Exploring the use of self-management strategies in survivors of critical illness: A scoping review protocol

Anastasia N. L. Newman; Christopher Farley; Shannon McKenney; Jenna Smith-Turchyn

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0347646

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 29, 2025
25 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Katherine Kokkinias, Editor Dear Dr. Newman, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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.... As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Katherine Demi Kokkinias, Ph.D. Staff 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. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.... 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. The reviewer raised several that need attention. They request additional information on methodological aspects of the study (such as the inclusion criteria, the search strategy and description of the narrative analysis). There were also suggestions to improve the description of the self-management interventions and correct typographical errors. Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised? [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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? Reviewer #1: 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??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: 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.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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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. Reviewer #1: Dear authors, Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your scoping review protocol. An important topic for a group of clients that deserve more attention. The introduction clearly describes the importance of the review, as well as the need for more insight into self-management strategies. The method is eligible, clearly described according to the steps of the JPI. We realize that you already started with your study. However, we have a few small questions and considerations regarding the protocol: o Typo in abstract, line 31: menta health should be mental? � In the introduction, you mention critical illness and PICS, but PICS does not appear in the inclusion criteria. Is that still an option to consider? If yes, this might also lead to a refinement in the aim/question. � In lines 82-84, you describe self-management interventions. This still seems to be more focused on illness and medical management in the description, but self-management is a concept which is broader. Consider also describing and including attention for role and emotional management. � Analysis, line 165-166: Consider to conduct a narrative analysis also about the self-management strategies, as the aim is to have a deeper understanding about the strategies. When you only analyze the PCC, it might give limited understanding. Furthermore, how would you carry out the narrative analysis? In the screening and extraction phase, the steps are described more clearly o The language indicated in the PCC framework is only English; more languages are mentioned in the text. What choice do you make in this regard? o In the search strategy only critical illness is mentioned, why do you not include critical condition or critical disease as a search term? For the data extraction, funding sources are included, why do you find this important? Good luck with your scoping review. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: Yes: Ton SatinkTon SatinkTon SatinkTon Satink ******** [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347646.r001
Revision 1
30 Mar 2026 Author Response March 30, 2026 Dr. Katherine Demi Kokkinias, PhD Staff Editor PLOS One Dear Dr. Kokkinias, RE: Exploring the use of self-management strategies in survivors of critical illness: A scoping review protocol Project ID: PONE-D-25-63311 Principal Investigator: Dr. Anastasia Newman, MSc(PT), MSc(RS), PhD Thank you for reviewing our protocol manuscript, entitled “Exploring the use of self-management strategies in survivors of critical illness: A scoping review protocol”. We are grateful for opportunity to revise our protocol so that it meets the standards for publication at PLOS One. We thank the Reviewer and Editor for their time and feedback. You will find our responses to the reviewer’s comments below. Reviewer 1 Comments: 1. Typo in abstract, line 31: menta health should be mental? RESPONSE: Thank you for identifying this spelling error. It has been corrected. 2. In the introduction, you mention critical illness and PICS, but PICS does not appear in the inclusion criteria. Is that still an option to consider? If yes, this might also lead to a refinement in the aim/question. RESPONSE: Thank you for identifying this omission. While not all survivors of critical illness will meet the criteria for PICS, we have added PICS to the PCC table and the research question. 3. In lines 82-84, you describe self-management interventions. This still seems to be more focused on illness and medical management in the description, but self-management is a concept which is broader. Consider also describing and including attention for role and emotional management. RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment and for noting this lack of inclusive definition. We have added “emotional and social wellbeing”, as stated in the Effing et al reference. 4. Analysis, line 165-166: Consider to conduct a narrative analysis also about the self-management strategies, as the aim is to have a deeper understanding about the strategies. When you only analyze the PCC, it might give limited understanding. Furthermore, how would you carry out the narrative analysis? In the screening and extraction phase, the steps are described more clearly. RESPONSE: Thank you for this feedback. We have expanded this section to provide more detail about the narrative analysis: “Narrative analysis will be used to synthesize the self-management strategies identified in the included studies, with results organized according to the PCC framework and summarized to highlight patterns in strategy type, delivery mode, and context of application among survivors of critical illness.” 5. The language indicated in the PCC framework is only English; more languages are mentioned in the text. What choice do you make in this regard? RESPONSE: Thank you for identifying this error. We are including papers published in English, French, and Portuguese due to the language fluencies of our study team. The omission of “French” and “Portuguese” in the PCC Table was incorrect. We have added the following to the PCC table: “Any English, French, or Portuguese peer-reviewed published literature.” 6. In the search strategy only critical illness is mentioned, why do you not include critical condition or critical disease as a search term? RESPONSE: Thank you for this suggestion. In all our search strategies, we included the subject heading “critical illness” and exploded the term to ensure comprehensiveness. The terms “critical condition” and “critical disease” are not subject headings and can only be searched as keywords. Our search strategy was reviewed and edited by a health sciences librarian and was validated to ensure it could identify 3 key articles. 7. For the data extraction, funding sources are included, why do you find this important? RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. Funding source was included as a data extraction item because it contributes to transparency and allows readers to consider potential influences on study conduct and reporting. In line with scoping review objectives, this item is being captured descriptively rather than analytically. All documents submitted and uploaded have an updated version number and version date as requested. We appreciate the opportunity to further strengthen our application and hope these changes will allow for publication in PLOS One. Thank you for reviewing our resubmission. Sincerely, Dr. Anastasia Newman, MSc(PT), MSc(RS), PhD Assistant Professor, School of Rehabilitation Science McMaster University newmanan@mcmaster.ca 905-745-0666 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347646.r002
6 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - JONATHAN BAYUO, Editor Exploring the use of self-management strategies in survivors of critical illness: A scoping review protocol PONE-D-25-63311R1 Dear Dr. Newman, 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 and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact 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, JONATHAN BAYUO, 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? Reviewer #1: 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??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: 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.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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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. Reviewer #1: Thank you for your revision and using the feedback for refinement of your protocol. I am looking forward to the review! ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347646.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - JONATHAN BAYUO, Editor PONE-D-25-63311R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Newman, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. JONATHAN BAYUO Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347646.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .