Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0286490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286490

Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among community-dwelling young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in China: A study protocol for intervention development

Ya Shi 1,2,*, Emma Stanmore 1,3,4,5, Lisa McGarrigle 1,3,4, Chris Todd 1,3,4,5
Editor: Sayani Das6
PMCID: PMC10977808  PMID: 38547178

Abstract

Possible sarcopenia refers to low muscle strength. Prevalence of possible sarcopenia is estimated to be significantly higher in community-dwelling older adults than that of confirmed or severe sarcopenia. However, there are currently far fewer non-pharmacological intervention strategies for possible sarcopenia than for sarcopenia in the community. Meanwhile, one type of non-pharmacological intervention in sarcopenic area, health education, is under-researched, and older people’s awareness about sarcopenia is extremely low, necessitating an immediate dissemination tool for prevention. Social media may be a potential, scalable, low-cost tool for this. This study protocol outlines how a social media-based multicomponent intervention will be co-designed with stakeholders to address this evidence gap. Guided by the Medical Research Council’s framework, the proposed research covers two phases that employ a co-design approach to develop a theory-based multicomponent intervention to increase sarcopenia prevention in the community. The participants will be recruited from young-old adults (60~69) with possible sarcopenia in the community of Changsha, China. Maximum sample size will be 45 participants in total, with 18~25 participants in the development phase and 15~20 participants in the pre-test phase. During two rounds of focus groups with older adults, a social-media based intervention strategy will be developed from a theory-based conceptual model and an initial intervention plan formulated by the research group. After this, there will be a three-week pre-test phase, followed by a semi-structured interview to further modify the theory-based conceptual model and the social-media based intervention strategy. The focus of the data analysis will be on thematic analysis of qualitative data primarily derived from the group interview and the semi-structured interview with key stakeholders.

Introduction

Possible or probable sarcopenia refers to low muscle strength, which is a relatively new classification proposed by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2, 2018) [1] and the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS, 2019) [2]. The prevalence of possible sarcopenia is quite high among community-dwelling older adults. According to a latest population-based longitudinal study conducted in China, the estimated prevalence of older adults aged 60 years and over with possible sarcopenia in the community was 46.0% [3]. Pérez-Sousa et al. [4] investigated 5237 Colombian older adults aged≥60 years and found that the prevalence of probable sarcopenia was as high as 46.5%. Several recent cross-sectional studies also reported a high prevalence of possible sarcopenia in older population living in the community, with 26.9% in Swiss (>60y) [5], 25.4% in Greek (≥75y) [6], 23.7% in Korean (≥65y) [7]. Besides, Wu et al. [8] discovered that the prevalence of possible sarcopenia (38.5%) among Chinese older people in the community was significantly higher than that of confirmed (18.6%) and severe (8.0%) sarcopenia.

The young-old age group has a high prevalence of possible sarcopenia, but relatively fewer intervention methods, requiring additional focus. Up to 71% of the participants in the longitudinal study conducted in China who reported possible sarcopenia were between 60 and 70 years of age [3]. More than half (52%) of the older Colombians diagnosed with possible sarcopenia in the cross-sectional study were aged 60 to 69 years [4]. Wu et al. [9] examined that the prevalence of possible sarcopenia among adults aged 55 years and older at 11 rural community daycare centres in Taiwan was as high as 68.7%. In addition, our recent scoping review about the non-pharmacological interventions for possible sarcopenia or sarcopenia revealed that 70-79-year-olds (64.8%) have been studied more than 60-69-year-olds (18.5%) in community-dwelling older adults, and the number of interventions for possible sarcopenia (11.9%) was significantly lower than for sarcopenia (72.9%) [10]. However, both the EWGSOP2 and AWGS2019 recommend possible sarcopenia as an important threshold to trigger assessment of causes and initiate intervention in medical practice [1,2].

Non-pharmacological interventions are essencial for sarcopenia prevention, but health education is under-researched and public awareness about sarcopenia is extremely low. Health Education, as defined by the World Health Organization, refers to the deliberate creation of learning opportunities that involve communication aimed at enhancing health literacy. This includes improving knowledge and developing life skills that promote individual and community health [11]. A cross-sectional study examined the current knowledge of middle-aged and older adults in Netherlands regarding sarcopenia and showed that only 9% of participants (57.0~75.1y) reported knowing what sarcopenia is [12]. EWGSOP2, AWGS2019, and some researchers recommend facilitating timely lifestyle interventions and related health education for primary health care in community and prevention settings, which will increase awareness of sarcopenia prevention and intervention in diverse health care settings [1,2,1315]. Nevertheless, our scoping review found that there were 142 intervention groups designed in 59 studies for preventing possible sarcopenia or sarcopenia in the community, but the proportion of intervention groups containing health education components (15.5%) was substantially lower than those containing exercise or nutrition components (52.8% and 34.5%, respectively) [10]. In 22 intervention groups containing health education components, up to 18 groups (81.8%) provided education materials unrelated to sarcopenia, which may be the primary reason for unsatisfactory results of existing health education [10]. Furthermore, this scoping review identified only three traditional forms of health education, including group-based classes, face-to-face interactions and leaflets/materials [10], which appears to be significantly fewer than the forms of health education in other chronic diseases, like digital health education on diabetes management [16] and social media as an educational platform on hypertension [1719]. An integrative review indicated that technologies promoting health education for older adults in the community also included software, videos, mock-up and so on [20].

In the context of an Internet era and in light of the increased use of digital tools during the covid-19 pandemic, social media may be a promising medium for health education to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness of disease prevention among older adults. For instance, a pilot study in United States demonstrated that a social media-based (WeChat) health education was feasible, acceptable, and potentially efficacious in self-management education of older adults with type 2 diabetes [21]. Another qualitative research found that a photography-based, social media (Facebook) walking game was well received by older women and also benefited for increasing their motivation for physical activity, fostering a shift in perspective, increasing their knowledge, and providing health-related benefits to them [22]. TikTok, a platform for sharing short videos, has been phenomenal since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and has reached Chinese seniors [23] by providing simple video-editing tools [24] and catering to specific informational and practical needs [25,26]. A qualitative research showed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, WeChat and TikTok played a significant role in providing older Chinese adults with access to valuable health information; and many older adults were able to modify their health behaviours after incorporating this information and knowledge into their daily lives [27]. Kassamali et al. [28] reported that TikTok held great potential as a platform for disseminating educational information about disease, as their study indicated that the number of views for the hashtag such as #acne, #alopecia, #cyst, #rosacea, and #psoriasis on TikTok doubled in just 5 months. Nonetheless, there are currently no studies utilizing social media for sarcopenia prevention. Hence, TikTok may be a valuable platform for attempting to develop a short-video-based intervention strategy to prevent sarcopenia in Chinese older adults.

This research programme was founded on behaviour change theories. Previous researches have already demonstrated that exercise could improve sarcopenic indices in sarcopenia patients [2931], but the maintenance of improvements in long-term behaviour change in community-dwelling older adults with sarcopenia is unclear [10]. Strong evidence indicates that successful behaviour change interventions in physical activity include several key components, such as theoretical framework, useful intervention components, and behaviour change techniques [3235]. Therefore, this study constructed a new conceptual model primarily guided by Michie et al.’s Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) [32] and the conceptual model for Lifestyle- integrated Functional Exercise using smartphones and smartwatches (eLiFE) [33], with the objective of developing intervention content and monitoring process. BCW is a framework (S1 Fig) [32] mainly for developing intervention content for behaviour change, and several studies have demonstrated its efficacy and recommended its use in interventions for older adults [36,37]. In addition, the intervention phase was derived from the eLiFE conceptual model (S2 Fig) [33], which assists older adults in forming long-term physical activity habits through the use of a mobile app, and the eLiFE programme was shown to be feasible and safe for young seniors [38]. We integrated the BCW and eLiFE conceptual models to create a new SHEEP conceptual model for preventing sarcopenia among older people (Fig 1).

Fig 1. SHEEP conceptual model.

Fig 1

This is the initial version of the model, which was plan to undergo further modification as the research advances. The complete designations of the abbreviations in this model are as follows: C-Ps, psychological capability; C-Ph, physical capability; M-Re, reflective motivation; M-Au, automatic motivation; O-Ph, physical opportunity; O-So, social opportunity.

To improve the acceptability of the theory-based intervention strategy among older individuals, co-design method will be employed. Strong evidence found that patients (even those close to death) and their families were consistently willing to engage in research [39]. Co-design in health care services typically refers to active collaboration between researchers, specialists, health care professionals, and non-academic partners such as patients or family members who are regarded as ‘experts of their experiences’ [4042]. In recent years, co-design methods have been utilised extensively in health care interventions, for example, a co-designed mHealth programme to promote healthy lifestyles [43], a co-designed intervention to improve communication about the heart failure trajectory [44], and co-designing complex interventions with people living with dementia and their carers [45]. Whether it is used for research or service improvement, co-design has been proved to be beneficial for study projects, users and services [40,4348]. There is currently no evidence of co-design in the field of sarcopenia research, making the exploration of this study particularly valuable.

Study aims and objectives

The overall aim of this research is to develop a theory-based and social-media based intervention for preventing possible sarcopenia through behaviour change in community-dwelling young-older adults. More specifically, the main objectives are: 1) To co-design a multicomponent intervention (health education plus exercise) strategy based on the SHEEP Conceptual Model; 2) To conduct a pre-test stage to refine both the intervention strategy and the SHEEP Conceptual Model. Thus, the following research questions will be posed: 1) What intervention contents should be included in different part of health education and exercise training? 2) How to ensure the correct dose of health education and exercise (in terms of frequency, intensity, and duration) can be achieved using a social-media based approach?

Materials and methods

Study design

The SHEEP programme was structured under the guidance of the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) for developing and evaluating complex interventions [49]. This research protocol outlined the initial stage (intervention development) in the MRC’s guidance. Co-design method is the most crucial technique for completing the formulation of a social-media based intervention strategy to prevent sarcopenia among targeted population in this project. According to the five guiding principles and systematic framework proposed by Leask et al. [50] for designing, implementing, and evaluating co-designed public health interventions, consideration is given to first completing the designing phase in this study, in order to formulate a social-media based intervention strategy that incorporates the perspectives of the relevant stakeholders. This includes the preparing, developing, and pre-test phases (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Flow chart of this research protocol.

Fig 2

The study encompasses three main phases: preparation, development, and pre-test, which was plan to be completed during January to August, 2023.

· Preparing: In January and February of 2023, the research team developed an initial intervention plan based on literature reviews, the SHEEP Conceptual Model, and consultations with specialists regarding health education and exercise contents, frequency, intensity, and duration.

· Developing: Between March and June of 2023, there were two rounds of focus groups in the development procedure. Each round included three focus groups, to which older adults with possible sarcopenia were invited. The aim of the first round of focus groups was to discuss the initial intervention plan’s flaws with participants and adapt it to the needs of the target population; we then created short videos based on the revised plan. The purpose of the second round of focus groups was to modify the content of each short video further.

· Pre-test: During July and August of 2023, a pre-test process was conducted with the goal of refining the SHEEP conceptual model and optimising the social-media-based intervention strategy and intervention process.

Research setting

The entire study will be conducted at the Community Nursing Department of Xiang Ya Nursing School, Central South University, or within their cooperative community in Changsha, Human Province, China. It should be noted that the recruitment process will take place in a location that participants prefer based on their individual needs, such as the home of older participants or an office provided by our collaborator at Xiang Ya Nursing School or in the community. In addition, the co-design process will take place in an office provided by Xiang Ya Nursing School or the community, depending on the preference of the majority of participants within each focus group. However, if face-to-face focus groups are prohibited by local policy due to an outbreak, we will switch to online focus groups using Tencent Conference Software.

Research participants

Although different scholars interpreted the definition of "young-old" differently, such as 60–69 years or 65–74 years [51,52], based on the fact that this study will be conducted in China, 60–69 years is considered young-old for the purposes of this study. Participants must satisfy the following inclusion criteria: (1) 60~69 years old; (2) Chinese residing in the community; (3) using TikTok prior to recruitment; (4) individuals with possible sarcopenia, as defined by low Grip Strength [M:<28 kg, F:<18kg] [2], which will be measured with a digital handheld dynamometer (EH101, Xiangshan Inc, Guangdong, China); (5) informed consent to screening and research. The following are the criteria for exclusion: (1) unable to communicate or independently complete learning on TikTok in Chinese; (2) with serious or unstable medical illness, such as severe cardiovascular or respiratory conditions, mental disorder, dementia, etc.; (3) sufficient physical activity (≥ 150mins/week) [53,54].

Sampling method and sample size

Purposive sampling will be used to select relevant stakeholders. To avoid bias against subgroups, we will select older adults based on their gender (male and female) and age (60~65y and 66~69y). We aim to recruit a maximum sample of 45 older adults in total. For developing phase, 18~25 older adults will be recruited to participate in focus groups (with a 10~15% attrition rate), and then invited to take part in both the first and the second round of focus groups. Each round will consist of three focus groups, with 18~25 participants divided into three groups of at least six members each, which is based on the recommendations of Leask et al. [50] that 10~12 co-creators in total is advised in co-design research and the Guidelines for Conducting a Focus Group that suggests six to ten people will be appropriate for a focus group [55]. Besides, we require 15~20 additional participants for the pre-test phase. In the two phases of our study, participants have the option of participating in only focus groups, only pre-test, or both focus groups and pre-test.

Recruitment, consent and withdrawal

With the assistance of the cooperative community health centre’s medical staff, we will first employ a population-based method to identify suitable subjects. First, we will visit a community health centre and inform health professionals about the case finding method, in which older individuals with the following clinical conditions are susceptible to possible sarcopenia: functional decline or limitation; unintentional weight loss; depressive mood; repeated falls; malnutrition; chronic conditions like heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, etc. Second, we will only request that health professionals identify potential participants, not that they provide us with access to their medical records. We will provide health professionals with recruitment leaflets, and they will assist us in distributing the leaflets to potential population who visit the community health centre. Third, we will also send electronic recruitment leaflets to community WeChat groups through the assistance of health professionals. If potential participants are interested in this study after reviewing the leaflet, they can contact the researcher via the email address or telephone number listed on the leaflet. Researchers will meet with older adults in their homes or at the community health centre, based on their preference, and then present our research in depth in person. If they are truly interested, we will implement a screening assessment to ensure they meet the aforementioned eligibility requirements.

Potential participants who meet the eligibility requirements will be provided with a Full Explanation of Research that informs them of the detailed research content, the confidentiality of personal information, the potential benefits, the potential risks, and a coping strategy for the risks, should they wish to know. A Participant Information Sheet will be provided to subjects who are still interested and willing to participate in the study, and time will be allowed for consideration (at least 24 hours). Those who agree to participate in the study will be required to provide written or verbal informed consent prior to data collection. If participants choose verbal consent, researchers will read each statement of the consent form and request their response via a dedicated mobile phone. Verbal consent will be separately recorded and stored.

Participants will be permitted to withdraw at any time without providing a reason. If participants have already participated in the focus group or in the pre-test phase, their contribution will not be retracted as it contributes to a broader discussion; however, no excerpts from their contributions during the discussions will be used in any report or presentation. Besides, researchers will evaluate participants’ capacity to participate in the study and complete the intervention; if they are deemed incapable of providing consent, they will be withdrawn from the study, but the data already collected will be retained.

Research ethics

This study has been approved by the University of Manchester Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 15664), and permissions have already been granted by collaborators in the Community Nursing Department of Xiang Ya Nursing School, Central South University, China.

Study procedures

We will adhere to the five key principles and systematic framework for co-designed public health interventions proposed by Leask et al. [50] throughout the entire research procedure. The five key principles are defining the purpose of the study, sampling, manifesting ownership, defining the procedure, and evaluating (the process and the intervention), all of which were structured into multiple sections to provide a systematic framework for the iterative co-creation process, including planning, conducting, reflecting, evaluating, and reporting (S3 Fig) [50]. As the study’s sole objective is intervention development, we have modified our study procedure into three phases: preparing, developing, and pre-test, while still adhering to the aforementioned rules of principles and systematic framework.

· Preparing phase (initial intervention content, frequency and duration)

Based on previous literatures and the SHEEP conceptual model, we have formulated an initial intervention plan that includes health education and exercise, which will be modified in January and February 2023 after consultation with specialists in the field of sarcopenia and exercise for older adults.

Regarding health education, the curriculum would cover nine topics: What exactly is sarcopenia? What is sarcopenia’s prevalence in older adults? What are the negative effects of sarcopenia? What factors contribute to sarcopenia? What clinical symptoms are associated with sarcopenia? What should you do if you suspect sarcopenia? What effects does physical activity have? What physical activities can help prevent sarcopenia in older adults? What other evidence exists for preventing sarcopenia in older adults living in the community? The contents will be modified and expanded in the future, and will also be presented in short videos with language that Chinese older adults can easily comprehend, following the development of focus groups. Regarding intervention frequency, our scoping review found that 68.2% of health education groups for sarcopenia prevention recommended education frequency less than once per week [10]. This was relatively short and not equal to the frequency of physical activity (2–3 times/week) and/or nutrition groups (per day) [10], while this seems somewhat imbalanced. In order to facilitate comparison with the exercise group in future RCT trials, we initially set the frequency of health education at 3 times/ week. In addition, the duration per video is set to less than 5 minutes to aid the memory of older individuals. However, these parameters may be modified after the development and pre-test phases.

In terms of exercise, resistance exercise (RE) will be the primary form of training for sarcopenia prevention, but specific motions must be selected and adapted in the co-design stage based on the characteristics of the Chinese older population. Systematic review and meta-analysis provided robust evidence that RE programmes can improve muscle mass and strength in middle-aged and older adults [56,57]. Aside from RE, we also consider a combination of other exercise modes including balance training (BT) and aerobic training (AT), as older adults with sarcopenia are also likely to be at an increased risk for falls [58] and exhibit reduced cardiorespiratory fitness [59]. It should be noted that there are currently no specific RE guidelines for possible sarcopenia; therefore, we will refer to the individualised prescription of RE for older adults with sarcopenia (Table 1) [60], which will be modified during the course of this study to make it more feasible for the target population. Frequency and duration of exercise are progressive from the beginning to the end of the intervention, with frequency increasing from 3 days/week to 4 days/week and duration increasing from 20mins/session to 40mins/session; as the National Health Service (NHS) and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend older individuals at least 2 days/week and 150mins/week of activities to strengthen muscles [53,54]. Similarly with health education, all exercise components will be refined and produced as short videos following the development phase. Hence, the initial multicomponent exercise strategy contains warm-up training, aerobic training, balance training, resistance training, and flexibility training to cool down (Table 2).

Table 1. RE prescription of exercise for older adults with sarcopenia, Hurst et al. 2022 [60].
Dimensions Criteria
Principles of exercise training specificity, overload and progression
Training frequency two sessions per week
Exercise selection lower body (Squat/leg press, Knee extension, leg curl, calf raise), upper body (chest press, seated row, pull down)
Exercise intensity repetition-continuum based prescription (40~60% 1RM progressing to 70~85% 1RM), Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)-based prescription (RPE 3~5 on Category Ratio 10 scale progressing to RPE 6~8)
Exercise volume 1~3 sets of 6~12 repetitions
Rest periods within session (60~120s between sets and 3~5mins between exercises), between sessions (at least 48 h)
Table 2. Example of exercises for different exercise type.
Exercise type Example of exercises
Warm-up training marching, side taps, head circles, shoulder lift, shoulder circles, side bends, trunk twist
Aerobic training marches and bigger, side steps, double side steps, high-fives under crotch, knee lifts with hands down, knee lifts with punch first, front lunges, simple jumping jacks
Balance training Flamingo swing, heel walking, Tandem walking, upward reach balance
Resistance training sit to stand strength, outer thigh strength standing, stride knee bends strength, wrist strength, front arm strength, back arm strength, wall press up
Flexibility training back of upper arm stretch, upwards side stretch, inner thigh stretch, back of thigh stretch

· Development phase

The development stage mainly includes two rounds of consultation with patient and public involvement (PPI) members and two rounds of focus groups to facilitate the development of an acceptable SHEEP intervention strategy for the targeted older population.

The first round of PPI consultation will be conducted face-to-face with six to eight young-old seniors between the ages of 60 and 69, who will be selected using convenience sampling methods. The purpose of this consultation is to gain preliminary understanding of the ability of Chinese young-old adults to understand and undertake the intervention; and to solicit their feedback on the content and duration of the initial SHEEP health education. Principal participants in the second round of PPI consultation will include a gerontologist, a geriatric nurse, a rehabilitation physician, and a rehabilitation nurse from Xiangya Nursing School and Xiangya Second Affiliated Hospital, Central South University, China. The gerontologist and geriatric nurse should have rich experience of geriatric health education, and their consultation is intended to make the SHEEP health education strategy more systematic, detailed, and in line with lay language requirements for Chinese older adults. Likewise, the purpose of the consultation with the rehabilitation physician and nurse with deep knowledge of geriatric sports medicine is to revise the SHEEP exercise intervention to ensure its safety and suitability for older people.

Using topic guides, at least two rounds of focus groups comprised of older adults with possible sarcopenia will be conducted (Fig 3). There will be at least six older adults in each focus group during each round. The optimal time allotted for each focus group is 45 to 90 minutes, during which no more than twelve predetermined questions are discussed [55]. If face-to-face focus groups are prohibited by local epidemic policy, we will consider conducting online focus groups instead. The purpose of the first round of focus groups is to discuss the problems in the paper version of the initial intervention plan and modify it based on the suggestions of our participants to better fit the targeted population. Following this, we will create short videos based on the revised paper plan. The short videos will include two categories of short instructional videos for TikTok: health education and exercise (Fig 4). Then, the second round of focus groups will seek to modify the content of each short video further. If there are numerous issues with short videos, we will consider conducting a third round of focus groups to review all of the revised short videos and ensure that each segment is appropriate for our stakeholders and free of controversy.

Fig 3. Topic guide of two rounds of focus groups.

Fig 3

The topic guide described in this diagram is just a preliminary idea, and the specific details was plan be presented in the real practice stage.

Fig 4. Instructional video examples for TikTok.

Fig 4

The instruction videos can be divided into two categories, including health education videos and exercise videos. The animation figure shown here is merely a preliminary example, and the actual video content was plan to be shown after the study is complete.

·Pre-test phase

We will then obtain a fully theory-based conceptual model and a social-media based intervention strategy, which will be tested and modified in a small pre-feasibility study during three weeks. One week prior to pre-test, we will conduct a training session to instruct participants on how to follow our TikTok account, find our short videos, and provide us with feedback during the pre-test phase. Following the commencement of pre-test, we will distribute nine health education videos over the course of three weeks, three short videos per week; concurrently, we will schedule weekly comprehensive exercise videos, including balance training, aerobic training, and resistance training videos. The primary observations and modifications pertain to the conceptual model, intervention strategy, and intervention process, such as the researchers’ guiding process and older adults’ learning process. We will use success criteria (Fig 5) to determine whether to proceed to the subsequent phase. Each of the success criteria will be graded on a scale from one to five: completely substandard, a small portion of the standard, fifty percent of the standard, the majority of the standard, and completely up to standard. We will establish the pass criterion as meeting more than 80% of the total success criteria; if not, we will revise it to enter the next round of three-week pre-test; if it is met, we will refine it and enter the next phase, a feasibility study.

Fig 5. A brief diagram of pre-test procedure.

Fig 5

The intervention strategy in this diagram is just an example using for demonstration, which was plan to be modified and refined during the study period. The complete designations of the abbreviations in this diagram are as follows: STV, skill training video; HEV, health education video; BTV, balance training video; ATV, aerobic training video; RTV, resistance training video; SV, summary video; R, rest.

We will mainly collect two categories of data from participants, including intervention compliance and centralized feedback, in order to verify the appropriate contents and the correct dose of health education and exercise (in terms of frequency, intensity, and duration) can be achieved using a social-media-based approach.

  1. Intervention compliance: Depending on their preference, participants can inform researchers of their completion of viewing instructional videos and physical activity via phone call or text message. To monitor participant compliance, the researcher will keep a three-week diary for each participant using a dedicated mobile phone that is not a personal own. The researcher will purchase a new SIM card and dedicated phone number in China for this study.

  2. Centralized feedback: This will be a semi-structured interview conducted face-to-face or over the phone in order to delve into the essence of problems and solicit suggestions for future revision. The semi-structured questions would be like: How do you feel throughout the entire pre-test phase? What do you think about the social media-based health education in pre-test phase? How to improve the social- media based health education? What do you think about the social-media based physical activity in pre-test phase? How to improve the social-media based physical activity? In addition to health education and physical activity, what other aspects of this project do you believe require improvement? What do you believe the challenges will be if this programme is extended to a greater number of older individuals with possible muscle loss?

Moreover, researchers should document issues that arise during the guiding process, such as uploading videos to TikTok, distributing notices in TikTok groups, monitoring and recording compliance of behaviour change, and determining whether communication on TikTok is efficient.

Data collection and analysis

To promote the collection of high-quality data, the assessors will double-check the collected data, and a statistician will examine the range of values. All data will be saved on servers or computers that are certified by the University of Manchester and have safe backup systems. The data will be analyzed in China, in accordance with the data management plan.

As for quantitative data analysis, descriptive statistics will be utilised to summarise the percentage of recruitment, baseline participant characteristics (e.g. age, gender, and educational background), attrition rate, compliance rate, etc. All statistical analyses will be conducted using SPSS Statistics 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). P Values <0.05 will be interpreted as indicating significance.

Regarding the collection of qualitative data, all face-to-face recordings of group interviews in focus groups and final semi-structured interviews in the pre-test phase will be audio recorded using an encrypted digital recorder. If face-to-face meetings are prohibited by local epidemic policy, the focus group will be conducted using Tencent Conference Software, which can encrypt meetings to protect participants’ privacy, and only audio of the group meeting will be captured via the cloud recording function. In addition, if participants prefer a telephone interview for the final semi-structured interview, the conversation will be recorded on an encrypted dictaphone. All encrypted recordings will be uploaded to a secure server at the University of Manchester and then deleted from the recording device and Tencent Conference cloud. Moreover, each interview will last between 30 minutes and one hour, and participants will only be asked to participate in one.

During the data analysis stage, qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and potentially identifying information will be removed. The transcripts will be compared to the original recordings, corrected as needed, and anonymized. To become familiar with qualitative data, researchers must first read all transcripts. Themes will be developed based on the interview guide and research team discussion in order to identify the key characteristics of the qualitative data. Then, codes will be generated for each line of each transcript and categorised accordingly. Before finalising the major themes, each category must be re-evaluated and scrutinised, and groups of major categories will be refined. Two researchers will perform and review the coding process to ensure a double check, followed by a discussion to ensure the validity of the data. To increase the transparency of the interpretation, the Chinese-to-English and English-to-Chinese translation of quotations will be performed in this study. QSR International’s NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software will be used to assist and facilitate the coding and analysis process.

Trial monitoring

The principal investigator will oversee participant recruitment, intervention development and pre-test stage. In addition, one community leader in the cooperative community health centre will assume overall responsibility for participant identification, recruitment, and pre-test. One team comprised of research professionals and academic experts from the United Kingdom and China will be responsible for ensuring the overall quality of research data. All principal researchers will hold a monthly online meeting to report on the project’s progress and discuss its problems and solutions. A thorough risk assessment has been conducted, and potential patient, organisational, and study hazards, as well as their likelihood of occurrence and potential consequences, have been considered.

Discussion

We have presented a protocol for developing a theory-based and social-media based multicomponent intervention (health education + exercise) with the co-design method in community-dwelling young-older adults to prevent possible sarcopenia. This research project was inspired by the opportunities afforded by the development of digital technologies. The World Health Organization announced a Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020–2024 with the mission to "improve health for everyone, everywhere by accelerating the adoption of appropriate digital health [61]." Thus, digital health has the potential to be a paradigm shifter in terms of enhancing information, education, communication, health monitoring, diagnostics, and data management [62]. There are few internet-based interventions for sarcopenia prevention. One study in China involved a 12-week intervention of 234 older adults with sarcopenia and revealed that nutrition interventions through an app were effective in optimising the diets and increasing the skeletal muscle mass [63]. Another study conducted a randomized controlled trial on 23 participants and indicated that supervised resistance exercise through a video conferencing software (Skype™) had positive effects on sarcopenia-related factors among community-dwelling senior citizens in South Korea [64]. However, social media-based interventions to prevent sarcopenia have not yet been reported, so this project is novel. The SHEEP programme was conceived against such a backdrop.

This project has some strengths. First of all, SHEEP has considerable potential as it can meet the needs of the information age, providing targeted timely intervention to older people through social media. This offers numerous advantages in terms of accessibility, time and cost savings, and continuity of care. In addition, SHEEP was structured under the guidance of the MRC for developing and evaluating complex interventions [49], and the sound construction method could enhance the repeatability of the study. Moreover, the intervention’s content and process were developed based on a theoretical framework, thereby enhancing its credibility.

This research has several limitations. First, as the proposed study focuses solely on intervention development, the sample size will be small; consequently, it may not be representative of the entire Chinese older population. Second, older adults who are unfamiliar with TikTok or lack Internet and modern communication technology access or proficiency were excluded from the recruitment stage, which may result in a less diverse sample. Third, because of the short duration of the pre-test phase, we will not draw any conclusions about the intervention effectiveness, which will be evaluated in a subsequent study. In addition, the study findings are unique to the community setting and population in China and may not be generalised to other settings or countries. Nevertheless, this study will demonstrate whether the social-media based intervention content, frequency, duration, process are appropriate to young-older adults with possible sarcopenia.

Finally, the findings from the two rounds of focus groups in this programme will be a SHEEP conceptual model and a multicomponent intervention strategy, which will not only effectively compensate for the deficiencies of health education in the field of sarcopenia, but will also provide a theoretical framework for the transformation from knowledge to behaviour change of sarcopenia intervention based on social media, with the aim of establishing a theoretical foundation for sarcopenia intervention development. In addition, the results of observation and interviews in this study will provide researchers with information on the habits of Chinese older adults who use social media for health education learning and exercise. Furthermore, the comprehensive co-design procedure will build a foundation for co-design research in the field of sarcopenia. Additionally, the health education and exercise video resources will serve as valuable reference materials for intervention by other researchers. All of these findings will serve as evidence for our future feasibility study and will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant conferences, and all relevant data will be made available within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files, in order to serve as valuable resources, references, and directions for other researchers in related fields.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Behaviour change wheel.

(TIF)

pone.0286490.s001.tif (2.2MB, tif)
S2 Fig. eLiFE conceptual model.

(TIF)

pone.0286490.s002.tif (1.8MB, tif)
S3 Fig. Iterative co-creation process.

(TIF)

pone.0286490.s003.tif (786.2KB, tif)

Data Availability

Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.

Funding Statement

Y.S. is funded by the University of Manchester - China Scholarship Council Joint Scholarship (202108320049), and C.T. is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Senior Investigator Award (NIHR200299). The funders did not have any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019; 48(1):16–31. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chen LK, Woo J, Assantachai P, Auyeung TW, Chou MY, Iijima K, et al. Asian working group for sarcopenia: 2019 consensus update on sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020; 21(3): 300–307 e302. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chen Z, Ho M, Chau PH. Prevalence, Incidence, and Associated Factors of Possible Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Chinese Older Adults: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 8:769708. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.769708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pérez-Sousa MÁ, Pozo-Cruz JD, Cano-Gutiérrez CA, Izquierdo M, Ramírez-Vélez R. High Prevalence of Probable Sarcopenia in a Representative Sample From Colombia: Implications for Geriatrics in Latin America. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021; 22(4):859–864.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.10.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wearing J, Konings P, de Bie RA, Stokes M, de Bruin ED. Prevalence of probable sarcopenia in community-dwelling older Swiss people—a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2020; 20(1): 307. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01718-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tsekoura M, Billis E, Matzaroglou C, Tsepis E, Gliatis J. Prevalence of probable sarcopenia in community-dwelling older Greek people. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls. 2021; 6(4):204–208. doi: 10.22540/JFSF-06-204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lim SK, Kong S. Prevalence, physical characteristics, and fall risk in older adults with and without possible sarcopenia. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022; 34(6):1365–1371. doi: 10.1007/s40520-022-02078-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wu X, Li X, Xu M, Zhang Z, He L, Li Y. Sarcopenia prevalence and associated factors among older Chinese population: Findings from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. PLoS One. 2021; 16(3):e0247617. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wu YZ, Loh CH, Hsieh JG, Lin SZ. Physical Inactivity and Possible Sarcopenia in Rural Community Daycare Stations of Taiwan: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(4):2182. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19042182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shi Y, Tang Y, Stanmore E, McGarrigle L, Todd C. Non-pharmacological interventions for community-dwelling older adults with possible sarcopenia or sarcopenia: a scoping review. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2023;112:105022. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2023.105022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.World Health Organization. List of Basic Terms. Health Promotion Glossary. 1998: 04. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HPR-HEP-98.1 [Last accessed on 18 Jan. 2024] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Van Ancum JM, Meskers CGM, Reijnierse EM, Yeung SSY, Jonkman NH, Trappenburg MC, et al. Lack of Knowledge Contrasts the Willingness to Counteract Sarcopenia Among Community- Dwelling Adults. J Aging Health. 2020; 32 (7–8):787–794. doi: 10.1177/0898264319852840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gao Q, Hu K, Yan C, Zhao B, Mei F, Chen F, et al. Associated Factors of Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2021; 13(12):4291. doi: 10.3390/nu13124291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kurose S, Nishikawa S, Nagaoka T, Kusaka M, Kawamura J, Nishioka Y, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults visiting regional medical institutions from the Kadoma Sarcopenia Study. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):19129. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76185-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lu Y, Niti M, Yap KB, Tan CTY, Zin Nyunt MS, Feng L, et al. Assessment of Sarcopenia Among Community-Dwelling At-Risk Frail Adults Aged 65 Years and Older Who Received Multidomain Lifestyle Interventions A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open. 2019; 2(10):e1913346. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Huang Z, Semwal M, Lee SY, Tee M, Ong W, Tan WS, et al. Digital Health Professions Education on Diabetes Management: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21(2): e12997. doi: 10.2196/12997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bezzubtseva MV, Demkina AE, Lipilina MN, Benimetskaya KS, Pivenstein AL, Gavrilyuk N D, et al. Video or text? Education through a social media website in hypertension. Int J Cardiol Cardiovasc Risk Prev. 2022; 14: 200139. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcrp.2022.200139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dunn PH, Woo BKP. Facebook advertising for disseminating hypertension knowledge to older Chinese adults. J Hypertens. 2018; 36(4):962. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Woo BKP. Social media as an educational platform on hypertension for Chinese Americans. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2019; 21(6):862. doi: 10.1111/jch.13547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sá GGM, Silva FL, Santos AMRD, Nolêto JDS, Gouveia MTO, Nogueira LT. Technologies that promote health education for the community elderly: integrative review. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2019; 27: e3186. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.3171.3186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hu L, Islam N, Kharmats AY, Tamura K, Yang S, Xu X, et al. A Social Media-Based Intervention Improves Glycemic Control in a Low-Income Older Immigrant Population. Diabetes 2021; 70 (Supplement_1): 1–OR. 10.2337/db21-1-OR33106255 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Robertson MC, Swartz MC, Christopherson U, Bentley JR, Basen-Engquist KM, Thompson D, et al. A Photography-based, Social Media Walking Intervention Targeting Autonomous Motivations for Physical Activity: Semistructured Interviews With Older Women. JMIR Serious Games. 2022; 10(2):e35511. doi: 10.2196/35511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ng R, Indran N. Not Too Old for TikTok: How Older Adults Are Reframing Aging. Gerontologist. 2022; 62(8):1207–1216. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnac055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lu X, Lu Z, Liu C. Exploring TikTok use and non-use practices and experiences in China. In: Meiselwitz G. (Ed.) Social computing and social media. Participation, user experience, consumer experience, and applications of social computing. HCII 2020. Lecture notes in computer science 2020; 12195: 57–70. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-49576-3_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lu X, Lu Z. Fifteen Seconds of Fame: A Qualitative Study of Douyin, A Short Video Sharing Mobile Application in China. Social Computing and Social Media. Design, Human Behavior and Analytics. 2019; 11578: 233–244. 10.1007/978-3-030-21902-4_17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yu X, Zhang Y, Zhang X. The short video usage motivation and behavior of middle-aged and old users. Library Hi Tech. 2022. 10.1108/LHT-09-2021-0318 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chai X. How Has the Nationwide Public Health Emergency of the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Older Chinese Adults’ Health Literacy, Health Behaviours and Practices, and Social Connectedness? Qualitative Evidence From Urban China. Front Public Health. 2022; 9:774675. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.774675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kassamali B, Villa-Ruiz C, Mazori DR, Min M, Cobos GA, LaChance AH. Characterizing top educational TikTok videos by dermatologists in response to "TikTok and dermatology: An opportunity for public health engagement". J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021; 85(1):e27–e28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.02.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bao W, Sun Y, Zhang T, Zou L, Wu X, Wang D, et al. Exercise Programs for Muscle Mass, Muscle Strength and Physical Performance in Older Adults with Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aging Dis. 2020; 11(4):863–873. doi: 10.14336/AD.2019.1012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wu PY, Huang KS, Chen KM, Chou CP, Tu YK. Exercise, Nutrition, and Combined Exercise and Nutrition in Older Adults with Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2021; 145: 38–48. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wang H, Huang WY, Zhao Y. Efficacy of Exercise on Muscle Function and Physical Performance in Older Adults with Sarcopenia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(13): 8212. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19138212 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011; 6:42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Boulton E, Hawley-Hague H, French DP, Mellone S, Zacchi A, Clemson L, et al. Implement -ing behaviour change theory and techniques to increase physical activity and prevent functional decline among adults aged 61–70: The PreventIT project. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2019; 62(2): 147–156. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2019.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Arnautovska U, O’Callaghan F, Hamilton K. Behaviour change techniques to facilitate physical activity in older adults: what and how. Ageing and Society. 2018; 38(12): 2590–2616. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X17001027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gourlan M, Bernard P, Bortolon C, Romain AJ, Lareyre O, Carayol M, et al. Efficacy of theory-based interventions to promote physical activity. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(1): 50–66. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2014.981777 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kwok BC, Wong WP, Remedios L. Improving centre-based group exercise participation of older adults using the behaviour change wheel. BMJ Open Qual. 2021; 10(1):e001078. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Combes S, Forbes G, Gillett K, Norton C, Nicholson CJ. Development of a theory-based intervention to increase cognitively able frail elders’ engagement with advance care planning using the behaviour change wheel. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1): 712. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06548-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Taraldsen K, Mikolaizak AS, Maier AB, Mellone S, Boulton E, Aminian K, et al. Digital Technology to Deliver a Lifestyle-Integrated Exercise Intervention in Young Seniors-The PreventIT Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial. Front Digit Health. 2020; 2:10. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2020.00010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Higginson IJ, Evans CJ, Grande G, Preston N, Morgan M, McCrone P, et al. Evaluating complex interventions in End of Life Care: the MORECare Statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews. BMC Med. 2013; 11: 111. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Thabrew H, Fleming T, Hetrick S, Merry S. Co-design of eHealth Interventions With Children and Young People. Front Psychiatry. 2018; 9: 481. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sleeswijk Visser F, Stappers PJ, van der Lugt R, B-N Sanders E. Context mapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign. 2005; 1(2):119–49. doi: 10.1080/15710880500135987 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Moser SC. Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2016; 20: 106–115. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.10.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ni Mhurchu C, Te Morenga L, Tupai-Firestone R, Grey J, Jiang Y, Jull A, et al. A co-designed mHealth programme to support healthy lifestyles in Māori and Pasifika peoples in New Zealand: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digital Health. 2019; 1(6):e298–e307. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30130-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hjelmfors L, Strömberg A, Friedrichsen M, Sandgren A, Mårtensson J, Jaarsma T. Using co-design to develop an intervention to improve communication about the heart failure trajectory and end-of-life care. BMC Palliat Care. 2018;17(1): 85. doi: 10.1186/s12904-018-0340-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lord K, Kelleher D, Ogden M, Mason C, Rapaport P, Burton A, et al. Co-designing complex interventions with people living with dementia and their supporters. Dementia (London). 2022; 21(2): 426–441. doi: 10.1177/14713012211042466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Steen M, Manschot M, De Koning N. Beneits of co-design in service design projects. Int J Design. 2011; 5:53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.04.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Alam I. An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service development. J Acad Market Sci. 2002; 30: 250–261. 10.1177/0092070302303006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hagan P, Collins P, Metcalf A, Nicholas M, Rahilly K, Swainston N. Participatory Design of Evidence-Based Online Youth Mental Health Promotion, Intervention and Treatment. Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne 2012. http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/5349 77 [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical research council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013; 50(5): 587–592. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Altenburg TM, Cardon G, Chinapaw MJM, et al. Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions. Res Involv Engagem. 2019; 5(1): 2. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0136-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Forman DE, Berman AD, McCabe CH, Baim DS, Wei JY. PTCA in the elderly: The "young-old" versus the "old-old". J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992; 40 (1): 19–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1992.tb01823.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zizza CA, Ellison KJ, Wernette CM. Total Water Intakes of Community-Living Middle-Old and Oldest-Old Adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009;64(4): 481–486. doi: 10.1093/gerona/gln045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.National Health Service. Physical activity guidelines for older adults. September 24, 2021. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/exercise-guidelines/physical-activity-guidelines-older-adults/ [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). How much physical activity do older adults need? June 3, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/older_adults/index.htm [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Eliot & Associates. Guidelines for Conducting a Focus Group. 2005. https://irep.olemiss.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/98/2016/05/Trinity_Duke_How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Straight CR, Lindheimer JB, Brady AO, Dishman RK, Evans EM. Effects of resistance training on lower-extremity muscle power in middle-aged and older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sports Med. 2016; 46(3): 353–364. doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0418-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Grgic J, Garofolini A, Orazem J, Sabol F, Schoenfeld BJ, Pedisic Z. Effects of resistance training on muscle size and strength in very elderly adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sports Med. 2020; 50(11): 1983–1999. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01331-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Yeung SSY, Reijnierse EM, Pham VK, Trappenburg MC, Lim WK, Meskers CGM, et al. Sarcopenia and its association with falls and fractures in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019; 10(3): 485–500. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Chien MY, Kuo HK, Wu YT. Sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary fitness, and physical disability in community-dwelling elderly people. Phys Ther. 2010; 90(9): 1277–1287. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hurst C, Robinson SM, Witham MD, Dodds RM, Granic A, Buckland C, et al. Resistance exercise as a treatment for sarcopenia: prescription and delivery. Age Ageing. 2022; 51(2): afac003. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Labrique A, Vasudevan L, Mehl G, Rosskam E, Hyder AA. Digital Health and Health Systems of the Future. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2018; 6(Suppl 1):S1–S4. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-18-00342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Dhingra D, Dabas A. Global Strategy on Digital Health. Indian Pediatr. 2020; 57(4):356–358. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/344249 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wang Z, Xu X, Gao S, Wu C, Song Q, Shi Z, et al. Effects of Internet-Based Nutrition and Exercise Interventions on the Prevention and Treatment of Sarcopenia in the Elderly. Nutrients. 2022; 14(12):2458. doi: 10.3390/nu14122458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Hong J, Kim J, Kim SW, Kong HJ. Effects of home-based tele-exercise on sarcopenia among community-dwelling elderly adults: Body composition and functional fitness. Exp Gerontol. 2017; 87(Pt A): 33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2016.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sayani Das

9 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-14790Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community a study protocol for intervention developmentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. SHI,

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.

If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes (or a rebuttal against each point raised) along with the revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 23 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, MPhil

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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167494323001000?via%3Dihub

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/13/2/e067079.full.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13312-020-1789-7

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

7. We note that Figure 7 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b.If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

8. 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. All the components (mainly introduction section) need to be concise and focused as they are currently too lengthy. Kindly condense them appropriately.

2. The Discussion section requires further development. It should begin by providing a concise summary of the main findings, followed by situating them within the existing knowledge base, including relevant theories and empirical literature. Furthermore, it should comprehensively outline the implications of the findings for future research, policy-making, and practical applications.

3. Please provide DOIs for all the references.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

********** 

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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Very well written, just a conclusion needs to be added explaining the future scope of research and how other scholars would benefit from this research.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community a study protocol for intervention development". I would like to commend you for your efforts in researching this topic and for the valuable insights presented in the manuscript. Overall, I believe your study has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of gerontology. However, there are a few areas that require attention and improvement. I have outlined my comments below (also specific suggestions and queries are annotated in a separate pdf file):

Your introduction provides a clear overview of the research problem and its significance. However, I recommend providing specific definition of possible sarcopenia with proper reference to make it more understandable to the readers. Also, I suggest to elaborate the existing literature that have cited, especially the population and area where the study have conducted to better contextualize the study. Emphasise on the previous studies that address social media-based intervention, digital health for older adults etc. This will strengthen the background and rationale for your research.

The ‘Methods and Analysis’ section is well structured, though some sub-sections required more elaboration to better understand your work as well as to replicate this protocol in similar future studies.

The discussion effectively summarizes the key aspects of this study and its requirement in recent decades. However, I encourage you to consider incorporating few relevant studies in the same vein to reflect your scope of plan with others.

Overall, I find your manuscript to be significant and worth considering for publication after addressing the suggestions. I believe that by incorporating these suggestions, your work will significantly enhance its clarity and impact on the field.

********** 

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: Yes: Jagriti Gangopadhyay

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-14790_with comments.pdf

pone.0286490.s004.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0286490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286490.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Aug 2023

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Manuscript ID number: PONE-D-23-14790

Title: Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community: a study protocol for intervention development

Thank you so much for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have revised and responded to each comment in accordance with your suggestion, as demonstrated below.

Journal Requirements

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

We have modified our manuscript according to the requirements of two documents, PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body and PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliation

2.We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

We have cited all appropriate sources, including our own publications, and have rephrased or removed any duplicated text. (P5)

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

We have added a brief explanation in “recruitment, consent and withdrawal” section about when and how informed consent will be obtained from participants, as well as how it should be recorded if consent is given verbally. (P8-9)

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

We have modified the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections as required. (Cover Letter)

5.Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

We have moved the ethics statement to the Methods section. (P9)

6.Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

We have captioned all the figures and saved them individually, and referenced them correctly according to the format requirements. (P16)

7.We note that Figure 7 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

We have substituted the cartoon images in Figure 7 with original images that were drawn by the first author. The two original cartoon characters are portraits of the first author. Therefore, the copyright of the images belongs to the first author, and she agrees to publish them under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0).

8.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.

We have reviewed all the references to ensure their complete and correct. (P16-20)

Editor Comments

1.All the components (mainly introduction section) need to be concise and focused as they are currently too lengthy. Kindly condense them appropriately.

The whole paper including introduction, methods, discussion and references have been reduced from 7450 to 7100 words, especially, the introduction section has been reduced from 1460 to 1250 words.

2.The Discussion section requires further development. It should begin by providing a concise summary of the main findings, followed by situating them within the existing knowledge base, including relevant theories and empirical literature. Furthermore, it should comprehensively outline the implications of the findings for future research, policy-making, and practical applications.

We have modified the discussion section per your insightful suggestion. The first paragraph provides a concise summary of the project, and a comparison to existing literature; the second paragraph describes the strengths of this project; the third paragraph outlines the limitations; and the fourth paragraph discusses the implications of the findings. (P14-15)

3.Please provide DOIs for all the references.

We have added DOIs for all the references. (P16-20)

Reviewers' Comments

Reviewer #1: Very well written, just a conclusion needs to be added explaining the future scope of research and how other scholars would benefit from this research.

Thank you so much for your valuable advice. We have referenced the publisher's recommendations for the protocol format and other publications in this journal, and then included the implications of the findings, the future research scope, and how other scholars can benefit from this study in the final paragraph. (P14-15)

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community a study protocol for intervention development". I would like to commend you for your efforts in researching this topic and for the valuable insights presented in the manuscript. Overall, I believe your study has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of gerontology. However, there are a few areas that require attention and improvement. I have outlined my comments below (also specific suggestions and queries are annotated in a separate pdf file):

Your introduction provides a clear overview of the research problem and its significance. However, I recommend providing specific definition of possible sarcopenia with proper reference to make it more understandable to the readers. Also, I suggest to elaborate the existing literature that have cited, especially the population and area where the study have conducted to better contextualize the study. Emphasise on the previous studies that address social media-based intervention, digital health for older adults etc. This will strengthen the background and rationale for your research.

The ‘Methods and Analysis’ section is well structured, though some sub-sections required more elaboration to better understand your work as well as to replicate this protocol in similar future studies.

The discussion effectively summarizes the key aspects of this study and its requirement in recent decades. However, I encourage you to consider incorporating few relevant studies in the same vein to reflect your scope of plan with others.

Overall, I find your manuscript to be significant and worth considering for publication after addressing the suggestions. I believe that by incorporating these suggestions, your work will significantly enhance its clarity and impact on the field.

Thank you so much for your encouragement and patient guidance. We have carefully read each of your comments in the PDF file and made detailed modifications to the corresponding parts of the manuscript according to your suggestions.

Introduction

1.We have added the definition of possible sarcopenia at the beginning of the introduction section. (P4)

2.We have supplemented all cited studies with corresponding populations and regions in order to facilitate research status comparisons between regions. (P4)

3.We have detailed the findings from our scoping review that were instructive for this study. (P4-5)

4.We have listed several literatures to show that social media may be a promising medium for health education to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness of disease prevention among older adults. (P5)

Methods and Analysis

1.We have specified that the two rounds of focus groups will be conducted with the same participants, and that each round will consist of three groups, and that the participants will be distributed evenly among the three groups. (P8)

2.We have explained the reason that we contemplated setting the frequency of health education at 3 times/week. (P10)

3.To serve as a better resource for other scholars, we have added the initial multicomponent exercise strategy's detailed contents. (P11)

4.We have specified that if 80% of the total success criteria are met during pre-testing, the feasibility study will be initiated; otherwise, it will be modified to require an additional three weeks of pre-testing. (P12)

Discussion

On the basis of your advice, we have added several additional studies to elucidate current internet-based interventions for preventing sarcopenia in order to facilitate a more accurate comparison with this study. (P14-15)

Finally, we really appreciate all the time and effort you put into this document, as well as all your insightful suggestions for revising the manuscript to make it more readable, clear, and academic. Thank you so much once more!

Best wishes

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2023-07-21 Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0286490.s005.docx (50.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Sayani Das

13 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-14790R1Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community a study protocol for intervention developmentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. SHI,

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 Nov 27 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:

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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Appreciate your effort and dedication to addressing the comments/suggestions in improving this manuscript. The study intervention protocol is well described in methods section. Intervention studies in gerontology is utmost required to mitigate the burden of population ageing and to provide good health for older adults.

However, the manuscript required few minor corrections (highlighted in the pdf document).

Reviewer #3: This a a well written protocol. However, some points need clarification

a. Sample size calculation

b. Literacy and social media use of the population studied, If the study protocol personnel want to know Tik Tok use among the population, they could use a better topic, which would be more interesting

c. The setting is a population covered by a Nursing School - who are the content experts in this field who will vet the data and create the health education programs

d. Please clearly define which criteria you are going to use to define possible sarcopenia

e. Addressing possible sarcopenia is a multipronged approach. One intervention - that too unsupervised will not make much of a difference.

f. What are the end points - who will be the judge

**********

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 #2: Yes: Dr. Anushka Ghosh

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-14790_R1_with comments.pdf

pone.0286490.s006.pdf (2.8MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 28;19(3):e0286490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286490.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Nov 2023

Journal Requirements

1.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.

Thank you for this comment. We have reviewed and checked the reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. (P17-21)

Reviewers' Comments

3.Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

We have added more details in methodology section about how to develop the intervention strategy, according to the reviewers’ suggestion. (P12)

4.Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

All of these findings will serve as evidence for our future feasibility study and will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant conferences, in order to serve as valuable resources, references, and directions for other researchers in related fields. (P16)

6.Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Appreciate your effort and dedication to addressing the comments/suggestions in improving this manuscript. The study intervention protocol is well described in methods section. Intervention studies in gerontology is utmost required to mitigate the burden of population ageing and to provide good health for older adults. However, the manuscript required few minor corrections (highlighted in the pdf document).

Thank you so much for your valuable advice. We have carefully read each of your comments in the PDF file and made detailed modifications to the corresponding parts of the manuscript according to your suggestions.

1)We have included the year within parenthesis. (P4)

2)We have moved the definition of “young-old” in this study from the introduction to the methodology. (P4;P8)

3)We have revised the format of the literature citation. (P5)

4)We have rewritten relevant sentences in the past tense in the section of study design. (P7)

5)We have revised the format of the literature citation. (P8)

6)We have deleted an extra comma “,”. (P9)

7)We have rewritten the word “pre-paring” as “preparing”. (P10)

8)We have deleted a repetition “to”. (P11)

Reviewer #3: This a a well written protocol. However, some points need clarification

a.Sample size calculation

Since this study was designed to develop an intervention strategy, there was no formula for sample size calculation. We carefully referred to other similar studies on intervention development to estimate sample size, and we also provided relevant references. (P8)

b.Literacy and social media use of the population studied, If the study protocol personnel want to know Tik-Tok use among the population, they could use a better topic, which would be more interesting

Our goal is not to investigate the use of TikTok in the population. Our fundamental goal is to intervene in older adults with possible sarcopenia. Social media (TikTok) is just a tool for our intervention, and it is an attempt to combine the current trend of social media. The materials could be used in other social media platforms in the future if needed but our choice of TikTok for this study is due to its wide uptake and ability to engage with our study population.

c. The setting is a population covered by a Nursing School - who are the content experts in this field who will vet the data and create the health education programs

The Xiang Ya Nursing School we mentioned is our research partner, and they will provide the necessary experts, research equipment and site support for our study, but they do not participate in the management and analysis of the research data. During the preparing stage, the initial intervention plan was just designed by the research team based on literature reviews and team meetings.

We have added more details about how experts work in our study, as follows. (P12)

The development stage mainly includes two rounds of consultation with patient and public involvement (PPI) members and two rounds of focus groups to facilitate the development of an acceptable SHEEP intervention strategy for the targeted older population.

The first round of PPI consultation will be conducted face-to-face with six to eight young-old seniors between the ages of 60 and 69, who will be selected using convenience sampling methods. The purpose of this consultation is to gain preliminary understanding of the ability of Chinese young-old adults to understand and undertake the intervention; and to solicit their feedback on the content and duration of the initial SHEEP health education. Principal participants in the second round of PPI consultation will include a gerontologist, a geriatric nurse, a rehabilitation physician, and a rehabilitation nurse from Xiangya Nursing School and Xiangya Second Affiliated Hospital, Central South University, China. The gerontologist and geriatric nurse should have rich experience of geriatric health education, and their consultation is intended to make the SHEEP health education strategy more systematic, detailed, and in line with lay language requirements for Chinese older adults. Likewise, the purpose of the consultation with the rehabilitation physician and nurse with deep knowledge of geriatric sports medicine is to revise the SHEEP exercise intervention to ensure its safety and suitability for older people.

d.Please clearly define which criteria you are going to use to define possible sarcopenia

Because this study will be carried out in China, in the section of research participants, we have made it clear that the diagnostic criteria used in this study is the criteria for possible sarcopenia proposed by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS, 2019). (P8)

e.Addressing possible sarcopenia is a multipronged approach. One intervention - that too unsupervised will not make much of a difference.

Our study is to co-design a multicomponent intervention (health education plus exercise) strategy for preventing possible sarcopenia through behaviour change in community-dwelling young-older adults. The purpose of health education is to improve the target population's understanding of the disease of sarcopenia and teach them ways to prevent sarcopenia, while the purpose of exercise is to help the targeted population to develop the habit of regular exercise to achieve long-term prevention of sarcopenia.

It is true that we cannot monitor the whole health education and exercise process of participants, which is the shortcoming of using social media for intervention. We will only conduct weekly follow-up by phone or text message, but in fact, this is one of the feasibility we will explore in this research program, that is, how feasible is using social media to carry out health education and exercise intervention? We will conduct a feasibility study in the next stage. The results of this study program can provide valuable reference for the subsequent research.

f. What are the end points - who will be the judge

As this is a study for intervention development, no one will be judge at the end points. We will collect different opinions from different stakeholders about how to modify the intervention strategy, so the qualitative data from PPI consultation, focus groups and semi-structured interview will be the main results, which will further use to refine the intervention strategy. We (the study team) will use these findings to inform a future definitive study.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0286490.s007.docx (20.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Sayani Das

2 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-14790R2Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community a study protocol for intervention developmentPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. SHI,

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 Feb 16 2024 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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: The protocol has been well-written with sufficient and detailed description of the methodology. I look forward to the results of the study.

Reviewer #5: Comments:

I have read with interest the manuscript “Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community a study protocol for intervention development”.

The manuscript is well-written, and the findings are of utmost importance.

Some minor comments and suggestions can be found below:

• Title page (page 9):

It may be worth to provide the name of the country where the intervention will be conducted.

• Abstract (page 11):

An option may be to define possible sarcopenia in the abstract.

• Keywords (page 11):

Keywords after the abstract are missing.

• Introduction; first paragraph (page 12):

Are there any data on the effects of possible sarcopenia on health and the economic burden of possible sarcopenia?

• Introduction; second paragraph (page 12):

How do the authors define young older adults?

• Introduction; third paragraph (page 12):

A formal definition of health education may be needed.

• Introduction; fourth paragraph (page 13):

Given that TikTok will be used for the intervention of interest, it is critical to provide more information on how TikTok has reached Chinese seniors in prior research.

• Introduction; sixth paragraph (page 14):

Has co-design already been used in the field of sarcopenia?

• Material and methods; Research participants (page 16):

The fact that the intervention will include young older adults already using TikTok may limit the generalizability of the findings of the study. Why have the authors not decided to provide some training to individuals not using TikTok prior to the intervention?

• Material and methods; Sampling method and sample size (page 16):

It is unclear to me why the authors decided to include 45 young older adults specifically.

• Material and methods; Research ethics (page 17):

It is critical to name the Chinese organizations of interest which granted permission for the study.

• Material and methods; Data collection and analysis (page 22):

How will the storage of the data be handled? Besides, in which country will the data be analyzed (e.g., China or the United Kingdom)? Finally, where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

• Discussion; first paragraph (page 23):

It could be interesting for the reader to provide the sample sizes of the different studies mentioned in this paragraph of the discussion.

• Discussion; fourth paragraph (page 24):

It may be worth considering providing more details on how the present intervention will shape future public health interventions and act as a platform for future research.

**********

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 #4: Yes: Dr. Sunny Singhal

Reviewer #5: Yes: Louis JACOB

**********

[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 Mar 28;19(3):e0286490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286490.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


19 Jan 2024

Response to comments

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

Manuscript ID number: PONE-D-23-14790R2

Title: Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community: a study protocol for intervention development

Thank you so much for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have revised and responded to each comment in accordance with your suggestion, as demonstrated below.

Journal Requirements

1.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.

We have reviewed and checked the reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

(P17-21)

Reviewers' Comments

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

We have added more evidence in the background section according to the suggestion from reviewer 5.

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

3.Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

4.Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

All of these findings will serve as evidence for our future feasibility study and will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant conferences, and all relevant data will be made available within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files, in order to serve as valuable resources, references, and directions for other researchers in related fields. (P17)

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

6.Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #4: The protocol has been well-written with sufficient and detailed description of the methodology. I look forward to the results of the study.

Thank you so much for your encouragement.

Reviewer #5: Comments:

I have read with interest the manuscript. The manuscript is well-written, and the findings are of utmost importance. Some minor comments and suggestions can be found below:

Thank you so much for your valuable advice and patient guidance. We have responded to your comments carefully.

• Title page (page 9):

It may be worth to provide the name of the country where the intervention will be conducted.

We have clarified in the title that the study was conducted in China.

“Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among community-dwelling young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in China: a study protocol for intervention development” (P1,3)

• Abstract (page 11):

An option may be to define possible sarcopenia in the abstract.

Thank you for your advice. We have already described the definition of possible sarcopenia in the background section. We have also added the definition of possible sarcopenia in the abstract according to your suggestion.

Possible sarcopenia refers to low muscle strength. (P3)

• Keywords (page 11):

Keywords after the abstract are missing.

Thank you for your advice. We have added key words in the abstract.

Key words: possible sarcopenia; older adults; community; social media; TikTok; health education; exercise; co-design; intervention development (P3)

• Introduction; first paragraph (page 12):

Are there any data on the effects of possible sarcopenia on health and the economic burden of possible sarcopenia?

Numerous evidence have shown that confirmed and severe sarcopenia is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes in older adults, such as increased risks of falls and fractures, functional decline, disability, lower quality of life, and higher risks of mortality. Untreated sarcopenia may result in significant personal, social, and economic burdens, which has been clarified in our previous scoping review [10]. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence regarding the impact of possible sarcopenia on health and the associated economic cost, warranting further investigation.

• Introduction; second paragraph (page 12):

How do the authors define young older adults?

We have already clarified how we defined “young-old adults” in the section of “research participants”.

Although different scholars interpreted the definition of "young-old" differently, such as 60-69 years or 65-74 years [51,52], based on the fact that this study will be conducted in China, 60-69 years is considered young-old for the purposes of this study. (P8)

In fact, in the original version, we explained in detail why we chose 60-69 as young-old adults in this study. Due to the word limit, we simplified the description, and the detailed description is as follows.

Although age definition of an older person is not uniform to some extent around the world according to different conditions by different countries (e.g.≥50 in Africa, ≥60 in United Nations and China, ≥65 in western countries, ≥75 in Japan), the ages of 60 and 65 years are often used [A1-A3]. In addition, different scholars also have different interpretations of the definition of young-old, like 60-69 or 65-74 [A4-A5]. Based on the study shortage of 60-69 age group from my scoping review and also considering this feasible study will be carried out in China, 60-69 years old is defined as young-old in this study.

[A1] Kowal P, Dowd JE. Definition of an older person. Proposed working definition of an older person in Africa for the MDS Project. Geneva: World Health Organization 2001.

[A2] Orimo H, Ito H, Suzuki T, et al. Reviewing the definition of “elderly”. Geriatrics & Gerontology International 2006; 6(3): 149-158.

[A3] Ouchi Y, Rakugi H, Arai H, et al. Redefining the elderly as aged 75 years and older: Proposal from the Joint Committee of Japan Gerontological Society and the Japan Geriatrics Society. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 1045-1047.

[A4] Forman DE, Berman AD, McCabe CH, et al. PTCA in the elderly: The "young-old" versus the "old-old". Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1992; 40 (1): 19-22.

[A5] Zizza CA, Ellison KJ, Wernette CM. Total Water Intakes of Community-Living Middle-Old and Oldest-Old Adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 2009; 64A (4): 481-486.

• Introduction; third paragraph (page 12):

A formal definition of health education may be needed.

Thank you for your advice. We have added the definition of health education.

Health Education, as defined by the World Health Organization, refers to the deliberate creation of learning opportunities that involve communication aimed at enhancing health literacy. This includes improving knowledge and developing life skills that promote individual and community health [11]. (P4)

• Introduction; fourth paragraph (page 13):

Given that TikTok will be used for the intervention of interest, it is critical to provide more information on how TikTok has reached Chinese seniors in prior research.

We have added more references about how TikTok has reached older adults on health information.

A qualitative research showed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, WeChat and TikTok played a significant role in providing older Chinese adults with access to valuable health information; and many older adults were able to modify their health behaviours after incorporating this information and knowledge into their daily lives [27]. Kassamali et al. [28] reported that TikTok held great potential as a platform for disseminating educational information about disease, as their study indicated that the number of views for the hashtag such as #acne, #alopecia, #cyst, #rosacea, and #psoriasis on TikTok doubled in just 5 months. Nonetheless, there are currently no studies utilizing social media for sarcopenia prevention. (P5-6)

• Introduction; sixth paragraph (page 14):

Has co-design already been used in the field of sarcopenia?

We have added a sentence in the sixth paragraph as following:

“There is currently no evidence of co-design in the field of sarcopenia research, making the exploration of this study particularly valuable.” (P6-7)

• Material and methods; Research participants (page 16):

The fact that the intervention will include young older adults already using TikTok may limit the generalizability of the findings of the study. Why have the authors not decided to provide some training to individuals not using TikTok prior to the intervention?

Insufficient time during the intervention development phase prevented us from adequately training a cohort of older individuals who were unfamiliar with TiKTok, which may be a limitation of this study. We also mentioned this in the limitations section of this study. However, our forthcoming feasibility study will offer training to older persons who are eager to utilize TikTok before the intervention, in order to expand the range of recruitment.

Older adults who are unfamiliar with TikTok or lack Internet and modern communication technology access or proficiency were excluded from the recruitment stage, which may result in a less diverse sample. (P16)

• Material and methods; Sampling method and sample size (page 16):

It is unclear to me why the authors decided to include 45 young older adults specifically.

We have clarified clearly in the section of “sample size”. 45 is the maximum number of recruits and is made up of two parts. The sample size was calculated with reference to similar studies about focus group and co-design research.

We aim to recruit a maximum sample of 45 older adults in total. For developing phase, 18~25 older adults will be recruited to participate in focus groups (with a 10~15% attrition rate), and then invited to take part in both the first and the second round of focus groups. Each round will consist of three focus groups, with 18~25 participants divided into three groups of at least six members each, which is based on the recommendations of Leask et al.[50] that 10~12 co-creators in total is advised in co-design research and the Guidelines for Conducting a Focus Group that suggests six to ten people will be appropriate for a focus group [55]. Besides, we require 15~20 additional participants for the pre-test phase. In the two phases of our study, participants have the option of participating in only focus groups, only pre-test, or both focus groups and pre-test. (P8-9)

• Material and methods; Research ethics (page 17):

It is critical to name the Chinese organizations of interest which granted permission for the study.

We have added the name of the Chinese organization.

This study has been approved by the University of Manchester Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 15664), and permissions have already been granted by collaborators in the Community Nursing Department of Xiang Ya Nursing School, Central South University, China. (P10)

• Material and methods; Data collection and analysis (page 22):

How will the storage of the data be handled? Besides, in which country will the data be analyzed (e.g., China or the United Kingdom)? Finally, where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

We have clarified this part as following:

All data will be saved on servers or computers that are certified by the University of Manchester and have safe backup systems. The data will be analyzed in China, in accordance with the data management plan. (P14)

All of these findings will serve as evidence for our future feasibility study and will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant conferences, and all relevant data will be made available within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files, in order to serve as valuable resources, references, and directions for other researchers in related fields. (P17)

• Discussion; first paragraph (page 23):

It could be interesting for the reader to provide the sample sizes of the different studies mentioned in this paragraph of the discussion.

We have added the sample sizes of the different studies mentioned in this paragraph of the discussion.

One study in China involved a 12-week intervention of 234 older adults with sarcopenia and revealed that nutrition interventions through an app were effective in optimising the diets and increasing the skeletal muscle mass [63]. Another study conducted a randomized controlled trial on 23 participants and indicated that supervised resistance exercise through a video conferencing software (Skype™) had positive effects on sarcopenia-related factors among community-dwelling senior citizens in South Korea [64]. (P16)

• Discussion; fourth paragraph (page 24):

It may be worth considering providing more details on how the present intervention will shape future public health interventions and act as a platform for future research.

We have added more details according to your suggestion as following:

Furthermore, the comprehensive co-design procedure will build a foundation for co-design research in the field of sarcopenia. Additionally, the health education and exercise video resources on TikTok will serve as valuable reference materials for future intervention by other researchers. (P17)

Finally, we really appreciate all the time and effort you put into this document, as well as all your insightful suggestions for revising the manuscript to make it more readable, clear, and academic. Thank you so much once more!

Best wishes

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2024-01-18 Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0286490.s008.docx (26.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Sayani Das

7 Feb 2024

Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among community-dwelling young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in China: a study protocol for intervention development

PONE-D-23-14790R3

Dear Dr. SHI,

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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: The protocol has been well-written with sufficient and detailed description of the methodology. I look forward to the results of the study.

Reviewer #5: Comments to the authors:

I have read with interest the revised version of the manuscript “Social-media based Health Education plus Exercise Programme (SHEEP) to improve muscle function among young-old adults with possible sarcopenia in the community a study protocol for intervention development”.

The authors have answered all my comments, and I thank them for their critical work.

My recommendation is to accept this valuable manuscript.

**********

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 #4: Yes: Dr. Sunny Singhal

Reviewer #5: Yes: Louis Jacob

**********

Acceptance letter

Sayani Das

20 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-14790R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. SHI,

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. Behaviour change wheel.

    (TIF)

    pone.0286490.s001.tif (2.2MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. eLiFE conceptual model.

    (TIF)

    pone.0286490.s002.tif (1.8MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Iterative co-creation process.

    (TIF)

    pone.0286490.s003.tif (786.2KB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-14790_with comments.pdf

    pone.0286490.s004.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2023-07-21 Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0286490.s005.docx (50.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-14790_R1_with comments.pdf

    pone.0286490.s006.pdf (2.8MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0286490.s007.docx (20.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2024-01-18 Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0286490.s008.docx (26.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES