[Futuregen] Cohort paper

Tue Dec 22 10:32:20 CET 2020

Dear Stefan and Johan,

Just out in the European journal of Ageing:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10433-020-00559-6?utm_source=toc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=toc_10433_17_4&utm_content=etoc_springer_20201222

They also use SHARE and look at ADL but I think the overlap with your manuscript  is limited. I think your choice not to focus on the gender gap was inspired :)

Best, Stefania

> On 21.12.2020, at 10:13, Stefan Fors <stefan.fors at ki.se> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot Ricardo, much appreciated!
>  
> /Stefan
>  
> Från: Futuregen <futuregen-bounces at euro.centre.org> För Ricardo Rodrigues
> Skickat: den 20 december 2020 23:10
> Till: futuregen at euro.centre.org
> Ämne: Re: [Futuregen] Cohort paper
>  
> Dear Stefan, dear Johan,
> Thank you very much for this, once again. I agree it's much improved and flows much better with the focus on ADLs. Well done!!
> 
> To diminish overlap with previous comments, I focused on more macro-level comments and suggestions for reductions - I think Eur Journal Pub Health is at 3500 words, which means we need to cut about 10-15% of the length, but this seems eminently doable.
> 
> To me the two sections in need of more work are the Introduction and Discussion (Methods could be streamlined here and there - made some suggestions - but nothing too major). For the introduction, perhaps you could drop some of the lengthy description of some findings that may be less relevant (e.g. the static cohort studies) and strengthen the case for the focus on gender and "place" (regions) as these are two of our main claims for originality.
> 
> For the Discussion, I think the main question is how speculative we can/want to be about the underlying drivers of what we observe - particularly for the regional-level picture. You could perhaps make it mostly about how our study contradicts/supports existing literature (you have a paragraph on this - I didn't find it so clear - that could be made the "heart" of the discussion); with the regional differences as something to be researched further in the future, perhaps suggesting social determinants of health as perhaps a good pathway for future research (just a suggestion). If we want to be a bit speculative about the regional differences/evolution, we definitely need to quote some studies there, even if they are only national studies, that could allow us to ground some of our informed speculation.
> 
> I went through the suppl material and left some minor comments to improve the clarity of information here and there for grumpy reviewers. Not sure I would show the unweighted graphs. I understand and back the need to be transparent, but I think this is perhaps too much information. Besides, weights might be a point of discussion for purist grumpy reviewers - e.g. using cross-sectional weights - and I think there might be one or another difference with a naked eye in the unweighted results so, maybe we should "not wake up sleeping dogs" (it's a German expression)?
> 
> I'm happy to focus on one or another section with more detailed comments/suggestions, text or literature. Just let me know what could help you the most.
> 
>  
> 
> All the above are just suggestions, feel free to dismiss them.
> 
> It is a very nice article to read. Well done again!
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ricardo
> 
>  
> On 14/12/2020 16:27, Stefan Fors wrote:
> Thanks a lot, Stefania! We’ll study the comments and suggestions carefully and revise accordingly!
>  
> /Stefan
>  
> Från: Futuregen <futuregen-bounces at euro.centre.org> För Stefania Ilinca
> Skickat: den 14 december 2020 16:17
> Till: futuregen at euro.centre.org
> Ämne: Re: [Futuregen] Cohort paper
>  
> Dear Stefan and Johan,
> 
> Please find attached the paper with a few comments form my side. It is shaping up very nicely and the flow has improved so much with the focus on ADL trends and the reduction of results included in the manuscript. I admit I did not even look through the supplementary material - it is discouraging once one notices there are 20 pages of results there! I also did not focus on reducing words, rather I suggested a few issues that should receive a bit more attention. Maybe we can first get on paper all the ideas we think are important and only then do a rewrite to reduce the word count. I am happy to read carefully through the next version of the paper and make suggestions for reducing the word count.
> 
> My main comments revolve around making the introduction more linear, re-organization of the discussion to mirror the order of ideas in the introduction, and introducing a few references that can be useful for the study. I also noted some discrepancies with the figures presented in the text and those in table 1 - please recheck.
> 
> Let me know if any of my comments are unclear and if I can help strengthen one or the other argument with additional literature or data sources.
> 
> Many thanks for what I am sure has been pretty intensive work on the manuscript.
> 
> My best wishes to all,
> 
> Stefania
> 
> On 03-Dec-20 4:49 PM, Stefan Fors wrote:
> Dear comrades,
>  
> Please find enclosed the latest incarnation of our ‘cohort paper’. I have rewritten the manuscript (with help from Johan) based on your comments and the comments we got at the seminar at KI. We have also added a few huge tables to the supplementary material, that includes all the estimates that make up the fugures, including confidence intervals – so the reader don’t have to rely on a visual interpretation of the data. We have tried to accommodate as many of your comments as possible, but as we are aiming to submit to European Journal of Public Health – the space is very limited (we are now almost 400 words over the limit, so we will have to do some editing of length as well).
>  
> In your comments to the previous version, many of you suggested that we should center the narrative on the sex gap in disabilities. In the end, we decided to go in the other direction and focus on the ‘health trend’ perspective (although not omitting the sex gap, of course). The reason for this is that we felt that it was an easier fit with the study. We’ve borrowed the analytical model from the health trends literature – and we have not formally tested the sex differences – so we felt it was more natural to frame the paper as a more general health trend study.
>  
> Anyways, read it and let us know what you think!
>  
> All the best,
>  
> Stefan
>  
> Stefan Fors | Forskare
>  
> Aging Research Center | Karolinska Institutet
> Widerströmska huset, plan 9
> Tomtebodavägen 18A  | 171 65 Solna
> +46 (0) 703 368 588
> stefan.fors at ki.se | www.ki.se/nvs | www.ki-su-arc.se
> ______________________________________
> Karolinska Institutet - ett medicinskt universitet
>  
>  
>  
>  
> När du skickar e-post till Karolinska Institutet (KI) innebär detta att KI kommer att behandla dina personuppgifter. Här finns information om hur KI behandlar personuppgifter. 
>  
> Sending email to Karolinska Institutet (KI) will result in KI processing your personal data. You can read more about KI’s processing of personal data here. 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Futuregen mailing list
> Futuregen at euro.centre.org
> https://lists.euro.centre.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/futuregen
> -- 
> Stefania Ilinca PhD
>  
> Senior Researcher - European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research
> Senior Atlantic Fellow for Equity in Brain Health, Trinity College Dublin
>  
> 
>  
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Futuregen mailing list
> Futuregen at euro.centre.org
> https://lists.euro.centre.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/futuregen
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Futuregen mailing list
> Futuregen at euro.centre.org
> https://lists.euro.centre.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/futuregen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.euro.centre.org/pipermail/futuregen/attachments/20201222/881e38a8/attachment-0001.html>