Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Feb 26;19(2):e0297837. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297837

Impact of subjective well-being on physical frailty in middle-aged and elderly Japanese with high social isolation

Kai Tanabe 1,2,*,#, Yuki Sugawara 3,4,#, Eiichi Sakurai 3, Yoichi Motomura 3, Yukihiko Okada 5,6, Akiko Tsukao 7, Shinya Kuno 1,2
Editor: Sayani Das8
PMCID: PMC10896516  PMID: 38408094

Abstract

Social isolation exacerbates physical frailty and is associated with subjective well-being. Even those with high levels of social isolation may have different health statuses depending on the type of isolation and their subjective well-being. However, the effect of subjective well-being on the relationship between social isolation and physical frailty remains unclear. This study examined whether the risk of physical frailty was the same for individuals with social isolation according to high and low subjective well-being. The study participants included 1,953 middle-aged Japanese adults aged 45 years and older. Physical frailty was assessed using a modified version of the Fried phenotype criteria. Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis was used to classify participants according to social isolation indicators. Subsequently, we focused on the groups with high social isolation and classified them according to whether their subjective well-being was high or low. Subjective well-being was evaluated using the Shiawase and Ikigai scales, which are concepts used in Japan. Finally, we used survival time analysis to examine the relationship between Shiawase or Ikigai and physical frailty in groups with high social isolation. The participants were classified into four groups based on their social isolation status. The physical frailty rate of the high social isolation class was 37.0%, which was significantly higher than that of the other classes. Survival time analysis revealed that among people with high social isolation, those with high Shiawase and Ikigai had a significantly lower risk of physical frailty than those with low Shiawase and Ikigai. All individuals with high social isolation are not at a high risk of physical frailty. The findings reveal that even those with high level of social isolation may have a lower risk of physical frailty if their subjective well-being is high. These results will contribute to promoting the prevention of frailty in middle-aged and older adults.

Introduction

Aging of the global population is the most important medical and sociodemographic issue that needs to be addressed not only in developed regions where the population is already aging but also in developing regions where the population is aging soon [1]. Japan has the highest percentage of population aged 65 years and older and has been called the advanced aging country; the country’s actions and future are attracting global attention. In Japan, the number of households headed by elderly people aged 65 years and older accounts for 49.4% of all households, of which 28.8% are one-person households; this percentage is increasing every year [2]. Population decline and aging in rural and mountainous areas precede those in urban areas, and rural and mountainous areas face a lack of resources to support the social isolation of the elderly. Physical frailty is a health outcome that should be considered in the context of social isolation in older adults. Physical frailty, the leading complaint of frailty, has been reported to increase the risk of mortality and shorten healthy life expectancy, and has been shown to be associated with other health outcomes such as gait dysfunction, falls, fractures, cognitive decline, hospitalization, nursing home placement, and quality of life [3, 4]. However, physical frailty can be prevented because it is reversible [3]. Prevention of physical frailty not only contributes to extending healthy life expectancy and improving the quality of life of individuals but also helps solve social issues by reducing social security costs, such as medical and long-term care costs [5].

Several studies have examined the relationship between physical frailty and social isolation in older adults. Recently, Kojima et al. (2022) [6] reported the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that provided evidence that social isolation contributes to an increased risk of physical frailty in older adults. In addition, a 14-year longitudinal study of a British population showed that social isolation was associated with an increased risk of developing physical frailty [7].

Social Isolation is a diverse concept [8, 9]. Recently, attention has been paid to this diversity when considering support for social isolation. Previous studies have typologies for diverse social isolation and have attempted to identify groups at higher risk of declining mental and physical health status [10, 11]. Barnes et al. (2022) [12] examined the impact of the combination of social isolation and loneliness on wellbeing. They reported lower well-being in the order of isolation only, loneliness only, and both compared to groups with neither social isolation nor loneliness. Smith and Victor (2019) [13] used latent class analysis to classify study participants based on three factors: social isolation, loneliness, and living alone. The results showed that the participants could be categorized into six clusters, of which the group that experienced social isolation and loneliness had poorer physical and mental health. Similarly for physical frailty, there is a need to consider the diversity of social isolation in the prevention of physical frailty. However, only a few studies have clarified this issue [14].

When examining the diversity of social isolation among the elderly in Japan, it is necessary to consider Japan-specific subjective well-being. Kumano (2018) [15] suggested subjective well-being in Japanese culture includes not only Shiawase (Happiness) as a Hedonic well-being, but also Ikigai (the joy and goal of living / a life worth living) as an Eudaimonic well-being. Several studies support this claim [1618]. Shiawase’s emotions contain strong elements of joy and comfort and are oriented toward the present. On the other hand, the feeling of Ikigai has a strong element of devotion to one’s favorite activities and is oriented toward the future. Previous studies have reported that Shiawase and Ikigai are associated with social isolation, but only a few studies have examined their relationship to physical frailty [1921].

Therefore, the research question in this study was as follows: Does subjective well-being affect physical frailty in middle-aged and elderly Japanese with high social isolation? This study examined the impact of subjective well-being on physical frailty in middle-aged and elderly Japanese individuals living in mountainous areas with high social isolation.

Methods

Participants

This study was carried out in part by a Health Labour Sciences Research Program, Research for Building Evidence on the Results of Verification Programs for Prevention and Health Promotion. A portion of the cross-sectional study data was used. The data obtained for this project were a combination of survey data and data from the medical and long-term care insurance receipts of survey respondents [22]. The participants were middle-aged older adults aged 45 years or older living in a small Japanese city (population of approximately 40, 000 people) located in a mountainous area. These participants were also enrolled in either the National Health Insurance or Late-Stage Medical Insurance for the Elderly.

Participant recruitment and questionnaire surveys were conducted between October 15 and November 19, 2021. Medical and long-term care receipt data were collected on December 24, 2021, and combined with questionnaire data. The survey was conducted in a way that all citizens aged 45 years and older were surveyed. Questionnaires were sent to 11,303 individuals and data were collected from 4,045 participants. The data that could be combined with the respondents’ medical and long-term care insurance receipts were 3,706. The total number of participants in the analysis was 1,953. Exclusion criteria for the analysis were missing questionnaire items assessing physical frailty and social isolation and having been certified as needing long-term care between 2011 and 2019. To assess the risk of physical frailty, individuals certified as requiring nursing care were excluded from the analysis. In addition, to eliminate the influence of COVID-19 as much as possible, participants were asked to recall two time points: 2019 (before the spread of COVID-19) and 2011. The variables recalled were frequency of conversation, participation in social activities, status of life activities, physical fitness, social capital in the community, and subjective well-being (Shiawase (happiness) and Ikigai (the joy and goal of living/a life worth living)). The questionnaire data included demographic variables, frequency of conversations, participation in social activities, status of life activities, physical fitness, social capital in the community, and subjective well-being. The medical and long-term care insurance receipt data included the date of birth, sex, and whether the patient was certified as needing long-term care.

Measures

Physical frailty

In this study, we assessed physical frailty using Fried’s criteria [23]. Frailty was defined as the meeting of three or more of the following five evaluation criteria: shrinkage, exhaustion, low activity, slowness, or weakness. The frailty assessment index has changed frequently in previous studies, and it has been suggested that all details regarding the measurement of the frailty phenotype criteria should be reported to aid in the interpretation of results [24]. Therefore, in this study, we modified and applied Fried’s assessment criteria (Table 1). Questionnaire data were collected in 2021 as a reminder of the 2019 conditions, and data from 2019 were used to assess physical frailty.

Table 1. Frailty assessment criteria.
Evaluation criteria Fried et. al. (2001) [23] Modified
Shrinkage Baseline: >10 lbs lost unintentionally in prior year Weight loss of at least 5% from 2011 to 2019
Exhausion Self-reported exhaustion, identified by two questions from the CES–D scale The total score of 21 points or more on a 6-point scale for “I felt cheerful and happy,” “I felt calm and relaxed,” “I was motivated and active,” “I rested well and woke up feeling good,” and “There were many things in my daily life that interested me.”
Low activity Kcals/week: lowest 20% males: <383 Kcals/week females: <270 Kcals/week No to both “Did you engage in light sweaty exercise for at least 30 minutes a day for at least 2 days a week for at least 1 year?” and “Did you engage in walking or equivalent physical activity for at least 1 hour a day in your daily life?”
Slowness Walking time/15 feet: slowest 20% (by gender, height) No to “Do you think you walk faster than your peers of approximately the same age?”
Weakness Grip strength: lowest 20% (by gender, body mass index) No to one of the following questions: “Are you able to put on socks, pants, or a skirt while standing without support?” or “Are you able to lift a 10 kg bag of rice?”

Social isolation

Social isolation is an objective concept that refers to a state of limited social connection or assistance [25]. Previous studies have shown that social isolation is associated with increased mortality, cardiovascular diseases, and reduced functional status [2628]. Questions have been used to measure social isolation, such as marital status; household composition; frequency of contact with friends, family, and children; and participation in social activities [7, 27, 29]. However, there are no uniform indicators of social isolation, because the items used to define social isolation vary across studies [30]. Therefore, in this study, we assessed social isolation using 22 questions, including job availability, frequency of phone and SNS conversations, frequency of going out less frequently, willingness to contribute to the community, and community cooperation trust, in addition to questions measuring social isolation used in previous studies. The questions assessing social isolation are listed in Table 2. We measured the frequency of conversation on a 5-point scale from “daily” to “rarely/never” in response to the question, “How often did you talk on the phone or social networking sites?” It was discretized into three levels: “every day, 5–6 days a week,” “3–4 days a week,” and “1–2 days a week, hardly ever/never.” We measured willingness to contribute to the community on a 5-point scale from “applicable” to “not applicable” to the question “I have always wanted to contribute to the community.” It was discretized into three levels: “Yes/somewhat,” “Neither agree nor disagree,” and “Not really/not really.” We measured community cooperating trust on a 5-point scale from “very much so” to “not at all” in response to the questions “There are people in this community that I can cooperate, consult, and rely on” and “I think people in this community are generally trustworthy.” We defined a total score of 9 or higher as high in community cooperating trust, 4–8 as normal in community cooperating trust, and 3 or lower as low in community cooperating trust.

Table 2. Social isolation assessment criteria.
Question type Variables Discretization Score
Demographics Living alone yes or no yes: 1, no: 0
Marital status having a spouse, bereavement, divorce, unmarried, others having a spouse: 1, the others: 0
Frequency of conversation Frequency of conversation with family everyday or not everyday: 0
not everyday: 1
Frequency of conversation with non-family three point scale high: 1,
middle: 2,
low: 3
Frequency of conversation with phone or SNS
Social activity Participation of social activity yes or no yes: 0
no: 1
Participation of sports activity yes or no
Participation of health and medical volunteer yes or no
Participation of volunteer at elementary and junior high schools yes or no
Participation of other volunteer yes or no
Participation of hobby activity yes or no
Participation of neighborhood association, residents’ associations etc. yes or no
Participation of learning and culture activity yes or no
Participation of local event yes or no
Participation of activity to convey special skills to others yes or no yes: 0
no: 1
Participation of other activity yes or no
Living conditions Eating with someone once a day yes or no yes: 0
no: 1
Frequency of going out decreasing yes or no yes: 1
no: 0
Employed yes or no yes: 0
no: 1
Community cooperating trust Community cooperating trust three point scale high: 1,
middle: 2,
low: 3
Willingness of contribution to the community Willingness of contribution to the community three point scale

Subjective well-being

Although the concept of well-being has been widely discussed, its meaning has not been defined as it varies across cultures. Kumano et al. (2018) [15] argue that in Japan, subjective well-being is expressed as both Shiawase, which is Hedonic well-being, and Ikigai, which is Eudaimonic well-being. The former is translated into English as “happiness” and the latter as “the joy and goal of living” or “a life worth living.” These two well-being dimensions have been reported to be associated with health outcomes among Japanese people and investigated through national surveys [3133].

In this study, Shiawase and Ikigai were evaluated based on the previous survey scales [15, 31, 34]. Shiawase was evaluated based on the question, “To what extent did you feel Shiawase?” It uses an 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater happiness. Scale scores of 0 to 4 were classified as low Shiawase, 5 to 6 as normal Shiawase, and 7 to 10 as high Shiawase.

Ikigai was evaluated based on the question, “To what extent did you feel Ikigai?” This scale was measured on a 5-point scale from “I feel well” to “I don’t feel well at all.” Scale scores of 1 to 2 were classified as high Ikigai, 3 as normal Ikigai, and 4 to 5 as low Ikigai.

Analysis flow

We used probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA) and survival time analysis to examine the associations between physical frailty, social isolation, and subjective well-being. First, we extracted potential clusters using the PLSA with questions on social isolation, as listed in Table 2. PLSA was proposed by Hofmann as a document classification method [35]. This method assumes that words wj in sentence di are generated by the latent variable zk. Likelihood maximization with the EM algorithm, with the latent variable zZ = {z1,…,zk} to accompany the co-occurring data. The simultaneous probability of sentence di and word wj is expressed in Eq (1) using the latent variable zk.

P(di,wj)=kP(di|zk)P(wj|zk)P(zk) (1)

The EM algorithm is then used to calculate P(d|z)P(w|z)P(z), which maximizes the following log-likelihood function L as shown in Eq (2). In addition, n(i,j) is the number of times word wj co-occurs with document di.

L=ijn(i,j)logP(di,wj) (2)

There is an initial value dependence because the likelihood calculation for PLSA uses the EM algorithm. Therefore, the number of iterations was set to 1,000, the initial value was given three times, and the number of latent classes was increased from 1 to 10 to search for the best model. The number of latent classes was determined based on the Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC). The features of each cluster obtained by the PLSA were analyzed by constructing a Bayesian network model and applying a probabilistic inference algorithm based on loopy belief propagation. In this model, we used probabilistic inference to determine the direction of the contribution of question choices based on the positivity or negativity of the probability of belonging, and identified the characteristics of each cluster. An analytical method combining PLSA and Bayesian networks was developed by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) in Japan and has been used in many empirical studies [36]. Ide et al. (2017) [37] used a questionnaire and ZIP code data of elderly people in 24 municipalities in Japan and extracted potential regional characteristics as segments. Furthermore, a Bayesian network was constructed using the questionnaire data and variables of the obtained segments, and probabilistic inferences were made. Consequently, this study reveals the potential regional characteristics and factors contributing to regional disparities. Kawai et al. (2022) [22] applied PLSA to questionnaire data, such as those used in this study, and classified people according to their health literacy. They also used a Bayesian network to construct a prediction model for physical frailty in each health literacy category. Consequently, this study enabled the construction of models with high predictive accuracy. Extracting potentially common meaningful classes using PLSA allows useful model building in subsequent analyses. In this study, we applied this method to 1,953 questionnaires and classified people into several clusters according to their social isolation, with sentence di as the respondent of the questionnaire and word wj as the state of whether they selected each questionnaire item. We then analyzed the characteristics of each cluster. We analyzed the differences in sex, age group proportions, and physical frailty rates between clusters obtained by PLSA using the Z-test, with p-value adjustment using the Bonferroni method. We also analyzed differences in mean age between clusters using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), as normality was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test.

Next, we focused on clusters with high social isolation among the obtained clusters and analyzed the association between subjective well-being and physical frailty using survival time analysis. Survival time analysis is an analytical method that focuses on the relationship between events and the time until a specific event occurs, such as time to death, disease onset, and time to recovery. In this study, we used the Kaplan-Meier method, which represents the evolution of event rates with respect to the observation period, among survival time analysis methods. The observation period was defined based on the age of each individual and the occurrence of an event was defined as physical frailty. The log-rank test was used to determine statistical significance. Shiawase and Ikigai were used to assess subjective well-being. In the analysis of Shiawase, a total of 1,950 data were used, excluding three cases in which questions assessing Shiawase were missing. In the analysis of Ikigai, a total of 1,953 data were used because there were no missing questions that assessed Ikigai. We used PLASMA and Bayonet, an intellectual property software from the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, to run the PLSA and Bayesian network [38, 39]. We used IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28.0.1.0) for the other data analysis. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Comparing the physical frailty rates by social isolation cluster

Of the 1,953 participants included in the analysis, 996 (51.0%) were male and the mean age was 69.8 years. The averages and standard deviations for age, Shiawase score, Ikigai score, physical frailty score, and social isolation score are shown in Table 3. Social isolation scores in this study were calculated by summing the scores of the social isolation questionnaire items (Table 2), in which 1 point was allocated for each of the following: living alone; not having a spouse; frequency of conversation with family members is not daily; not participating in any of the social activities, respectively; not eating with someone once a day; frequency of going out decreasing; not employed. In addition, the frequency of conversation with non-family and the frequency of conversation with phone or SNS, community cooperating trust, willing of contribution to community was divided into three-point scales: high, normal, and low, and assigned a score of 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In addition, the number and percentage of people in the analyzed data for employment status and education status are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the analyzed data.

Question types n Average (standard deviation)
Age (years) 1,953 69.8 (8.4)
Shiawase score 1,936 7.35 (2.23)
Ikigai score 1,942 1.95 (0.98)
Physical frailty score 1,953 1.44 (1.20)
Social isolation score 1,953 18.85 (3.32)
Question types Variables n rate
Employment (n = 1,953) Employed 679 34.8%
Education status (n = 1,924) Elementary and junior high school graduates 421 21.9%
High school graduate 1,092 56.8%
Specialized or vocational school graduate 164 8.5%
Junior college or technical college graduate 87 4.5%
University graduate 153 8.0%
Master’s graduate 7 0.4%

The results of the PLSA using questions on social isolation showed that the AIC score was the lowest when K = 4. We adopted four classes 4, C1–C4. The details of the AIC scores are provided in S1 Fig. The number of persons belonging to each cluster, as well as their gender, age category, and mean age are shown in Table 4. C1 included 155 participants (63.9% male), C2 701 participants (52.6% male), C3 851 participants (47.4% male), and C4 246 participants (50.8% male). Sex and age group percentages are significantly different at the 5% level between groups with different symbols. The mean age for all age groups was 69.5 years for C1, 68.6 years for C2, 70.6 years for C3, and 70.4 years for C4. One-way analysis of variance confirmed a significant difference in mean age among the four groups C1–C4 (p<0.01).

Table 4. Percentage of sex and age group and average age by cluster.

cluster n Percentage of sex (Male)# Percentage of age # Average age (years) (standard deviation)
under 65 over 65, under 75 over 75 all
C1 155 63.9%a 19.3%a,b,c 52.9%a 27.7%a,b 69.5 (8.34)
C2 701 52.6%a,b 26.0%c 50.4%a 23.7%b 68.6 (8.52)
C3 851 47.4%b 15.9%b 54.4%a 29.7%a 70.6 (7.50)
C4 246 50.8%a,b 25.6%a,c 38.2%b 36.2%a 70.4 (10.57)
all 1,953 51.0% 21.0% 50.8% 28.2% 69.8 (8.42)

# Groups with different symbols (a-c) indicate significant differences at the 5% level.

Next, we constructed a Bayesian network model using the variables of the four clusters and the social isolation question to confirm the characteristics of the four clusters obtained using the PLSA. Fig 1 shows the nodes around C1 cluster in the constructed Bayesian network. The nodes around C2–C4 are shown in S2S4 Figs. The nodes with arrows pointing directly to each cluster are choices for questions in which the probability of belonging to each cluster changes. In this model, we used probabilistic inference to determine the direction of the contribution of question choices based on the positivity or negativity of the probability of belonging, and identified the characteristics of each cluster. The results of the probabilistic inference of the relevant questions for C1–C4 are shown in S1 Table. We used this probability inference to determine that C1 is characterized by “participates in sports and hobby-related activities” and “has a high sense of community contribution,” C2 is characterized by “frequent conversations outside the family and on the phone and SNS” and “does not have a high sense of community contribution,” C3 is characterized by “normal sense of community contribution” and “does not participate in social activities,” and C4 is characterized by “does not participate in social activities” and “infrequent conversations outside the family, on the phone, and on SNS” and “low awareness of community contribution.” These differences in characteristics suggest that C1 is a cluster with low social isolation and C4 is a cluster with high social isolation.

Fig 1. Bayesian network about C1.

Fig 1

Table 5 shows the results of the comparison of physical frailty rates and the number of people with physical frailty for each of the four clusters. We observed that C4, with high social isolation, had a significantly higher rate of physical frailty than the other three clusters did.

Table 5. Physical frailty rates by cluster.

cluster (n) Physical frailty rates #
(number of persons)
under 65 Over 65, under 75 over 75 all
C1 10.0%a 7.3%a 18.6%a 11.0%a
(n = 155) (n = 3) (n = 6) (n = 8) (n = 17)
C2 11.5%a 10.8%a 22.3%a 13.7%a
(n = 701) (n = 21) (n = 38) (n = 37) (n = 96)
C3 17.8%a 16.2%a 31.2%a,b 20.9%b
(n = 851) (n = 24) (n = 75) (n = 79) (n = 178)
C4 38.1%b 28.7%b 44.9%b 37.0%c
(n = 246) (n = 24) (n = 27) (n = 40) (n = 91)
all 17.6% 14.7% 29.8% 19.6%
(n = 1,953) (n = 72) (n = 146) (n = 164) (n = 382)

# Groups with different symbols (a-c) indicate significant differences at the 5% level.

Comparing the risk of physical frailty by the difference of subjective well-being among people with high social isolation

In this chapter, we focus on C4, with high social isolation, and describe the results of the Kaplan-Meier method to determine the relationship between subjective well-being and physical frailty in this population. We used the questionnaire items on Shiawase and Ikigai as indicators of subjective well-being. Among the C4 with high social isolation, the percentage of those with physical frailty by the level of Shiawase was 24.3% in the group with a high level of Shiawase, 38.3% in that with a normal level of Shiawase, and 59.3% in that with a low level of Shiawase. Similarly, among the C4 with high social isolation, the number percentage of those with physical frailty according to the level of Ikigai was 23.5% in the group with a high level of Ikigai, 40.6% in that with a normal level of Ikigai, and 60.3% in that with a low level of Ikigai.

Fig 2 shows the results of the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the rate of physical frailty in C4 with high social isolation according to the level of Shiawase. The risk of physical frailty increased as the level of well-being decreased (Fig 2). Table 6 shows the average age of survival by the level of Shiawase. We found significant differences in all comparisons between the two groups: the high and low level of Shiawase (p<0.01), the high and normal level of Shiawase (p<0.01), and the normal and low level of Shiawase (p<0.05). At the age of 75, the group with a high level of Shiawase had a significantly lower risk of physical frailty by 47.6% than that with a low level of Shiawase.

Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier analysis according to degree of Shiawase.

Fig 2

Table 6. The average age of survival by the level of Shiawase.

The level of Shiawase Estimated value Standard error 95% confidence interval
Lower limit Upper limit
high 83.643 1.069 81.547 85.739
middle 78.939 1.603 75.796 82.081
low 72.964 1.922 69.198 76.730
all 79.977 0.964 78.087 81.867

Fig 3 shows the results of the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the rate of physical frailty in C4 with high social isolation by the level of Ikigai. The risk of physical frailty increased as the level of Ikigai decreased (Fig 3). Table 7 shows the average age of survival according to the level of Ikigai. We found significant differences between the group with the high and low level of Ikigai (p<0.01) and between the group with the normal and low level of Ikigai (p<0.01). At age 75, the group with a high level of Ikigai had a significantly lower risk of physical frailty (42.7%) than that with a low level of Ikigai.

Fig 3. Kaplan-Meier analysis according to degree of Ikigai.

Fig 3

Table 7. The average age of survival by the level of Ikigai.

The level of Ikigai Estimated value Standard error 95% confidence interval
Lower limit Upper limit
high 82.960 1.080 80.842 85.077
middle 80.409 1.644 77.187 83.631
low 72.368 1.788 68.862 75.873
all 80.051 0.961 78.167 81.934

Discussion

Relationship between social isolation and physical frailty

Participants with a higher degree of social isolation had a significantly higher rate of physical frailty than those with a lower degree of social isolation. This result was similar by age group (< 65 y., 65–74 y., > = 75 y.). The results of the present study are similar to those of several previous studies and support the hypothesis that social isolation increases the risk of physical frailty [6].

Effects of Shiawase and Ikigai on physical frailty in people with high degree of social isolation

Shiawase and Ikigai in middle-aged and elderly people may affect the rate of physical frailty [21]. In the present study, we examined whether Shiawase and Ikigai influenced the rate of physical frailty in people with high social isolation. The results showed that Shiawase and Ikigai were factors that differentially affected the rate of physical frailty in people with high social isolation. In other words, even if the degree of social isolation is high, those who live with Shiawase or Ikigai may have a lower risk of physical frailty.

Although few previous studies have examined the relationship between Shiawase and Ikigai and physical frailty, several studies have reported that these factors explain low rates of frailty [21]. The present study is the first to show that Shiawase and Ikigai affect the rate of physical frailty in people with high social isolation.

Why do people with Shiawase and Ikigai have lower rates of physical frailty even among those with high levels of social isolation?

Relatively strong evidence suggests that social isolation increases the risk of physical frailty [6]. However, in the present study, even among those with high social isolation, those with high levels of Shiawase and Ikigai maintained a low risk of physical frailty. Intentional or self-imposed social isolation might have contributed to these results.

Social isolation among older adults is diverse and includes both accidental and intentional isolation. Intentional social isolation is believed to lead to a reduction in social networks and personal social interactions as a result of prioritizing emotional satisfaction and spending more time with those who are closer to them in old age [40, 41]. Tanaka et al. (2020) [41] reported that those who were socially isolated were characterized by less interaction with the community and poor physical function, although they had no history of current or prior illness. They were also highly educated, did not tend to suffer economically, and were in situations where they could deliberately choose to live in social isolation.

Toyoshima and Kusumi (2022) [42] examined the relationship between preference for solitude (which in this study refers to time spent alone) and subjective well-being and reported that enjoyment of solitude and productivity while being solitary were associated with the maintenance of subjective well-being among the elderly. In our study, the number of individuals with high levels of social isolation who were intentionally socially isolated or enjoyed solitude was unclear; however, it could be inferred that there was a certain number of them. Because among the participants with high social isolation, the percentages of those with high Shiawase and Ikigai scores were 42.4% (n = 103) and 48.4% (n = 119), respectively. These people may be intentionally socially isolated or may enjoy solitude. Even if they are socially isolated, those who are aware of their social isolation and lead a lifestyle that facilitates happiness or live with joy and the goal of living may be less likely to fall into the frailty cycle proposed by Fried et al. (2001) [23]. Although only a few studies have tested this hypothesis, the results of the present study support it.

Previous studies have shown that physical activity reduces the risk of frailty the most among physical, cultural, and community [43]. Nagai et al. (2018) [44] also found that if 30 minutes of sedentary activity time could be replaced with low-and even medium-to-high-intensity physical activity, frailty status could be improved by 16% and 42%, respectively. Furthermore, sedentary activity styles centered on TV viewing were associated with lower physical function than other sedentary activity styles (less sedentary activity, work and computer use-centered, and leisure activities other than TV viewing) [45]. Increasing the amount of physical activity performed alone and reducing the amount of time spent on passive sedentary activities may reduce the risk of physical frailty even if the degree of social isolation is high. This study did not examine the extent to which the participants preferred to be alone. In the future, it is necessary to investigate the extent to which people prefer to spend time alone as well as their social isolation status, and to investigate what kind of activities make them feel Shiawase or Ikigai.

Finally, the promotion of physical frailty prevention in middle- and older-aged adults with high levels of social isolation is discussed. A survey of the Japanese elderly population revealed that awareness of the term “frailty” was low, at about 20%, and that the more people needed to take measures against frailty, the lower their level of awareness [46]. Understanding and preventing physical frailty are important for maintaining and improving the quality of life of individuals, regardless of whether they are socially isolated or prefer to spend time alone. Therefore, it is necessary to provide information and preventive programs for frailty among older adults in social isolation. Delivering such information to socially isolated people and encouraging them to take preventive actions are subjects for future research.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. The study design was cross-sectional; therefore, causal relationships between the variables could not be identified. In addition, all questionnaire responses were self-reported. This may have generated misclassification bias. To eliminate the influence of COVID-19 as much as possible, the participants were asked to recall two time points: 2019 (before the spread of COVID-19) and 2011. This may have resulted in inaccurate results. In addition, missing data were removed from 3, 706 data points collected in this study, resulting in a final sample of 1,953 participants. Because of the removal of missing data, only those who responded to all items used in the analysis were extracted. In addition, information on individuals who had never been certified as needing long-term care between 2011 and 2019 was extracted. The sociodemographic characteristics and health statuses of the included and excluded participants are shown in Table 8. In the analyzed data (n = 1,953) and the excluded data (n = 1,753), the percentage of males differed by 8.3 percentage point, the average age was 4.9 years, and the rate of physical frailty was 9.8 percentage point. Among the excluded data, physical frailty was assessed in 988 samples. These differences suggest that this study analyzed a relatively healthy sample of the total data. The survey items did not include feelings of loneliness or a preference for solitude. Investigating these items would have allowed for more multidimensional considerations. Finally, the study area is a small city in the mountainous region of Japan. Therefore, similar results may not be obtained for small, urban, or large cities.

Table 8. The difference of the analyzed and excluded data.

n Percentage of sex (Male)# Percentage of age # Average age (years) (standard deviation) Physical frailty rates #
under 65 over 65, under 75 over 75 all
analyzed data 1,953 51.0%a 21.0%a 50.8%a 28.2%a 69.8 (8.42) 19.6% a
excluded data 1,753 42.7%b 9.6%b 34.7%bb 55.7%b 74.7 (8.34) 29.4% b

# Groups with different symbols (a, b) indicate significant differences at the 5% level.

This study has several limitations. The study design was cross-sectional, so causal relationships between variables could not be identified. In addition, all responses to the questionnaire were self-reported. This may have generated a misclassification bias. Furthermore, to eliminate the influence of COVID-19 as much as possible, the participants were asked to recall two time points: 2019 (before the spread of COVID-19) and 2011. This may have resulted in inaccurate responses. In addition, missing data were removed from the 3,706 data collected in this study, resulting in a final sample of 1,953 analyzed. As a result of the removal of missing data, only those who responded to all items used in the analysis were extracted. In addition, people who have never been certified as needing long-term care from 2011 to 2019 were extracted. The sociodemographic characteristics and health status of the analyzed and excluded data are shown in Table 8. In the analyzed data (n = 1,953) and the excluded data (n = 1,753), the percentage of males differs by 8.3 percentage point, the average age by 4.9 years, and the rate of physical frailty by 9.8 percentage point. Of the excluded data, physical frailty was assessable in 988 samples. These differences suggest that this study is an analysis of a relatively healthy sample of the total data. And the survey items did not include feelings of loneliness and preference for solitude. Investigation of these items would have allowed for more multidimensional consideration. Finally, the study area was a small city in a mountainous region of Japan. Therefore, the same results may not be obtained in other small cities, urban areas, or large cities.

Conclusions

The research question for this study was,” Does subjective well-being affect physical frailty in middle-aged and elderly Japanese with high social isolation?.” The results showed that subjective well-being affected physical frailty in middle-aged and elderly Japanese with high social isolation.

In conclusion, our results suggest that subjective well-being, such as Shiawase and Ikigai, may influence physical frailty risk among middle-aged and elderly Japanese individuals with high levels of social isolation living in mountainous areas. The strength of this study is that it suggests that living with a feeling of happiness and purpose may reduce the risk of physical frailty, even among individuals with high levels of social isolation. This study provides important insights for the prevention of frailty among socially isolated individuals. On the other hand, a shortcoming of this study is that the reasons why socially isolated individuals are happy and what kind of purpose they have in life were not investigated. These aspects require further investigation. The results of this study can serve as a reference for other countries with an aging population. The participants in this study live in a typical regional city with an aging and declining population; the average income of its citizens is about $18,000 (converted to 147.78 yen/dollar), which is relatively low among all Japanese cities [47]. In the future, many countries will face aging populations. In these countries, it is expected that the aging population, social isolation, and frail population will increase in rural areas compared with urban areas, resulting in widening regional disparities. The findings of this study suggest that physical frailty must be prevented in rural cities with aging populations, considering both the diversity of social isolation and subjective well-being of individuals.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. AIC scores in clustering of social isolation by PLSA.

(TIF)

pone.0297837.s001.tif (225.2KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Bayesian network about C2.

(TIF)

pone.0297837.s002.tif (1.7MB, tif)
S3 Fig. Bayesian network about C3.

(TIF)

pone.0297837.s003.tif (1.5MB, tif)
S4 Fig. Bayesian network about C4.

(TIF)

pone.0297837.s004.tif (1.4MB, tif)
S1 Table. Characteristics of each cluster by probabilistic inference.

(TIF)

pone.0297837.s005.tif (245.8KB, tif)

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of the contract with the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW). Data are available from the MHLW Grants system (contact via e-mail; mhlw-grants@niph.go.jp) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from MHLW Grants system. The contact information for the MHLW Grants system is listed below. MHLW Grants system 2-3-6, Minami, Wako, Saitama 351-0197, Japan e-mail: mhlw-grants@niph.go.jp URL: https://mhlw-grants.niph.go.jp/ Tel: +81-4-8458-6210

Funding Statement

This work was supported by a Health Labor Sciences Research Grant, Research for Building Evidence on the Results of Verification Programs for Prevention and Health Promotion (22FB1002).The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Rudnicka E, Napierała P, Podfigurna A, Męczekalski B, Smolarczyk R, Grymowicz M. The World Health Organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing. Maturitas. 2020;139: 6–11. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.05.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cabinet Secretariat. Annual Report on the Ageing Society. 2021. July [Cited 2023 June 21]. Available from: https://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/english/annualreport/index-wh.html [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Makizako H, Shimada H, Doi T, Tsutsumimoto K, Suzuki T. Impact of physical frailty on disability in community-dwelling older adults: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9): 1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hoogendijk EO, Afilalo J, Ensrud KE, Kowal P, Onder G, Fried LP. Frailty: implications for clinical practice and public health. Lancet. 2019;394(10206): 1365–1375. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31786-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yamada M, Arai H, Sonoda T, Aoyama T. Community-based exercise program is cost-effective by preventing care and disability in Japanese frail older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(6): 507–511. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kojima G, Aoyama R, Tanabe M. Associations Between Social Isolation and Physical Frailty in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022;23(11): 3–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.06.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Davies K, Maharani A, Chandola T, Todd C, Pendleton N. The longitudinal relationship between loneliness, social isolation, and frailty in older adults in England: a prospective analysis. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2(2): 70–77. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(20)30038-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Finlay JM, Kobayashi LC. Social isolation and loneliness in later life: a parallel convergent mixed-methods case study of older adults and their residential contexts in the Minneapolis metropolitan area, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2018;208: 25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2010;40(2): 218–227. doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Menec VH, Newall NE, Mackenzie CS, Shooshtari S, Nowicki S. Examining social isolation and loneliness in combination in relation to social support and psychological distress using Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging (CLSA) data. PLoS One. 2020;15(3): 1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hsu HC. Typologies of loneliness, isolation and living alone are associated with psychological well-being among older adults in Taipei: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24): 1–14. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Barnes TL, MacLeod S, Tkatch R, Ahuja M, Albright L, Schaeffer JA, et al. Cumulative effect of loneliness and social isolation on health outcomes among older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2022;26(7): 1327–1334. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2021.1940096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Smith KJ, Victor C. Typologies of loneliness, living alone and social isolation, and their associations with physical and mental health. Ageing & Society. 2019;39(8): 1709–1730. 10.1017/S0144686X18000132 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Xie B, Ma C. Effect of social participation on the development of physical frailty: Do type, frequency and diversity matter? Maturitas. 2021;151: 48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2021.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kumano M. On the concept of well-being in Japan: Feeling Shiawase as hedonic well-being and feeling Ikigai as eudaimonic well-being. Appl Res Qual Life. 2018;13: 419–433. 10.1007/s11482-017-9532-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bass SA. An overview of work, retirement, and pensions in Japan. J Aging Soc Policy. 1996;8(2–3): 57–78. doi: 10.1300/J031v08n02_05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mathews G. Finding and keeping a purpose in life: well-being and ikigai in Japan and elsewhere. In: Mathews G, Izquierdo C, editors. Pursuits of happiness: well-being in anthropological perspective. New York: Berghahn Books; 2009. pp. 167–185. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ryff C, Boylan JM, Coe CL, Karasawa M, Kawakami N, Kitayama S, et al. Adult development in Japan and the United States: comparing theories and findings about growth, maturity, and well-being. In: Jensen LA, editor. The Oxford handbook of human development and culture: an interdisciplinary perspective. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. pp. 666–679. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Qi X, Zhang W, Wang K, Pei Y, Wu B. Social isolation and psychological well-being among older Chinese Americans: does resilience mediate the association? Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry. 2022;37(8): 1–9. doi: 10.1002/gps.5791 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nakagomi A, Tsuji T, Saito M, Ide K, Kondo K, Shiba K. Social isolation and subsequent health and well-being in older adults: a longitudinal outcome-wide analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2023;327: 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tsujishita S, Nagamatsu M, Sanada K. Overlap of physical, cognitive, and social frailty affects Ikigai in community-dwelling Japanese older adults. Healthcare. 2022;10(11): 1–11. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10112216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kawai Y, Sakurai E, Sugawara Y, Okada Y, Tanabe K, Tsukao A, et al. Predictive model of frailty onset using Bayesian network. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). 2022: 2017–2023. 10.1109/BigData55660.2022.10020951 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol: Series A. 2001;56(3): 146–157. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Theou O, Cann L, Blodgett J, Wallace LM.K, Brothers TD, Rockwood K. Modifications to the frailty phenotype criteria: systematic review of the current literature and investigation of 262 frailty phenotypes in the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe. Ageing Res Rev. 2015;21: 78–94. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2015.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.The Office for Policy on Loneliness and Isolation, Cabinet Secretariat. Kodoku・koritsu taisaku no jyutenn keikaku. 2022. Dec 26[Cited 2023 June 5]. Available from: https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/juten_keikaku/r04/jutenkeikaku.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Leigh-Hunt N, Bagguley D, Bash K, Turner V, Turnbull S, Valtorta N, et al. An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health. 2017;152: 157–171. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Shankar A, McMunn A, Demakakos P, Hamer M, Steptoe A. Social isolation and loneliness: prospective associations with functional status in older adults. Health Psychol. 2017;36(2): 179–187. doi: 10.1037/hea0000437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. 2015;10(2): 227–237. doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu H, Zhang M, Yang Q, Yu B. Gender differences in the influence of social isolation and loneliness on depressive symptoms in college students: a longitudinal study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020;55: 251–257. doi: 10.1007/s00127-019-01726-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Courtin E, Knapp M. Social isolation, loneliness and health in old age: a scoping review. Health and Social Care in the community. 2015;25(3): 799–812. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cabinet Secretariat. Summary of the Results of the 2003 Survey on the Attitudes of the Elderly Toward Participation in Local Communities. (Koureisha-no-chiikishakai-heno-sanka-ni-kansuru-ishikichosakekka-no-gaiyou) 2004. [Cited 2023 June 21]. Available from: https://www8.cao.go.jp/kourei/ishiki/h15_sougou/gaiyou.html [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shirai K, Iso H, Ohira T, Ikeda A, Noda H, Honjo K, et al. Perceived level of life enjoyment and risks of cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality. The Japan Public Health Center-Based Study. 2009;120(11): 956–963. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.834176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Miyazaki J, Shirai K, Kimura T, Ikehara S, Tamakoshi A, Iso H. Purpose in life (Ikigai) and employment status in relation to cardiovascular mortality: the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(10): 1–11. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kabasawa K, Tanaka J, Ito Y, Yoshida K, Kitamura K, Tsugane S, et al. Associations of physical activity in rural life with happiness and ikigai: a cross-sectional study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2021;8(46): 1–10. 10.1057/s41599-021-00723-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hofmann T. Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 1999: 50–57. 10.1145/312624.312649 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Motomura Y. Daikibo data modeling gijyutsu ni yoru service kougaku. In: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), editor. Service Engineering in Society for Society: The Frontiers of Research for Creating Products, Things, and People. (Shakai no naka de shakai no tame no service kougaku ~mono・koto・hito dukuri no tame no kennkyuu saizennsen) Canaria Communications; 2014. pp. 108–135. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ide A, Yamashita K, Motomura Y, Terano T. Analyzing regional characteristics of living activities of elderly people from large survey data with probabilistic latent spatial semantic structure modeling. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). 2017: 3071–3077. 10.1109/BigData.2017.8258280 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Motomura Y. Bayesian Network Software Bayonet. Journal of SICE. 2003;42(8): 693–694. 10.11499/sicejl1962.42.693 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Artificial Intelligence Research Center. PLASMA. [Cited 2023 June 8]. In: ACHIEVEMENTS [Internet]. Available from: https://www.airFc.aist.go.jp/achievements/ja/p-023.html [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Waldinger R. What Makes a Good Life? 2016. Jan 8[Cited 2023 June 7]. Available from: https://www.dailygood.org/story/1196/what-makes-a-good-life-robert-waldinger/ [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tanaka M, Katsura T, Ishikawa S, Hoshino A, Shizawa M, Usui K. Characteristics of socially isolated elderly people in a rural area according to a new classification system based on intentionality in social choices. Journal of the Japanese Association of Rural Medicine. 2020;68(6): 773–780. 10.2185/jjrm.68.773 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Toyoshima A, Kusumi T. Examining the relationship between preference for solitude and subjective well-being among Japanese older adults. Innova Aging. 2022;6(1): 1–10. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igab054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Yoshizawa Y, Tanaka T, Takahashi K, Fujisaki M, Iijima K. The associations of frailty with regular participation in physical, cultural, and community social activities among independent elders in Japan. Jpn J Public Health. 2019;66(6): 306–316. doi: 10.11236/jph.66.6_306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Nagai K, Tamaki K, Kusunoki H, Wada Y, Tsuji S, Ito M, et al. Isotemporal substitution of sedentary time with physical activity and its associations with frailty status. Clinical Interven Aging. 2018;25(13): 1831–1836. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S175666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mitsutake S, Shibata A, Ishii K, Amagasa S, Kikuchi H, Fukushima N, et al. Clustering of domain-specific sedentary behaviors and their association with physical function among community-dwelling older adults. J Phys Act Health. 2020;17(7): 709–714. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2019-0219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Seino S, Kitamura A, Tomine Y, Tanaka I, Nishi M, Nofuji Y, et al. Awareness of the term "frailty" and its correlates among older adults living in a metropolitan area. Jpn J Public Health. 2020;67(6): 399–412. 10.11236/jph.67.6_399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Fiscal Year 2022 Municipal Taxation Status Report [Cited 2023 September 19]. Available from: https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/jichi_zeisei/czaisei/czaisei_seido/ichiran09_22.html [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sayani Das

10 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-19593Are people with high social isolation at high risk of physical frailty? An analysis of this relationship and the impact of subjective well-beingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. TANABE,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We have completed the review of your manuscript and a summary is appended below. The reviewer(s) have recommended some major revisions to your manuscript.  Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 24 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dr Sayani Das, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by a Health Labor Sciences Research Grant, Research for Building Evidence on the Results of Verification Programs for Prevention and Health Promotion (22FB1002).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was supported by a Health Labor Sciences Research Grant, Research for Building Evidence on the Results of Verification Programs for Prevention and Health Promotion (22FB1002).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was supported by a Health Labor Sciences Research Grant, Research for Building Evidence on the Results of Verification Programs for Prevention and Health Promotion (22FB1002).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article identifies a relevant knowledge gap that the authors attempt to address, however, in this context, it would be important to also provide a brief description for the motivation of this study. There have been previous studies that have also associated physical frailty among older adults with a range of other health outcomes such as falls, body composition, obesity, ADL etc. Thus, a justification seems to be pertinent in this case where the authors clarify their motivation for studying social isolation with physical frailty. Adding a paragraph explicating what has been studied so far with respect to physical frailty could be beneficial focusing on the “gap” in the literature that this study aims to close. More work needs to be done in the conclusion section. As it currently stands, the conclusion is rather limited and there is more scope to build upon the implications of the findings obtained from the study. Conclusion should be elaborated upon articulating what are keys takeaways from the article. The areas that need further strengthening are: strengths and weaknesses, implications for practice, and conclusion. The information around implication is insufficient and generates a superficial understanding. The article should be proofread by a native English speaker. Multiple grammatical errors and awkward phrasing were found throughout the paper.

Regarding the contribution that is interesting for an international audience (or is it too focus on a specific national context)?: At present as the article stands, it would require more holistic understanding of how the notion of frailty is perceived within different country contexts, such as, lower-and-middle income countries (LMICs) as opposed to developed countries. The article should include studies from different study contexts to attract a larger number of readers. Currently, the article focuses particularly on Japan and the Japanese notion of well-being which, if constructively utilized, could be very well situated within the broader domain of aging and geriatrics to compare different studies. This would, in fact, also attract international readers and will present a higher chance of citation.

Additional comments: While the abstract is well written, however, explicit statements about the contributions of the article is largely absent. Further, the abstract does touch upon the knowledge gap but not sufficiently. The authors could try to add a few more sentences to present the gap in the literature and how the present article is particularly attempting to close that gap with the research findings.

Reviewer #2: This study investigates the correlation between social isolation, subjective well-being, and physical frailty in middle-aged and older Japanese adults residing in a mountainous area. The research holds great importance in advancing our knowledge of strategies for promoting healthy aging. Furthermore, the manuscript is well-structured and thoughtfully written, providing readers with a clear comprehension of the research's motivations, study design, analyses, and results. However, in my opinion, there are a few issues that, if addressed, could further enhance the manuscript's quality.

• I recommend that the author consider revising both the title and the primary aim of this study (in the introduction section) in order to better align them with the research question, conducted analyses, and the focus of the discussion section, which centers around "the relationship between subjective well-being and frailty in the high social isolation group."

• Within the method section, the author has indicated the existence of two data sources. To enhance clarity, please specify the variables obtained from each respective source.

• The author mentioned that “to eliminate the influence of COVID-19 as much as possible, the participants were asked to recall two time points: 2019 (before the spread of COVID-19) and 2011”. Could you kindly provide clarification on the specific questions or variables for which the participants were asked to recall their conditions in 2019 and 2011?

• According to the data provided in the participants section, approximately 51% (2,092 out of 4,045) of the participants were excluded from the analysis. The author has acknowledged in the limitation section that this exclusion "may have biased the analysis." Could the author provide further elaboration on the implications of this bias and its potential impact on the validity and credibility of this study?

• Furthermore, it would be better if the author could elucidate the distinctions between the excluded sample and the analytical sample, specifically concerning their sociodemographic characteristics and health status.

• In my opinion, the final paragraph of the discussion section lacks coherence with the preceding paragraph. I would recommend revising it to ensure a smoother transition between the two paragraphs.

• In the introduction section, the research question was formulated as "Are all people with a high degree of social isolation at higher risk for physical frailty?" whereas, in the conclusions section, it was rephrased as "Are people with a high degree of social isolation generally at higher risk for physical frailty?" Although the two sentences share similarities, I recommend revising the one in the conclusions section to avoid any confusion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Feb 26;19(2):e0297837. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297837.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Oct 2023

Reviewer1: We wish to express our appreciation to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. The comments have helped us significantly improve the paper.

Reviewer2: We wish to express our strong appreciation to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We feel the comments have helped us significantly improve the paper.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0297837.s006.docx (31.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Sayani Das

7 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-19593R1Impact of subjective well-being on physical frailty in middle-aged and elderly Japanese with high social isolationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. TANABE,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We have completed the review of your manuscript and a summary is appended below. The reviewer(s) have recommended some minor revisions to your manuscript.  Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sayani Das, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: While the authors have made necessary revisions to improve the article, there still remains a few areas that could be reworked upon.

1. The author(s) should also provide a descriptive statistics table with mean and standard deviation (SD) of age, Ikigai scores, and Shiawase scores, frailty, and social isolation scores (essentially the scores that have been measured for this study).

2. The RQ “Are all people with a high degree of social isolation at higher risk for physical frailty?” remains too broad. It still misses the ‘subjective well-being’ component which is as important part of the study. Additionally, the demographics (middle aged and elderly Japanese) could be added in the RQ as well. “All people” does not stand correct in the current phrasing and is too broad.

3. The author(s) in line 78-80 state(s) that “for physical frailty, there is a need to consider the diversity of social isolation in the prevention of physical frailty. However, no studies have yet been conducted to clarify this issue”. Considering the diversity of social participation on physical frailty, the authors could refer to the following work in the context of China:

Xie, B., & Ma, C. (2021). Effect of social participation on the development of physical frailty: Do type, frequency and diversity matter? Maturitas, 151, 48-54.

4. To make the study findings stronger, is it possible to supply the employment/occupation information of the participants in the descriptive statistics table? The author(s) report the study of Tanaka et al. (2020) in the context of Japan that state those who were socially isolated were highly educated, weren’t financially disadvantaged and chose to deliberately live in social isolation. However, in this study, the authors state that the participants of the city had an average income of $18000 which is not a lot, but we still do not know the employment/income status of the participants in this study. Including income and education as part of the descriptive statistics table is highly recommended. The correlation (if not causation) between income/employment and social isolation could be really interesting given the data is cross-sectional. You could maybe add some sentences of how this study findings are consistent with Tanaka et al. or not in the discussion section.

5. Although the authors do note that the purpose of social isolation has not been explored, but perhaps providing their employment/income status could be a good reference point for future studies. It could help future researchers identify whether income/education really matter when it comes to individuals isolating themselves in other country contexts.

6. On lines 341 the author(s) mention that “In our study, the number of individuals with high levels of social isolation who were intentionally socially isolated or enjoyed solitude was unclear; however, it could be inferred that there was a certain number”. Can you explicitly state the number? Or what exactly is it that you are referring to (how do you infer)? At present, it is confusing and unclear to the reader.

Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for thoroughly addressing my comments. The manuscript has undergone significant improvements. As of now, I have no further comments to make.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Feb 26;19(2):e0297837. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297837.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Dec 2023

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #1:

Reviewer #1 comment 1:

1. The author(s) should also provide a descriptive statistics table with mean and standard deviation (SD) of age, Ikigai scores, and Shiawase scores, frailty, and social isolation scores (essentially the scores that have been measured for this study).

Answer)

Thank you for your suggestion. Table 3 shows that information. In addition, variable scores were appended to Table 2.

Additions & Corrections)

Section: Results

> Table 3 and P17 L236-246

The averages and standard deviations for age, Shiawase score, Ikigai score, physical frailty score, and social isolation score are shown in Table 3. Social isolation scores in this study were calculated by summing the scores of the social isolation questionnaire items (Table 2), in which 1 point was allocated for each of the following: living alone; not having a spouse; frequency of conversation with family members is not daily; not participating in any of the social activities, respectively; not eating with someone once a day; frequency of going out decreasing; not employed. In addition, the frequency of conversation with non-family and the frequency of conversation with phone or SNS, community cooperating trust, willing of contribution to community was divided into three-point scales: high, normal, and low, and assigned a score of 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In addition, the number and percentage of people in the analyzed data for employment status and education status are shown in Table 3.

Section: Methods

> Table 2

The scores of the variables were added in the table.

Reviewer #1 comment 2:

The RQ “Are all people with a high degree of social isolation at higher risk for physical frailty?” remains too broad. It still misses the ‘subjective well-being’ component which is as important part of the study. Additionally, the demographics (middle aged and elderly Japanese) could be added in the RQ as well. “All people” does not stand correct in the current phrasing and is too broad.

Answer)

We agree with you. We have revised the following based on your suggestion.

Additions & Corrections)

Section: Introduction

> P6 L90-91

Section: Conclusions

> P30 L423-424

Before revision) Are all people with a high degree of social isolation at higher risk for physical frailty?

After revision) Does subjective well-being affect physical frailty in middle-aged and elderly Japanese with high social isolation?

Reviewer #1 comment 3:

The author(s) in line 78-80 state(s) that “for physical frailty, there is a need to consider the diversity of social isolation in the prevention of physical frailty. However, no studies have yet been conducted to clarify this issue”. Considering the diversity of social participation on physical frailty, the authors could refer to the following work in the context of China:

Xie, B., & Ma, C. (2021). Effect of social participation on the development of physical frailty: Do type, frequency and diversity matter? Maturitas, 151, 48-54.

Answer)

Thank you for providing these insights. We agree with you and have incorporated the suggestion into the introduction of our paper.

Additions & Corrections)

Section: Introduction

> P5 L78-80

Before revision) Similarly for physical frailty, there is a need to consider the diversity of social isolation in the prevention of physical frailty. However, no studies have yet been conducted to clarify this issue.

After revision) Similarly for physical frailty, there is a need to consider the diversity of social isolation in the prevention of physical frailty. However, only a few studies have clarified this issue [14].

[14] Xie B, Ma C. Effect of social participation on the development of physical frailty: Do type, frequency and diversity matter? Maturitas. 2021;151: 48-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2021.06.015

Reviewer #1 comment 4~6:

4. To make the study findings stronger, is it possible to supply the employment/occupation information of the participants in the descriptive statistics table? The author(s) report the study of Tanaka et al. (2020) in the context of Japan that state those who were socially isolated were highly educated, weren’t financially disadvantaged and chose to deliberately live in social isolation. However, in this study, the authors state that the participants of the city had an average income of $18000 which is not a lot, but we still do not know the employment/income status of the participants in this study. Including income and education as part of the descriptive statistics table is highly recommended. The correlation (if not causation) between income/employment and social isolation could be really interesting given the data is cross-sectional. You could maybe add some sentences of how this study findings are consistent with Tanaka et al. or not in the discussion section.

5. Although the authors do note that the purpose of social isolation has not been explored, but perhaps providing their employment/income status could be a good reference point for future studies. It could help future researchers identify whether income/education really matter when it comes to individuals isolating themselves in other country contexts.

6. On lines 341 the author(s) mention that “In our study, the number of individuals with high levels of social isolation who were intentionally socially isolated or enjoyed solitude was unclear; however, it could be inferred that there was a certain number”. Can you explicitly state the number? Or what exactly is it that you are referring to (how do you infer)? At present, it is confusing and unclear to the reader.

Answer)

We thank the reviewer for these comments. Comments 4 through 6 were similar and were therefore answered together in this section.

In our study, 7.3% of participants with high levels of social isolation were highly educated (college graduates or higher). However, we avoided discussing this study because we lacked data (income and economic status) to examine its consistency with the study by Tanaka et al. (2020).

Additions & Corrections)

Section: Results

> Table 3 and P17 L236-246

The number and percentage of people in the analyzed data for employment status and education status are shown in Table 3.

(Income data was not obtained and could not be displayed.)

Section: Discussion

> P26 L350-355

Before revision) In our study, the number of individuals with high levels of social isolation who were intentionally socially isolated or enjoyed solitude was unclear; however, it could be inferred that there was a certain number.

After revision) In our study, the number of individuals with high levels of social isolation who were intentionally socially isolated or enjoyed solitude was unclear; however, it could be inferred that there was a certain number of them. Because among the participants with high social isolation, the percentages of those with high Shiawase and Ikigai scores were 42.4% (n=103) and 48.4% (n=119), respectively. These people may be intentionally socially isolated or may enjoy solitude.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0297837.s007.docx (25KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Sayani Das

14 Jan 2024

Impact of subjective well-being on physical frailty in middle-aged and elderly Japanese with high social isolation

PONE-D-23-19593R2

Dear Dr. TANABE,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sayani Das, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author(s) have addressed all concerns in the revision sufficiently. I have no further comments. Will be happy to cite this work in the future.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Sayani Das

17 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-19593R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. TANABE,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Sayani Das

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. AIC scores in clustering of social isolation by PLSA.

    (TIF)

    pone.0297837.s001.tif (225.2KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Bayesian network about C2.

    (TIF)

    pone.0297837.s002.tif (1.7MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Bayesian network about C3.

    (TIF)

    pone.0297837.s003.tif (1.5MB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Bayesian network about C4.

    (TIF)

    pone.0297837.s004.tif (1.4MB, tif)
    S1 Table. Characteristics of each cluster by probabilistic inference.

    (TIF)

    pone.0297837.s005.tif (245.8KB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0297837.s006.docx (31.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0297837.s007.docx (25KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of the contract with the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW). Data are available from the MHLW Grants system (contact via e-mail; mhlw-grants@niph.go.jp) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from MHLW Grants system. The contact information for the MHLW Grants system is listed below. MHLW Grants system 2-3-6, Minami, Wako, Saitama 351-0197, Japan e-mail: mhlw-grants@niph.go.jp URL: https://mhlw-grants.niph.go.jp/ Tel: +81-4-8458-6210


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES