater comprehension and clarity.

The researchers write a large number of conclusions despite the fact that only one (or two) objective and one hypothesis are written. This is not correct.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and your useful comments to improve the manuscript. Please find attached a detailed response to all your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. While the topic is of interest in its current form it will require more work before publication. There are a number of areas that require rewriting or clarification. I will comment on these areas section by section.

 

 ABSTRACT:

Abstract doesn't summarize the methodology and results clearly. Suggest it is re-written.

 

Introduction.

The introduction is easy to read, however did not extend existing knowledge on this topic (dance and fall). Please expand on this concept (dance) and how it is relevant to this paper.  It should include more updated references regarding the evidence that support dancing for preventing losses on functional aspects related to falls, such as balance, gait ability and flexibility. See for example Bianco et al. (2014): Group fitness activities for the elderly: an innovative approach to reduce falls and injuries.  Aging Clin Exp Res. 2014 Apr;26(2):147-52.

 

Methods
Some important information appears to be presently omitted from the methods section. Further description of the sampling procedure would be helpful for the reader. The recruitment process is a bit unclear. Please explain better how was selected the sample size and how was the data collected. Have you calculated the power of the sample? When were the tests administered? Was the time of year and time of day consistent for all subjects sampled? Further explanation about who collected the data is also necessary here. Some important information also appears to be presently omitted from the methods and results section. Have you tested the reliability of your data? If yes, please include the results. As regards to the exercise training program, it should adhere to the basic principles of exercise training, including progressively increasing the intensity, frequency, and duration of exercise. From the description of the program, it wasn't clear if there was a steady progression of these principles across the training program; it seemed that participants completed the same sessions each week. I suggest summarizing the exercise program in a table in order to specify intensity, frequency and duration of exercises. As a general approach, recommend the authors provide a more general description of protocol in text, with references to Table for specific exercises and/or options. This will minimize the text used to describe the protocol, yet the Table will provide the reader with something that would allow them to repeat the training protocol. See for example: Battaglia, G. et al.(2014). Changes in spinal range of motion after a flexibility training program in elderly women. Clinical interventions in aging, 9, 653

 

 

Discussion
The discussion requires more work. In general, the first paragraph of the discussion should at least state which hypotheses were supported. Then the authors should follow with how their results compare with similar data, and what the authors results adds to the literature (different / unique aspects of the data). Several points are made in the discussion, but it is not clear to this reviewer how results from the current study are novel or add to the literature. The authors shortly discuss several possible explanations for the findings with data in literature and update reverences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This reviewer strongly recommends that the authors get assistance writing future iterations from someone proficient in scientific writing in English language. This will be especially helpful to the authors for expressing their thoughts concisely, as is particularly necessary for a paper

Author Response

Thank you for your time and your useful comments. Please find attached how we have included them in our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this well written, clear and concise study. It was interesting and a pleasure to read. Although a series of modifications must be made for its possible publication:

The study design must appear in the title.

The introduction is very complete and allows the reader to know the main topic of the research, informs about the purpose and importance of the work in the clinical field, and also answers the question posed in the scientific context. It includes previous works on the subject in question and makes clear the detailed aspects of the review, which constitutes the object of the proposed investigation. It explains the general problem of the research, includes previous work on the topic in question, and specifies the objective of the study.

The "methods" section is one of the most fundamental sections of a scientific article with these characteristics, so it should be more detailed:

- Every study must be registered, has it been so?

- The flow chart of the participants must be added.

- Add the reference to the favorable report from the Ethics Committee.

- The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the participants must be added.

- The calculation of the sample with reference to the literature and with sufficient detail to allow replication.

The authors of this article have meticulously explained the results by providing relevant tables to what is explained in the text. On the other hand, they have provided a clear and complete discussion comparing their results with previous studies and arguing the existing differences. Furthermore, the limitations of this research are presented very clearly.

Likewise, the references section complies with the journal's standards.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and comments, which have been very useful to improve the manuscript's quality. Please find attached a detailed response to all your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Although the authors try to justify it, their reasoning is not correct. The sample is made up of middle-aged adults and older adults, so it must appear in all sections.

- Thanks for the effort in trimming the conclusions, even so, they are still too long and excessive in number.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive comments and useful suggestions.

We have opted to keep "older women" in the manuscript because the mean of the sample is 70 years (and just two people were under 65, although both were above 62). According to the WHO classification (see https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health), and the NIH (see https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/age), people above 65 are classified as "older adults", which is just a label. Therefore, we consider that the term "middle adults" does not correctly describe our sample. There are other classifications that differentiate between youngest-old (60-65 to 70-74), middle-old (70-75 to 80-84) and oldest-old (above 80-84), which is beyond the scope of our study.

On the other hand, we agree that the conclusions were too long. Consequently, we have shorten such section.

 

 

 

 

https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/age

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion the manuscript was improved according to Reviewers' indications. For these reasons It could be accepted after moderate editing of English language

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

In my opinion the manuscript was improved according to Reviewers' indications. For these reasons It could be accepted after moderate editing of English language.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. According to your suggestions, the manuscript has been proofread. For example, you can see how the abstract has been improved.