Watching Relationships Build over Time: A Video Analysis of a Hybrid Intergenerational Practice Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read this article. The subject of the paper is both engaging and has a potential of development in further research.

Still, there are certain aspects that the authors should address in order to enhance the quality of the paper, which currently lacks robustness.

The present Introduction section should be divided into two parts, namely the Introduction and the Literature review. While the first part should present a more general overview of the subject, the Literature review part should engage more with sources from the literature, the more recent, the better.

The currently find two distinct parts - Methods and Method of analysis... These should be combined into a more comprehensive single section referring to the methodological aspects of the paper.

When using abbreviation, one should always briefly explain what the abbreviation means, at the first encounter of the term in the text of the paper (QLD, QSR).

Also, the authors should explain the reasons why choosing this certain sample. Why Mercy Village?  

The results section is too vage and insufficiently described.

The conclusion section should be extended.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1:
The present Introduction section should be divided into two parts, namely the Introduction and the Literature review. While the first part should present a more general overview of the subject, the Literature review part should engage more with sources from the literature, the more recent, the better.
Response 1
Thank you for this recommendation. We have now divided the section into Introduction and Literature review as suggested, adding further recent literature sources as suggested
Point 2:
The currently find two distinct parts - Methods and Method of analysis... These should be combined into a more comprehensive single section referring to the methodological aspects of the paper.
Response 2:
Thank you for your suggestion.We have now combined the methods and methods of analysis into one section as suggested.
Point 3:
When using abbreviation, one should always briefly explain what the abbreviation means, at the first encounter of the term in the text of the paper (QLD, QSR).
Response 3:
Thank you. This was an oversight which has been corrected.
Point 4:
Also, the authors should explain the reasons why choosing this certain sample. Why Mercy Village?  
Response 4:
Thank you. We have now elaborated on the reasons within the Recruitment and sampling Methods section on page 3.
Point 5:
The results section is too vage and insufficiently described.
Response 5:
Thank you.  This section has been added to to clarify the specific results related to each of the key components.
Point 6:
The conclusion section should be extended.
Response 6:
Thank you.  This section has been extended to provide a more comprehensive conclusion

Reviewer 2 Report

The article opens up an interesting research and it was well written and coherent. Therefore I suggest only minor edits. The authors do a good job in describing their empirical research, but there was no information  about the ethical choices made: how was the consent negotiated with older people and younger participants: were there any differences in these negotiations. How were the parents of the younger participants informed? How will the data be stored? What about the fact that people can be recognised from photographs? The authors could add a bit more information of how beneficial the co-creation was in the end. This discussion could be added in the concluding chapter. I am very interested to read more about this research in the future. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you so much for your feedback and praise. Please see below our response to the minor edits you suggested:
Point 1:
There was no information about the ethical choices made: how was the consent negotiated with older people and younger participants? Were there any differences in these negotiations
Response 1:
Thank you. We have now added to the methods section (page 3) providing further details on the consent forms and processes used.

Point 2:.
How were the parents of the younger participants informed?
Response 2:
We have now added further details in the method section accordingly.

Point 3: How will the data be stored?
Response 3:
All data was stored in line with the requirements of the Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research and Griffith’s Best Practice Guidelines for Researchers, Man-aging Research Data and Primary Materials.
Point 4: What about the fact that people can be recognised from photographs?
Response 4:
We have included further detail around the consent form to explain this in more detail.
Point 5: The authors could add a bit more information of how beneficial the co-creation was in the end. This discussion could be added in the concluding chapter.
Response 5:
Thank you.  This suggestion has been added to in the methods, discussion and conclusion sections.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, an interesting paper.

The introduction set the scene well - 

But This paragraph in the introduction does not really fit, and would be better as a footnote: “Supporting the sharing of evidence and knowledge around IPPs, the Australian Institute for Intergenerational Practice (AIIP) has recently been established, hoping to accelerate the development around intergenerational practice in Australia (www.aiip.net.au ).” 

 

Method: more detail needed about the actual intergenerational program - how many sessions, how long in duration, were they themed? 

 

 

The results section appeared to be missing??   This needs to be added. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you so much for your feedback and praise for our paper. Please see below our response to the changes you have suggested:
Point 1:
But This paragraph in the introduction does not really fit, and would be better as a footnote: “Supporting the sharing of evidence and knowledge around IPPs, the Australian Institute for Intergenerational Practice (AIIP) has recently been established, hoping to accelerate the development around intergenerational practice in Australia (www.aiip.net.au ).”
Response 1:
We have made the changes, removing the paragraph from the main text and adding a footnote as suggested.

Point 2:
Method: more detail needed about the actual intergenerational program - how many sessions, how long in duration, were they themed?
Response 2:
Thank you for the note. We have now added further detail to this regard in the methods section on page 4.

Point 3:
The results section appeared to be missing?? This needs to be added.
Response 3:
Thank you. This section has been updated to clarify the specific results related to each of the key components.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made the recommended changes and improved the quality of the paper