Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Apr 30;21(4):e0347646. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347646

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

Anastasia N L Newman 1,*,#, Christopher Farley 1,#, Shannon McKenney 2,#, Jenna Smith-Turchyn 1,#
Editor: JONATHAN BAYUO3
PMCID: PMC13132182  PMID: 42060650

Abstract

Introduction

Survivors of critical illness often experience lasting physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments that persist beyond hospital discharge. While self-management strategies have demonstrated benefits in many chronic conditions, their application in survivors of critical illness remains limited. With no current synthesis of the literature, there is an increasing need to understand and optimize self-management strategies in this population.

Materials and methods

This is a protocol for a scoping review which will systematically map the literature on self-management strategies used with adult survivors of critical illness. Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to PRISMA-ScR, this review will include peer-reviewed studies involving ICU survivors (≥24-hour admission) that employ self-management strategies, such as education, peer support, and coping skills, and report patient-centered outcomes. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and AMED will be conducted from inception. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and resolve disagreements with a third reviewer, if needed. Data will be summarized with descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

Conclusion

The results of this scoping review will summarize the available evidence on the use of self-management strategies in survivors of critical illness, identify knowledge gaps, and inform future research and clinical practice. A manuscript will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at critical care conferences.

Introduction

Intensive care units (ICU) provide life-saving treatment to critically ill patients. Prior to the development of the ICU from the poliomyelitis epidemic of the 1950s in Denmark, the clinical course of an acutely ill patient involved physiological decline and eventual death. Since the inaugural ICU, advances in medical interventions and health care technologies have led to more effective management of patients with critical illness and improved survival [1]. However, ICU survivors often experience Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS), a condition characterized by new or worsened impairments in physical function, cognitive and/or mental health that can last well beyond hospital discharge [2]. These deficits, which include muscle weakness, reduced exercise capacity, frailty, fatigue, cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression, often stem from the rapid muscle wasting and dysfunction acquired during their ICU stay and can persist for months or years [2–4]. Landmark longitudinal research identified only partial recovery of physical function capacity among survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome, with mean six-minute walk test scores remaining well below age- and sex-matched norms at one- and five-year follow-up [5,6]. The persistent nature and prevalence of these symptoms often lead to the development PICS [7]. The challenges associated with PICS are often compounded by limited access to post-ICU outpatient clinics, which provide structured, multidisciplinary support, but are few in number and often inaccessible to many patients [8–10]. In this context, self-management strategies offer a promising means for survivors of critical illness to manage symptoms, optimize quality of life and support functional recovery after hospital discharge.

Self-management refers to the active participation of individuals to manage their symptoms, treatments and implement lifestyle changes associated with a chronic health condition [11–13]. Self-management interventions are described as interventions that provide patients with the skills necessary to manage their condition, aimed at improving self-health behaviour, emotional and social wellbeing, developing self-management skills, and increasing the individual’s responsibility for healthcare decisions [14]. In collaboration with healthcare providers, many of these interventions foster patient problem-solving and decision-making skills, which improve quality of life and reduce resource utilization, including rehospitalization [11,13,14]. Self-management strategies have been successfully implemented in a variety of chronic health conditions, including patients with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arthritis, or cardiovascular disease [13]. Evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, self-management strategies promote higher quality of life, self-efficacy, and symptom control in people living with chronic illnesses [13,15]. Despite widespread use among people with other chronic conditions, the implementation of self-management strategies for survivors of critical illness and those with PICS remains limited [16]. Emerging evidence suggests that tailored self-management interventions, including education, peer support, and behavioural strategies, can help ICU survivors manage persistent challenges such as fatigue and impaired functional status, and may offer a promising framework for recovery post ICU [17].

To date, there is no comprehensive synthesis of the literature on the role of self-management strategies in survivors of critical illness. With the growing body of evidence, and increased survival of ICU patients, demand will likely increase for effective self-management strategies to address the long-term physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments experienced by survivors. Therefore, a scoping review is warranted to systematically map the existing literature, identify knowledge gaps, and inform future research and clinical practice on the optimization of self-management interventions for survivors of critical illness.

Research question

  1. What self-management strategies are being utilized with survivors of critical illness/PICS?

Materials and methods

This review will follow the standard scoping review methodology described by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [18,19]. Our review has been registered a priori on Open Science Framework (OSF) (OSF | Exploring the use of self-management strategies in survivors of critical care: A scoping review).

Eligibility criteria

The development of our inclusion criteria was guided by the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework as per the JBI guidelines (Table 1) [19]. Peer reviewed full-text papers will be eligible for inclusion if they: [1] include adult survivors of critical illness (i.e., admitted to ICU for ≥ 24 hours) with or without a diagnosis of PICS, [2] incorporate one or more self-management strategies, including but not limited to education, peer-support, medication management, goal setting, and coping strategies, and [3] discuss the impact of the self-management strategies on recovery outcomes, such as physical functioning, quality of life, self-efficacy, mental health wellbeing, cognitive functioning, fatigue, return to work, and healthcare utilization. Reasons for article exclusion include: [1] published in a language other than English, French, and Portuguese and [2] grey literature, conference abstracts, letters to the editor, systematic and narrative reviews.

Table 1. Population, Concept, Context Statement.

Population Community-dwelling adult survivors of critical illness (i.e., admitted to ICU for ≥ 24 hours) with or without a diagnosis of PICS
Concept Use of self-management strategies
Context Community setting. Any English, French, or Portuguese peer-reviewed published literature. No limitations on location, sex, or race. No limitation on publication timeline.

Search strategy

Search strategies will be developed in consultation with a health sciences librarian using the search terms “intensive care”, “self-management”, and “post-hospital” and their synonyms or associated terms using Boolean operators. A preliminary search strategy is available in Appendix 1. The search strategy will be adapted for each database and validated by testing whether it identifies three relevant articles [17,20,21] meeting our inclusion criteria previously identified through Google scholar within each database.

Information sources

A comprehensive search of the following databases will be performed from their inception to identify peer-reviewed studies: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, AMED, PsycINFO, and EBSCOhost CINAHL. References of included studies will be searched for other potentially relevant studies.

Data screening and extraction

Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, with any disagreements resolved through discussion. If consensus cannot be achieved, a third reviewer will adjudicate. Prior to commencing title/abstract screening and full text selection, calibration exercises involving 10 articles will be conducted to ensure consistency between reviewers. Screening will be facilitated using the Covidence web-based platform (Covidence, Boston, Massachusetts, USA), while data extraction will be completed using predefined tables in Microsoft Excel. A pair of reviewers will independently extract data and reconcile discrepancies to reach agreement. The following data will be extracted from each included full text: [1] study identification (i.e., title, first author, year of publication, journal title, country of origin, trial registration number, study design, purpose/objectives, and funding sources), [2] sample characteristics (i.e., sample size, age, sex, ICU length of stay, diagnoses upon ICU admission, comorbidities), [3] description of self-management strategies employed, and [4] outcomes assessed (e.g., quality of life, physical function, health care utilization). We expect screening to begin in February 2026 data extraction occurring in March 2026.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics and narrative analyses will be used to summarize and present data. Descriptive statistics, including counts, percentages, means (standard deviations), and medians (1st and 3rd quartiles), will be utilized to analyze numerical data. A PRISMA flow diagram will be used to illustrate the review process. Extracted data will be presented throughout the manuscript and in both tabular and graphical formats, as appropriate. 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.

Dissemination of results

The results of this scoping review will be submitted for presentation at relevant critical care conferences. A manuscript will be written and submitted for consideration of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We expect to submit our completed manuscript for publication in May 2026.

Significance

Admission to critical care is not benign and survivors often experience significant impairments that extend beyond hospital discharge. The use of self-management strategies is well supported in a multitude of chronic health conditions and are beginning to be implemented for patients with PICS. This scoping review will synthesize the available evidence on the use of self-management strategies with survivors of critical illness. Results may help guide the development of post-ICU self-management programs aimed at improving outcomes for people with PICS.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Preliminary Search Strategy.

(DOCX)

pone.0347646.s001.docx (22.3KB, docx)
S2 Appendix. PRISMA-P Checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0347646.s002.docx (31.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ms. Neera Bhatnagar, Health Sciences Librarian at McMaster University, for her assistance with designing the search strategies.

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Tipping CJ, Harrold M, Holland A, Romero L, Nisbet T, Hodgson CL. The effects of active mobilisation and rehabilitation in ICU on mortality and function: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(2):171–83. doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4612-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hiser SL, Fatima A, Ali M, Needham DM. Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS): recent updates. J Intensive Care. 2023;11(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s40560-023-00670-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Held N, Moss M. Optimizing post-intensive care unit rehabilitation. Turk Thorac J. 2019;20(2):147–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Geense WW, Zegers M, Peters MAA, Ewalds E, Simons KS, Vermeulen H, et al. New Physical, Mental, and Cognitive Problems 1 Year after ICU Admission: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;203(12):1512–21. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202009-3381OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Herridge MS, Cheung AM, Tansey CM, Matte-Martyn A, Diaz-Granados N, Al-Saidi F, et al. One-year outcomes in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(8):683–93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matté A, Tomlinson G, Diaz-Granados N, Cooper A, et al. Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1293–304. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011802 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, Hopkins RO, Weinert C, Wunsch H, et al. Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders’ conference. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(2):502–9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232da75 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Stapleton K, Jefkins M, Grant C, Boyd JG. Post-intensive care unit clinics in Canada: a national survey. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67(11):1658–9. doi: 10.1007/s12630-020-01741-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Teixeira C, Rosa RG. Post-intensive care outpatient clinic: is it feasible and effective? A literature review. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2018;30(1):98–111. doi: 10.5935/0103-507x.20180016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhang F, Chen Z, Xue D-D, Zhang R, Cheng Y. Barriers and facilitators to offering post-intensive care follow-up services from the perspective of critical care professionals: A qualitative study. Nurs Crit Care. 2024;29(4):682–94. doi: 10.1111/nicc.13002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Van de Velde D, De Zutter F, Satink T, Costa U, Janquart S, Senn D, et al. Delineating the concept of self-management in chronic conditions: a concept analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e027775. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schulman-Green D, Jaser SS, Park C, Whittemore R. A metasynthesis of factors affecting self-management of chronic illness. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(7):1469–89. doi: 10.1111/jan.12902 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee CS, Westland H, Faulkner KM, Iovino P, Thompson JH, Sexton J, et al. The effectiveness of self-care interventions in chronic illness: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;134:104322. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Effing TW, Vercoulen JH, Bourbeau J, Trappenburg J, Lenferink A, Cafarella P, et al. Definition of a COPD self-management intervention: International Expert Group consensus. Eur Respir J. 2016;48(1):46–54. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00025-2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Huang Y, Li S, Lu X, Chen W, Zhang Y. The Effect of Self-Management on Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(21):2151. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12212151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.O’Neill B, Linden MA, Ramsay P, Darweish Medniuk A, Outtrim J, King J, et al. Patient activation and support needs in patients after ICU discharge: A UK survey of critical illness survivors. J Intensive Care Soc. 2025;26(1):38–46. doi: 10.1177/17511437241305266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Brown SE, Shah A, Czuber-Dochan W, Bench S, Stayt L. Fatigue after CriTical illness (FACT): Co-production of a self-management intervention to support people with fatigue after critical illness. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2024;82:103659. doi: 10.1016/j.iccn.2024.103659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Glæemose AO, Hanifa ALB, Haslund-Thomsen H. Peer support in intensive care unit follow-up: A qualitative evaluation. Nurs Crit Care. 2024;29(4):785–94. doi: 10.1111/nicc.13089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Danesh V, Boehm LM, Cuevas H, Arroliga AC, Stevens AB. Peer-delivered motivational interviewing intervention for post-intensive care syndrome: A pilot of peer mentor training feasibility. PM R. 2023;15(6):805–7. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12879 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Katherine Kokkinias

25 Mar 2026

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.

PLoS One. 2026 Apr 30;21(4):e0347646. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347646.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Mar 2026

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

Decision Letter 1

JONATHAN BAYUO

6 Apr 2026

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

**********

Acceptance letter

JONATHAN BAYUO

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

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Preliminary Search Strategy.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0347646.s001.docx (22.3KB, docx)
    S2 Appendix. PRISMA-P Checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0347646.s002.docx (31.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES