PONE-D-25-37313-->-->Promoting or pressurising participation? A discourse analysis of online patient information resources about prehabilitation before cancer treatment-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Stanley,

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.

-->1. Abstract: “Databases, search engines and websites (identified by experts)”…. Who is an expert??>

2. This appears to be a systematic review, but the authors have not provided any evidence of prospective registration of the protocol. Hence, it is not possible to decide if the students followed the predetermined protocol. This makes it PRISMA non-compliant. Please clarify.

3. The Introduction runs into 4 pages and should be made more succinct. On the whole, the paper is very long and could be abridged.

4. Why did the authors limit their search to UK data? This limits generalisability.

5. There is no data-sharing statement.

6. All included studies/resources have not been referred to in the bibliography

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 2025 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.

• 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,

Prateek Srivastav

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“SS is an Academic Clinical Fellow whose salary is part funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The salary for HS was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme as part of the PARITY study (NIHR134282). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funder did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

“SS is an Academic Clinical Fellow whose salary is part funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The salary for HS was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme as part of the PARITY study (NIHR134282).”

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

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

“SS is an Academic Clinical Fellow whose salary is part funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The salary for HS was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme as part of the PARITY study (NIHR134282). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funder did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

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

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This (?) systematic review has sought to understand the evidence base on patient facing resources on prehabilitation and determine whether motivation and accessibility for patients was balanced. They studied 68 different resources and found moung other things that overpromoting the benefits of prehabilitation may risk giving patients unrealistic expectations. On the whole, the paper is well written and represents a significant addition to the literature on the subject. I have the following comments.

1. Abstract: “Databases, search engines and websites (identified by experts)”…. Who is an expert?

2. This appears to be a systematic review, but the authors have not provided any evidence of prospective registration of the protocol. Hence, it is not possible to decide if the students followed the predetermined protocol. This makes it PRISMA non-compliant. Please clarify.

3. The Introduction runs into 4 pages and should be made more succinct. On the whole, the paper is very long and could be abridged.

4. Why did the authors limit their search to UK data? This limits generalisability.

5. There is no data-sharing statement.

6. All included studies/resources have not been referred to in the bibliography

Reviewer #2: I leave it up to the editor to verify if all the data has been available. The study seems to be well planned and adds evidence to the area of Prehab in cancer rehabilitation. The editor needs to verify if the statistical part is correct since that is not my filed of expertise. This study is also replicable in other geographical locations

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

Promoting or pressurising participation? A discourse analysis of online patient information resources about prehabilitation before cancer treatment

PONE-D-25-37313R1

Dear Dr. Stanley,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Prateek Srivastav

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for responding to my comments and clarifying the points. The revisions to the manuscript are appropriate.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********