Links between meaning in life and physical quality of life after rehabilitation: Mediating effects of positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility.

BACKGROUND: Indicators of emotional processes (positive experiences with physical exercises) and functional processes (mobility) were previously found to be associated with positive cognitive resources (meaning in life), and the key outcome in the rehabilitation, namely physical quality of life (QOL). Yet, the mediating roles of such processes were not tested. Therefore, this prospective study investigated whether the relationship between meaning in life and physical QOL was mediated by positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility.
METHODS: Prospective data were collected at two measurement points, 1 month apart. A total of N = 339 participants (aged 19-84 years old, 57.9% women) provided data at Time 1 (T1) at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation from central nervous system diseases (CNSD, e.g., stroke; n = 89) or musculoskeletal system diseases (MSD, e.g., dorsopathies; n = 250), and n = 234 at Time 2 (T2, the end of rehabilitation; 4 weeks after T1). Mediation analysis with meaning in life as predictor (T1), positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility as sequential mediators (T2), and physical QOL (T2) as the outcome was conducted.
RESULTS: Higher meaning in life (T1) predicted more positive experiences with physical exercises (T2), which were associated with a higher level of mobility (T2), which in turn was associated with better physical quality of life (T2).
CONCLUSIONS: Meaning in life at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation may trigger positive experiences with physical exercises and functional changes in mobility levels, leading to better physical quality of life. Screening for low meaning in life may allow to identify patients who are at risk for a lack of improvement of mobility and physical quality of life during rehabilitation.

Introduction

Central nervous system diseases (CNSD) and musculoskeletal system diseases (MSD) are among the most prevalent chronic conditions [1]. They result in physical functioning limitations regarding mobility, dexterity, behavioral problems, daily living activities, and psychosocial functioning [1, 2]. A common consequence of CNSD and MSD is a decline of physical quality of life (QOL) [3-5]. The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO ICF) [6] presents disability, functioning, and health as the outcomes of interactions between health conditions and contextual factors (i.e., environmental and personal factors). Physical QOL reflects people’s perception of their physical state [7] and is conceptualized as an indicator of physical health [6].

To improve their functional and physical health, people living with CNSD and MSD usually require extensive rehabilitation (e.g., physical exercises) [8, 9]. This is supported by a large body of evidence showing that physical exercises, including rehabilitation exercises, improve various health indicators among people with CNSD [10, 11] and MSD [12, 13]. Although CNSD and MSD are two different groups of chronic conditions, both have in common that persons living with CNSD and MSD face mobility problems [14], show a decline in physical QOL [3, 4], and benefit from rehabilitation exercises regarding their mobility and physical QOL [14].

Meaning in life, defined as the purposeful and meaningful engagement with life, is considered to be a determinant of psychological functioning [7] and eudaimonic well-being [15, 16]. Models of well-being [17] assume that meaning in life may be associated with positive affective reactions to people’s positive experiences [17, 18]. Moreover, meaning in life was found to predict physical QOL among people with chronic conditions [19, 20]. According to the stroke recovery cycle [21], meaning in life is associated with physical QOL through better positive emotional processes (e.g., positive experiences with physical exercises), and better daily functioning (e.g., higher mobility) [21]. Specifically, the model suggests that stroke severity, patients’ emotional state, and sense of meaning in life are the key predictors of physical QOL after stroke [21]. Additionally, the model [21] implies that post-stroke rehabilitation interventions should focus on promoting post-stroke functioning (e.g., improving patients’ mobility), restoring and promoting meaning in life, and improving physical QOL.

Participation in rehabilitation exercises may result in positive experiences with exercises or satisfaction with experienced behavior and its outcomes, which in turn may improve behavioral maintenance [22, 23, 24]. Among patients with chronic low back pain who were prescribed a six-weeks individualized physical exercise program, 89% reported positive experiences with physical exercises [25]. Qualitative research conducted in the context of chronic illness showed associations between participation in rehabilitation exercise programs, positive experiences with physical exercises, and physical QOL [26]. Positive experiences with physical exercises during cardiac and orthopedic rehabilitation predicted long-term physical exercise maintenance after rehabilitation [24]. Physical activity programs which prompt positive experiences with physical exercises are also likely to result in a reduction of functional limitations in mobility levels in older adults [27].

Although direct relationships between positive experiences with physical exercises and physical QOL are possible, the associations between these two constructs could be indirect, mediated by mobility. Mobility is defined as the ability to get around and is one of the facets of physical QOL reflecting the scope of independence [6]. Mobility is a significant correlate of physical QOL among people with disabilities [28]. According to the model of joyful movement [27], positive experiences with physical exercises are related to increased mobility. The model was confirmed in a longitudinal study enrolling older adults [27].

To summarize, the association between meaning in life and physical health indicators such as physical QOL are well-documented [19, 20, 29]. However, the remaining question is whether positive experiences with physical exercises as well as functional changes in mobility levels would sequentially mediate the relation between meaning in life and physical QOL in the context of inpatient rehabilitation. In line with the stroke recovery cycle [21] it was hypothesized that higher levels of meaning in life (the independent variable, measured at the beginning of the inpatient rehabilitation) would be associated with higher of levels positive experiences with physical exercise (the first mediator). Furthermore, in line with the model of joyful movement [27] it was hypothesized that the positive experiences with physical exercise (the first mediator), would be related to better physical QOL (the dependent variable, measured at the end of the inpatient rehabilitation), via mobility (the second mediator). In sum, it was expected that meaning in life would be associated with higher physical QOL at the follow-up, through sequential mediators, positive experiences with physical exercises (the first mediator) and higher levels of mobility (the second mediator).

Materials and methods

In the present study, the prospective association between meaning in life (measured at the beginning of the inpatient rehabilitation) and physical QOL (measured at the end of the inpatient rehabilitation, the 1-month follow-up) is investigated in the context of CNSD or MSD. Two sequential mediators (positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility) were assumed to operate between meaning in life and physical QOL.

Participants

At Time 1 (T1), N = 339 participants (57.9% female) aged 19–84 years old (M = 54.41, SD = 11.32; 85% aged 19–65 years old, with 57% of patients with CNSD aged ≤ 65 years old, and 96% of patients with MSD aged ≤ 65 years old) responded to the baseline questionnaire assessing variables under study. At Time 2 (T2, 1 month later), n = 234 participants (59.8% female) aged 19–84 (M = 54.83, SD = 12.03) responded to a second questionnaire. The total attrition rate was 31%. Descriptive characteristics of the sample (including the type of disease) are provided in Table 1. Further details referring to the subtypes of CNSD and MSD are presented in S1 Table.

Table 1

Descriptive characteristics of the sample.

		Time 1(total N = 339)	Time 2(n = 234)
		% (n)	% (n)
People with central nervous system diseases (n, %)		26.3% (89)	35.5% (83)
People with musculoskeletal diseases (n, %)		73.7% (250)	64.5% (151)
Marital status
	married or in a long-term relationship	71.4% (242)	69.8% (163)
	Single	28.6% (97)	31.2% (73)
Education level
	primary or vocational education	36.1% (122)	32.9% (77)
	secondary education	41.7% (142)	42.3% (99)
	higher education degree	22.2% (75)	24.8% (58)
Employment status
	full-time or part-time employment	59.5% (202)	50.0% (117)
	unemployed/pensioner/retired	40.5% (137)	50.0% (117)
Economic situation (compared with the average family in the country)
	similar	56.6% (192)	57.2% (134)
	better	23.9% (81)	24.4% (57)
	worse	19.5% (66)	18.4% (43)
Place of residency
	urban area	85.8% (291)	63.7% (149)
	rural area	14.2% (48)	36.3% (85)

Procedure

The study was approved by the Internal Review Board at the first author’s institution, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland. Written informed consents were obtained from all participants. Participants were recruited among patients who were admitted to 6 inpatient physical or neurological rehabilitation wards in South-West Poland. All patients at the respective rehabilitation centers who had neurological or musculoskeletal system illnesses were invited to participate. The inclusion criteria were: (1) being at least 18 years old, and (2) for participants with CNSD: a lack of severe cognitive impairment (i.e., scores > 10) measured with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA [30]). On average, participants with CNSD scored M = 22.67, SD = 4.81 (range 10–30) on the MoCA scale.

Inpatient rehabilitation was funded by the public nation-wide insurance system (i.e., participants were not charged) and lasted at least 21 days. After an initial period of 21 to 28 days, patients’ condition was evaluated and followed by an extension of rehabilitation for up to six months. The CNSD rehabilitation program aimed at improving kinesthetic/movement abilities and condition, counteracting spasticity, improving self-care, self-management, cognitive function, speech improvement, and health behavior change education. The MSD rehabilitation program aimed at improving kinesthetic/movement abilities and condition, movability of joints, physical strength, physical flexibility, pain management, and health behavior change education.

Time 1 (T1) took place at the beginning of the rehabilitation. Time 2 (T2) data collection was conducted 1 month later, at the end of patients’ rehabilitation. Patients were informed about the study aims, design, and anonymity. All potential respondents, who were invited and met the inclusion criteria, agreed to participate. Data collection was conducted individually and lasted approximately 30 minutes, respectively for T1 and T2. In case they had problems with responding to questionnaires (e.g., because of problems with reading), participants were interviewed by the study personnel.

Measures

Meaning in life was assessed at T1 with one item: ‘To what extent do you feel your life to be meaningful?’ derived from the World Health Organization Quality of Life measure [6]. Participants were asked to provide their answers on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all’) to 5 (‘extremely’). Using 1-item measures of meaning in life yielded similar results as using more complex measures [29].

Physical QOL was assessed at T1 and T2 with 6 items derived from the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire (physical QOL domain [6]). Participants were asked to provide their answers to questions (e.g., ‘To what extent do you feel that physical pain prevents you from doing what you need to do?’) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all’) to 5 (‘extremely’). One item from the physical QOL domain of the WHOQOL-BREF: ‘How well are you able to get around?’ represented mobility and was therefore not included in the present physical QOL measure. The reliability of the measure was low at T1, with α = .45, and acceptable at T2, with α = .70. Higher scores represent better physical quality of life.

Positive experiences with physical exercises were measured at T1 and T2 with 1 item from the Exercise Experiences Subscale of Health Related Experiences [23], ‘When I was physically active, I experienced that I felt better afterward’. Participants were instructed to refer to the experiences with exercises performed during the inpatient rehabilitation. Responses were given on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (‘definitely no’) to 4 (‘definitely yes’).

Mobility was measured at T1 and T2 with 1 item: ‘How well are you able to get around?’. This item was derived from the World Health Organization Quality of Life measure [6]. Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all’) to 5 (‘extremely’). The 1-item measurement of mobility was used in previous research [31].

Socio-demographic variables were measured at T1. Participants were asked to indicate their education level on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (‘primary education’) to 3 (‘at least 5 years of higher education/MA or MSc’). Similarly, they indicated their perceived economic status on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (‘my economic situation is worse than the average economic situation of a family in the country’) to 3 (‘my economic situation is better than the average economic situation of a family in the country’). Furthermore, participants indicated their employment status by checking ‘yes’ (when having a full-time or a part-time employment) or ‘no’ (when being unemployed/retired/pensioner). Lastly, they were asked about how many months have passed since they received their CNSD or MSD diagnosis.

Data analysis

The G*Power calculator [32] was used to determine the sample size. Assuming medium effect sizes (f2 = 0.15) and accounting for potential confounders, the sample size was estimated to include at least 300 participants. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS, version 25 [33].

To test whether the relationship between patients’ meaning in life (T1) and physical QOL (T2) was sequentially mediated by positive experiences with physical exercises (T2; the first sequential mediator) and mobility (T2; the second sequential mediator), we performed multiple mediation analyses with sequential mediators using PROCESS with 10,000 bootstraps. Model 6 was applied. This model allows for testing indirect effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable, assuming that the independent variable predicts the first mediator, which predicts the second mediator. In turn, the second mediator predicts the dependent variable (the outcome) [34]. PROCESS allows the testing of mediator hypotheses by assuming that mediators are operating together in a sequence (i.e., positive experiences with physical exercises would predict mobility). In line with MacKinnon [35] it was assumed that the following significant associations are essential to establish a mediation: (1) between the independent variable and the first mediator, (2) between the first mediator and the second mediator, and (3) between the second mediator and the dependent variable. The significant association between the independent and dependent variables is not an essential condition, because the expected mediation effects are of medium size [35]. The analyses were conducted controlling for baseline levels of the T2 variables; controlling for the baseline levels of the mediator and dependent variables is the recommended approach, in particular if there are less measurement points than three [35].

Little’s MCAR test indicated that the missing data patterns were systematic, Little’s χ2(357) = 475.69, p < .001. To reduce the potential negative impact of systematic dropout, missing data were accounted for with a maximum likelihood estimation procedure, recommended for data with systematic attrition [36]. The total sample (N = 339) was analyzed and all missing data were accounted for by using full information maximum likelihood procedures.

Results

Attrition analysis

Completers did not differ significantly from those who dropped out regarding meaning in life, physical QOL, age, gender, time since diagnosis, perceived economic status and education level. Completers and those who dropped out differed in terms of employment status, with completers reporting being employed more often (57.6%) than dropouts (42.4%). They also differed in T1 mobility levels, with completers reporting lower levels of mobility (M = 3.36, SD = 0.88) than dropouts (M = 3.56, SD = 0.66), and in terms of the type of diagnosis (patients with MSD dropped out more often [39.6%] than those with CNSD [6.7%]). For details of attrition analyses see S2 Table.

Differences between CNSD and MSD patients, descriptive analysis, and correlations between study variables

As displayed by S3 Table, patients with MSD (vs patients with CNSD) reported higher levels of meaning in life at T1 and mobility (T1 and T2). There were no between-group differences in physical QOL levels at T1. At T2, patients with MSD reported higher physical QOL levels compared to patients with CNSD. There were no between-group differences in positive experiences with physical exercises at T1 or T2.

Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables are reported in Table 2. The hypothesized outcome, mediators, and the independent variable formed significant positive bivariate associations.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables at T1 and T2.

		M (SD)	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	Meaning in life (T1)	3.77 (0.91)	.25***	.40***	.24***	.29***	.33***	.34***
2	Physical quality of life (T1)	2.94 (0.51)		.46***	.29***	.66***	.36***	.30***
3	Mobility (T1)	3.42 (0.82)			.38***	.45***	.53***	.36***
4	Positive experiences with physical exercises (T1)	3.06 (0.71)				.29***	.33***	.56***
5	Physical quality of life (T2)	3.12 (0.55)					.58***	.43***
6	Mobility (T2)	3.47 (0.71)						.42***
7	Positive experiences with physical exercises (T2)	3.09 (0.61)

***p < .001. Abbreviations: T1: Time 1 (beginning of inpatient rehabilitation); T2: Time 2 (the 1-month follow-up, at the end of inpatient rehabilitation); M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

Testing the hypothesized mediation model

The results obtained for the multiple mediation model (Fig 1 and Table 3) showed that the association between meaning in life (T1) and physical QOL (T2) was sequentially mediated by positive experiences with physical exercises (T2; the first sequential mediator) and mobility (T2; the second sequential mediator), as indicated by significant indirect effects (Table 3). In particular, participants who reported higher levels of meaning in life at the beginning of the inpatient rehabilitation were likely to report more positive experiences with physical exercises (T2), which were related to a higher level of mobility (T2), which, in turn, was associated with better physical QOL at the end of the inpatient rehabilitation. Moreover, a model with positive experiences with physical exercises (T2) acting as a single mediator between meaning in life (T1) and physical QOL (T2) was also found to be significant.

Fig 1

The hypothesized sequential mediation model explaining physical QOL among 339 people with CNSD or MSD.

***p < .001. Abbreviations: T1: Time 1, the baseline (at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation); T2: Time 2, the 1-month follow-up (at the end of inpatient rehabilitation).

Table 3

Effects of meaning in life on physical quality of life through sequential mediators.

Indirect effects pathways	B	SE	95% CI
			Lower	Higher
Meaning in life (T1) → Positive experiences with physical exercises (T2) → Physical QOL (T2)	0.019	0.007	0.006	0.036
Meaning in life (T1) → Mobility (T2) → Physical QOL (T2)	0.011	0.009	-0.007	0.031
Meaning in life (T1) → Positive experiences with physical exercises (T2) → Mobility (T2) → Physical QOL (T2)	0.007	0.003	0.002	0.016
Direct effect pathways
Meaning in life (T1) → Positive experiences with physical exercises (T2)	0.125	0.030	0.066	0.184
Meaning in life (T1) → Mobility (T2)	0.043	0.036	-0.029	0.115
Meaning in life (T1) → Physical QOL (T2)	0.042	0.023	-0.002	0.088
Positive experiences with physical exercises (T2) → Mobility (T2)	0.236	0.065	0.107	0.364
Positive experiences with physical exercises (T2) → Physical QOL (T2)	0.154	0.041	0.073	0.236
Mobility (T2) → Physical QOL (T2)	0.257	0.034	0.190	0.324
Positive experiences with physical exercises (T1) → Positive experiences with physical exercises (T2)	0.485	0.034	0.409	0.562
Mobility (T1) → Mobility (T2)	0.462	0.040	0.384	0.540
Physical QOL (T1) → Physical QOL (T2)	0.636	0.040	0.556	0.716

Values of indirect effect coefficient (B) presented in bold are significant. Confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with the bootstrapping method, based on 10,000 repetitions. CI that do not include zero indicate a significant indirect effect. Significant coefficients are marked in bold. Abbreviations: QOL: quality of life; T1: Time 1 (the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation); T2: Time 2 (the 1-month follow-up, at the end of inpatient rehabilitation).

The hypothesized model was tested for a second time, controlling for potential confounders: patients’ age and gender, time since the diagnosis, and the type of diagnosis (CNSD vs MSD). A similar pattern of findings emerged, with a significant indirect effect for the two sequential mediators (positive experiences with physical exercises as the first mediator, mobility as the second mediator), B = 0.008, SE = 0.004, 95% CI [0.002, 0.017].

Discussion

This prospective study provides novel evidence for the indirect association between patients’ meaning in life and their physical QOL in the context of inpatient rehabilitation among people with MSD and CNSD. In particular, patients with CNSD or MSD who reported higher levels of meaning in life were more likely to perceive more positive experiences with physical exercises (T2; the first sequential mediator) and higher levels of mobility (T2; the second sequential mediator), and consequently reported better physical QOL (T2).

The results of the present study are in accord with previous research indicating that positive experiences with physical exercises are related to mobility [27], or that mobility is related to physical QOL [37]. However, previous research allowed for relatively limited conclusions as the majority used cross-sectional designs and focused on bivariate associations. In contrast, the present study provides preliminary evidence for a chain of associations and indirect effects of positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility, that operate linking meaning in life and a key outcome of rehabilitation, physical QOL.

Our study provides support for Ryff’s model of well-being [17] that assumes that meaning in life may be closely related to the positive affective reaction of people’s positive experiences [17, 18]. The assumptions of the stroke recovery cycle [21] were also confirmed. We found preliminary evidence that meaning in life may be associated with better physical QOL indirectly, through more positive experiences with physical exercises.

The findings of the present study are also in line with the meaning model proposed by Park et al. [19]. This model highlights the role of meaning in life as the central cognitive resource determining emotional and behavioral adaptation processes, and leading to better physical QOL among patients with chronic conditions [19]. Some potential implications for clinical practice may be drawn. For example, screening the levels of meaning in life at the beginning of rehabilitation may allow to identify people who are subsequently at risk for less positive experiences with physical exercises, lower mobility, and in turn, lower physical QOL. Experimental research showed that a meaning making intervention delivered to patients with a chronic illness may improve patients’ meaning in life for up to three months after an intervention [38]. However, such interventions did not have a direct effect on a QOL indicator, accounting for the physical domain [38]. These findings [38] may be interpreted as partially in line with our findings, suggesting that the associations between meaning in life and physical QOL are indirect (mediated by other constructs) rather than direct. The results of the present study suggest that the potential mechanism, explaining the link between meaning in life and physical QOL, may include positive experiences with physical exercises and improved mobility. This assumption, however, should be tested in further experimental research.

The present study has several limitations. The time gap between the measurement points was short, so it was not possible to test for long-term effects. The results should be treated as preliminary evidence, due to a suboptimal number of measurement points for a sequential mediation model. Accounting for 3 or 4 measurement points would allow drawing more in-depth conclusions and such a design is recommended for the future studies. Another limitation refers to attrition rates that were high, albeit similar to attrition rates observed in other research, conducted in the context of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation [23]. The patterns of missing data were systematic. To reduce the potential negative impact of high and systematic dropout, missing data were accounted for with a maximum likelihood estimation procedure, recommended for data with systematic attrition [36] and dropout rates as high as 50% [39].

A further limitation refers to the 1-item measurement of meaning in life, mobility, and positive experiences of physical exercises. These constructs should be assessed using measures with more items, however, a meta-analysis indicated that previous research which used one-item measures of meaning in life yielded similar results to those which used a more complex assessment [29]. Single item measurement of mobility was successfully applied in previous research [31, 32]. Regarding the 1-item measure of positive experiences with physical exercises, exploratory factor analyses showed that this particular item loads at the subscale of health-related positive experiences with a factor loading value of .78 [23]. Internal consistency of the measure of physical QOL at T1 was low. This was due to scores of 1 item (#16, sleep quality), that had a distinctly skewed distribution (g1 = 0.67) with 58% of participants indicating that the quality of their sleep was low or very low whereas other items had a normal distribution. Low scores reduced the reliability of the scale (α = .70 after the deletion of item #16). However, the item was retained for the purpose of future comparisons across studies using the standard 7-item version of the WHOQOL-BREF scale. The present study did not account for other factors which were found to be associated with physical QOL (e.g., social support or self-efficacy [40]). Future research may test the mediation model controlling for these factors. The subsample of participants with CNSD was relatively small, which did not allow for a well-powered exploratory analysis, testing if the type of diagnosis matters. Furthermore, the analyzed sample was ethnically homogeneous (all participants were white), and thus generalizations to ethnically diverse populations should be made with caution. Cognitive decline was used as an exclusion criterion among patients with CNSD, but it was not applied among patients with MSD. Cognitive decline is more likely to co-occur with MSD and functional/mobility issues, but mostly in people aged > 65 years old [41]. Only 4% of people with MSD in our sample were > 65 years old. Still, cognitive decline could occur among people with MSD participating in the present study, and consequently, affect the findings. Finally, it is possible that social desirability has contributed to potential biases in participants’ responses.

Conclusions

This prospective study confirmed the role of positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility as factors sequentially mediating the association between meaning in life and physical QOL among patients in rehabilitation. Higher levels of meaning in life measured at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation were associated with better physical QOL at the end of the 1-month rehabilitation, through higher levels of positive experiences with physical exercises and higher levels of mobility. Screening for meaning in life at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation may allow to identify individuals who are more likely to improve physical QOL.

Sample characteristics for subgroups based on ICD-10 diagnosis.

Abbreviations: ICD 10: The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (WHO, 2016), M: mean, SD: standard deviation.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Results of attrition analysis.

All variables were measured at Time 1. Abbreviations: M: mean; SD: standard deviation; a p-values in bold indicate statistical significance; b economic status was measured by a 3-point scale: 1—the economic situation worse than the average family in Poland, 2—similar to the economic situation of an average family in the country, 3 –better; c education was measured by a 3-point scale: 1—primary education or vocational education (no high school education), 2—secondary education, 3—higher education; d employment was measured by a 2-point scale: 1—employed (full- or part-time), 2—unemployed (or being retired or a pensioner); b, c, d for percentage of categories for economic status, education level, and employment see Table 1 (the manuscript).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Differences in study variables between subsamples with central nervous system diseases (CNSD) and musculoskeletal system diseases (MSD).

a p-values in bold indicate statistical significance. Abbreviations: QOL: Quality of life; T1: Time 1 (the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation); T2: Time 2 (1-month follow-up, at the end of inpatient rehabilitation); CNSD: central nervous system disease; MSD: musculoskeletal system disease; M: mean; SD: standard deviation; df: degrees of freedom; η2: partial eta squared.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-21036

Links between meaning in life and physical quality of life after rehabilitation: Mediating effects of positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs. Czekierda,

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 would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stefan Hoefer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Meaning in life and physical quality of life: Cross-lagged associations during inpatient rehabilitation.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Frep0000281

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript. We received three reviews and based on their recommendations and my own reading of the manuscript it may be considered for publication after fully addressing all of the points raised by each of the three reviewers.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The paper on links between meaning in life and physical quality of life after rehabilitation has a number of strengths, in particular the study's longitudinal research design and the large sample of rehabilitation patients. Assessment tools are suboptimal as most of them consist of single item measures. Also, the reliability of one 6-item measure was low. Authors are aware of these two shortcomings, and they mention this as a limitation.

When analyzing mediating effects of positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility, three of the four variables in the chain were assessed cross-sectionally. Mediation with cross-sectional data is adversarial to the spirit of mediation modeling, and violates implicit model assumptions. Authors are aware of this, and they mention this as a limitation.

At Time 2, 234 patients had returned. One might want to mention this in the Abstract? The total sample (N = 339) was analyzed and all available data were accounted for using full information maximum likelihood procedures. Information about the status of missings could be added. Missing values at random?

Table 2 (Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables at T1 and T2) has a mistake. The numbering in horizontal line is wrong: category 5 is missing.

In Line 215: here the CI needs to be repaired: , 95%BCI = [.002; .017], see APA style. At least the B needs to be removed.

Most of the shortcomíngs mentioned in this review cannot be targeted in a revision. However, the paper is overall interesting and well done, making a contribution to the literature. The minor technical flaws should be corrected.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents a longitudinal study that examined sequential mediation between meaning in life to positive affect in PA, then to mobility and then to QoL. There are 2 measurement point, less than the ideal for sequential analysis, yet an improvement over most cross sectional studies.

The paper is on an important issue of rehabilitation among patients with chronic conditions, is well written and analyzed in a sophisticated and rigorous fashion. The discussion acknowledges all the weaknesses of the paper (e.g., 2 time points, short measures etc).

Minor.

Table 1 should have also the N in each variable and not only the percentage.

Methods:

Reliability of α=0.45 is not acceptable (p. 8) as the text implies. There is an explanation in the discussion, but this does not make the value acceptable.

References # 30 and #31 are work that may also have used the 1-item mobility measure but are probably not the origin of the measure. Pls explain.

Recommendation: accept with minor revisions.

Reviewer #3: This study investigated the association between the constructs of ‘meaning of life’ and ‘physical quality of life’ in inpatients receiving rehabilitation; and explored if this association was mediated by mobility and having positive experiences of exercise. The authors applied mediation methods described by Hayes on a sample of 339 participants at baseline soon after admission to rehabilitation and n=239 four weeks later. The results were interpreted to suggest that the positive links between meaning of life and physical QOL were mediated by positive experiences of exercise and functional changes in physical quality of life.

The results should be reviewed by an expert in mediation analysis but from my simple understanding, the fact that direct pathways between meaning of life and mobility, and between meaning of life and physical QOL were nonsignificant (Table 3), suggests that mediation should not proceed further. That, is if these direct pathways are not significant (not different form zero) does it makes sense to ask if they are mediated by another factor?

Another issue that may require further explanation is the rationale for the links between the factors investigated, and hence the possible clinical implications (accepting the mediation results reported). For example, what is the logical or hypothesised causal link between the construct of meaning of life and functional changes in mobility? Also, it the construct of meaning of life amenable to change or does it just allow inpatients in rehabilitation to be screened?

Some specific comments

Abstract, line 20: Perhaps replace ‘general resource’ with ‘construct’.

Introduction, line 32: Please define the construct of ‘physical quality of life’. How does this construct map onto the WHO ICF?

Introduction, line 56: Not sure of the intended meaning of this sentence. Is it suggesting that making the experience of exercise positive is an important outcome of rehabilitation? Many would argue the purpose of exercise is to lead to functional improvement, that enjoyment, as such, is not an outcome.

Methods, line 98: Very high drop out rate which is a limitation of the study (31%).

Methods, line 110: Why was cognitive decline not an exclusion criterion for patients with MSD?

Methods, line 145: When the participant answered the item about positive experiences, what was their time frame. For example, could they be referring to the past before their health episode that led to rehabilitation?

Data analysis, lines 165- 170: More detail required. Was a sample size estimation completed? How were assumptions with modelling tested? A brief explanation of model 6 would help the reader

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Efrat Neter

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

26 Sep 2019

Reviewers' comments to the Authors:

Reviewer #1:

1. The paper on links between meaning in life and physical quality of life after rehabilitation has a number of strengths, in particular the study's longitudinal research design and the large sample of rehabilitation patients. Assessment tools are suboptimal as most of them consist of single item measures. Also, the reliability of one 6-item measure was low. Authors are aware of these two shortcomings, and they mention this as a limitation.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the positive evaluation of the design of the study and careful reading. We agree with the limitations of the study, yet we hope (as the reviewer indicated) they were appropriately discussed in the limitations section. Furthermore, measuring these constructs with single items was often applied in the past and resulted in findings similar to those that were obtained with more complex measures (for a meta-analysis see Czekierda et al., 2018, Health Psych Rev).

2. When analyzing mediating effects of positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility, three of the four variables in the chain were assessed cross-sectionally. Mediation with cross-sectional data is adversarial to the spirit of mediation modeling, and violates implicit model assumptions. Authors are aware of this, and they mention this as a limitation.

Authors’ response: Thank you for this comment. The revised manuscript (the data analysis section) indicates that the approach with two measurement points and controlling for the baseline levels of mediators and the dependent variable is acceptable, although suboptimal (see MacKinnon, 2008).

3. At Time 2, 234 patients had returned. One might want to mention this in the Abstract? The total sample (N = 339) was analyzed and all available data were accounted for using full information maximum likelihood procedures. Information about the status of missings could be added. Missing values at random?

Authors’ response: Thank you. The information about the sample size at T2 is now provided in the abstract. The revised Data Analysis section clarifies that Little’s MCAR test indicated that the missing data patterns were systematic, Little’s χ2(357) =,475.69 p < 001. To reduce the potential negative impact of systematic dropout, missing data were accounted for with a maximum likelihood estimation procedure, recommended for data with systematic attrition [36]. The total sample (N = 339) was analyzed and all available data were accounted for using full information maximum likelihood procedures.

4. Table 2 (Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables at T1 and T2) has a mistake. The numbering in horizontal line is wrong: category 5 is missing.

Authors’ response: Thank you for careful reading; the numbering has been corrected.

5. In Line 215: here the CI needs to be repaired: , 95%BCI = [.002; .017], see APA style. At least the B needs to be removed.

Authors’ response: Thank you, CI reporting has been corrected in line with APA style and reported as “95% CI [0.002, 0.017]”.

6. Most of the shortcomíngs mentioned in this review cannot be targeted in a revision. However, the paper is overall interesting and well done, making a contribution to the literature. The minor technical flaws should be corrected.

Authors’ response: We very much appreciate the recognition of the strengths of the studies and all the comments made by the Reviewer.

Reviewer #2:

1. The manuscript presents a longitudinal study that examined sequential mediation between meaning in life to positive affect in PA, then to mobility and then to QoL. There are 2 measurement point, less than the ideal for sequential analysis, yet an improvement over most cross sectional studies. The paper is on an important issue of rehabilitation among patients with chronic conditions, is well written and analyzed in a sophisticated and rigorous fashion. The discussion acknowledges all the weaknesses of the paper (e.g., 2 time points, short measures etc.).

Authors’ response: Thank you for the positive evaluation of the study design and possible impact of the findings.

Minor.

2. Table 1 should have also the N in each variable and not only the percentage.

Authors’ response: Thank you, respective numbers have been added.

Methods:

3. Reliability of α=0.45 is not acceptable (p. 8) as the text implies. There is an explanation in the discussion, but this does not make the value acceptable.

Authors’ response: The Reviewer is right. The interpretation of the size of the coefficient was changed as follows: “The reliability of the measure was low at T1, with α = .45 and acceptable at T2, with α = .70”

4. References # 30 and #31 are work that may also have used the 1-item mobility measure but are probably not the origin of the measure. Pls explain.

Authors’ response: Thank you for careful reading. The respective paragraph was revised. We indicate thatMobility was measured at T1 and T2 with1 item: ‘How well are you able to get around?’ This item was derived from the World Health Organization Quality of Life measure [6]. Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all’) to 5 (‘extremely’). The one-item measurement of mobility was used in previous research [31].

5. Recommendation: accept with minor revisions.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your helpful suggestions.

Reviewer #3:

1. This study investigated the association between the constructs of ‘meaning of life’ and ‘physical quality of life’ in inpatients receiving rehabilitation; and explored if this association was mediated by mobility and having positive experiences of exercise. The authors applied mediation methods described by Hayes on a sample of 339 participants at baseline soon after admission to rehabilitation and n=239 four weeks later. The results were interpreted to suggest that the positive links between meaning of life and physical QOL were mediated by positive experiences of exercise and functional changes in physical quality of life.

Authors’ response: Thank you for thoroughly reading the manuscript. We appreciate all insightful comments and suggestions made by the Reviewer.

2. The results should be reviewed by an expert in mediation analysis but from my simple understanding, the fact that direct pathways between meaning of life and mobility, and between meaning of life and physical QOL were nonsignificant (Table 3), suggests that mediation should not proceed further. That, is if these direct pathways are not significant (not different form zero) does it makes sense to ask if they are mediated by another factor?

Authors’ response: Thank you for this comment. As the Reviewer noticed, Baron and Kenny (1986; earlier: Judd & Kenny, 1981; James & Brett, 1984) recommended that establishing a significant association between the independent and dependent variable is essential to establish a mediation. Respectively, in the sequential mediation, a significant association between the independent variable and the second mediator would be essential to establish a sequential mediation, via the first mediator.

However, Kenny, Kashy and Bolger (1998), and subsequently other authors (see e.g., Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2204; MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon, Fairchild & Fritz, 2008) suggested that the direct association between the independent and dependent variable should be dropped. Among others, the assumption strongly reduces the likelihood of detecting the mediation which is moderate or small in size (MacKinnon et al., 2008) and therefore the direct association between the independent and dependent variable may be considered only if the assumed mediating effect is of large size.

Based on previous research, there was no background to expect large effect sizes, therefore we did not assume significant direct effects between the independent and the dependent variable (or, respectively, between the independent variable and the second mediator).

These issues were clarified in the revised Data Analysis section. We indicate thatIn line with MacKinnon [35] it was assumed that the following significant associations are essential to establish a mediation: (1) between the independent variable and the first mediator, (2) between the first mediator and the second mediator, and (3) between the second mediator and the dependent variable. The significant association between the independent and dependent variables is not an essential condition, because the expected mediation effects are of medium size [35].

Frazier, PA., Tix., AP., Barron, KE. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134.

MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.

MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A J., & Fritz, MS (2008). Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593-514.

3a. Another issue that may require further explanation is the rationale for the links between the factors investigated, and hence the possible clinical implications (accepting the mediation results reported). For example, what is the logical or hypothesised causal link between the construct of meaning of life and functional changes in mobility? Also, it the construct of meaning of life amenable to change or does it just allow inpatients in rehabilitation to be screened?

Authors’ response: Thank you for raising these relevant questions. In our study, we did not hypothesize direct associations between meaning in life and mobility. In contrast, we assumed that the association between positive experiences with physical exercise is linked to mobility, which, in turn is associated with better physical QOL.

To clarify this issue, the study aims section was revised to indicate thatIn line with the stroke recovery cycle [21] it was hypothesized that higher meaning in life (the independent variable) measured at the beginning of inpatient rehabilitation would be associated with higher reports of positive experiences with physical exercise (the first mediator). Furthermore, in line with the model of joyful movement [27] it was hypothesized that the positive experiences with physical exercise (the first mediator), would be related to better physical QOL (the dependent variable), via mobility (the second mediator). In sum, it was expected that meaning in life would be associated with higher physical QOL at the follow-up, through two sequential mediators, positive experiences with physical exercises (Mediator 1) and higher levels of mobility (Mediator 2).

3b. Also, it the construct of meaning of life amenable to change or does it just allow inpatients in rehabilitation to be screened?

Authors’ response: Thank you for this interesting question. The discussion section was revised in order to address interventions that target meaning in life.

In particular, we indicate that for example, screening the levels of meaning in life at the beginning of rehabilitation may allow to identify people who are subsequently at risk for less positive experiences with physical exercises, lower mobility, and in turn, lower physical QOL. Experimental research showed that meaning making interventions delivered to patients with a chronic illness are effectively improving meaning in life for up to three months after an intervention [38]. However, such intervention did not have direct effect on QOL indicator, accounting for the physical domain [38]. These findings [38] may be interpreted as partially in line with our findings, suggesting that the associations between meaning in life and physical QOL are indirect, mediated by other constructs. Consequently, a psychosocial intervention may boost meaning in life among patients with chronic illnesses and low levels of meaning in life. Our results of the present study suggest that the potential mechanism explaining the link between boosted meaning in life and physical QOL may include positive experience with physical exercises and improved mobility. This assumption, however, should be tested in further experimental research.

4. Some specific comments

Abstract, line 20: Perhaps replace ‘general resource’ with ‘construct’.

Authors’ response: Thank you, respective sentence was revised and shortened.

5. Introduction, line 32: Please define the construct of ‘physical quality of life’. How does this construct map onto the WHO ICF?

Authors’ response: Thank you. Physical QOL is now defined in the context of WHO ICF in the Introduction as follows: “The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) [6] presents disability, functioning, and health as the outcomes of interactions between health conditions and contextual factors (i.e., environmental and personal factors). Physical QOL reflects people’s perception of their physical state [7] and it is conceptualized as an indicator of physical health, and one of personal factors in the ICF [6].”

6. Introduction, line 56: Not sure of the intended meaning of this sentence. Is it suggesting that making the experience of exercise positive is an important outcome of rehabilitation? Many would argue the purpose of exercise is to lead to functional improvement, that enjoyment, as such, is not an outcome.

Authors’ response: Thank you for this comment. We agree with the Reviewer that the respective sentence was unclear and could be interpreted in various ways. The revised version includes a corrected sentence, which is in line with research and models of behavioral maintenance (e.g. Rothman, 2010; Fleig et al. 2011).

In particular, we state that participation in rehabilitation exercises may result in positive experience with exercises or satisfaction with experienced behavior and it outcomes, which in turn improves behavioral maintenance [22, 23, 24].

7. Methods, line 98: Very high dropout rate which is a limitation of the study (31%).

Authors’ response: Thank you for this relevant comment. The Discussion section was revised to clarify respective limitations, such as, the large scale of dropout. We also clarify that the best available methods to combat high dropout with MAR patterns were applied.

We have also indicated that although high, the attrition is similar to previous research conducted in the in-patient and out-patient rehabilitation. For example, Fleig et al. (2011) enrolled 415 patients at the beginning of rehabilitation with 78% participating 2 weeks later and 60% participating at approximately 8 weeks after the baseline.

The revised Discussion section clarifies that another limitation refers attrition rates which were high, albeit similar to attrition observed in other research conducted in the context of in-patient and out-patient rehabilitation [23]. Furthermore, the patterns of missing data were systematic. To reduce the potential negative impact of high and systematic dropout, missing data were accounted for with a maximum likelihood estimation procedure, recommended for data with systematic attrition [36] and dropout as high as 50% [39].

The revised Data Analysis section clarifies that Little’s MCAR test indicated that the missing data patterns were systematic, Little’s χ2(357) = 475.69, p < .001. To reduce the potential negative impact of systematic dropout, missing data were accounted for with a maximum likelihood estimation procedure, recommended for data with systematic attrition [36].

8. Methods, line 110: Why was cognitive decline not an exclusion criterion for patients with MSD?

Authors’ response: Among participants with MSD, 95% were ≤ 65 years old.

The age of patients with CNSD and MSD was clarified in the revised Methods section: “At Time 1 (T1), N = 339 participants (57.9% female) aged 19 – 84 (M = 54.41, SD = 11.32; 85% aged 19-65 years old, with 57% of CNSD patients aged ≤ 65 years old, and 98 MSD patients aged ≤ 65 years old).”

Cognitive decline is more likely to co-occur with MSD and functional/mobility issues in people aged > 65 (Calero-Garcia et al., 2016). Therefore, we did not consider that this may be a factor causing a bias in the present study.

However, we agree with the Reviewer that this is yet another limitation of the study. Consequently, this issue was addressed in the revised Discussion section. We state that cognitive decline was used as an exclusion criterion only for patients with CNSD, and not applied for patients with MSD. Cognitive decline is more likely to co-occur with MSD and functional/mobility issues in people aged > 65 [41], and 96% of people with MSD in our sample were ≤ 65 years old. However, it cannot be excluded that cognitive decline could occur among people with MSD participating in the present study, and consequently, affect the findings.

9. Methods, line 145: When the participant answered the item about positive experiences, what was their time frame. For example, could they be referring to the past before their health episode that led to rehabilitation?

Authors’ response: Thank you for this question. Participants were instructed to refer to their experience with exercise during the rehabilitation. The revised Methods section includes the respective information.

10. Data analysis, lines 165- 170: More detail required. Was a sample size estimation completed? How were assumptions with modelling tested? A brief explanation of model 6 would help the reader.

Authors’ response: Thank you for these questions. Sample size was estimated by G*Power calculator, which is now stated in the beginning of Data Analysis: “The G*Power calculator [32] was used to determine the sample size. Assuming medium effect sizes (f2 = 0.15) and accounting for potential confounders (listed below), the sample size was estimated to be at least 300 participants”.

Also, the revised Data Analysis section now provides a brief explanation of model 6: “Model 6 was applied. This model allows for testing indirect effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable, assuming that the independent variable predicts the first mediator, which predicts the second mediator. In turn, the second mediator predicts the dependent variable (the outcome) [34].”

16 Oct 2019

Links between meaning in life and physical quality of life after rehabilitation: Mediating effects of positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility

PONE-D-19-21036R1

Dear Dr. Czekierda,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Stefan Hoefer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The revision was made in a comprehensive manner, addressing all issues that could be remedied and acknowledging limitations when constraints were met (design etc).

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed each reviewer comment with care thought, resulting in an improved 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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Efrat Neter

Reviewer #3: No

23 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-21036R1

Links between meaning in life and physical quality of life after rehabilitation: Mediating effects of positive experiences with physical exercises and mobility

Dear Dr. Czekierda:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Stefan Hoefer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE