A national survey in United Arab Emirates on practice of passive range of motion by physiotherapists in intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) are at an increased risk of developing immobility related complications. Physiotherapists are challenged to employ preventive and rehabilitative strategies to combat these effects. Passive limb range of motion (PROM) exercises- a part of early mobilization-aid in maintaining joint range of motion and functional muscle strength and forms a part of treatment for patients in ICU. However, there is a lack of evidence on practice of PROM exercises on patients admitted to ICU in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This study aimed at exploring practices regarding the same in UAE.
METHODS: This survey, conducted from January 2021 to February 2021 in College of Physiotherapy, Sharjah University studied practice of physiotherapists in the intensive care units. Physiotherapists currently working in ICU completed an online questionnaire composed of forty-two questions about physiotherapy service provision, assessment and intervention in the intensive care units.
RESULTS: 33 physiotherapists completed the survey. 66.6% of respondents routinely assessed PROM for all the patients in ICU referred for physiotherapy. 84.8% of them assessed all the joints. More than half of the respondents (57.8%) reported that they administered PROM regularly to all the patients. According to 63.6% respondents, maintaining joint range of motion was the main reason for performing PROM. Responses pertaining to sets and repetitions of PROM were variable ranging from 1-6 sets and from 3 to 30 repetitions. Personal experience, resources/financial consideration and research findings were found to have influence on the practice.
CONCLUSIONS: PROM was found to be one of the frequently used mobilization techniques administered by physiotherapists in the intensive care units and was mostly performed after assessment. Maintaining joint range of motion was the main aim for performing PROM. Variability was found in the sets and repetitions of PROM administered. Various factors influenced the practice of PROM.

Introduction

Patients with a life-threatening disease or trauma are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with different stay durations from hours to months depending on the pathophysiology of the condition and the responsiveness to the given treatment [1,2]. They are usually confined to bed, which could have a negative impact on their mobility [3]. Prolonged immobilization, mechanical ventilation, and sedation have been associated with restricted joint mobility, critical illness neuropathies or ICU-acquired weakness, pressure sores, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), long duration of mechanical ventilation and cognitive impairments [3,4].

Continued inactivity and bed rest lead to decline in the use of skeletal muscles that result in reduced muscle synthesis and increased breakdown of protein with subsequent catabolism, weakness, and atrophy of muscles [5]. Myosin isoforms change from slow twitch to fast twitch fibers and metabolism changes from fatty acid to glucose [6]. Loss of muscle mass can cause up to 40% reduction in muscle strength within the first week of immobilization [5]. Critical illness survivors usually experience residual problems such as decreased physical function and mobility [7]. These sequelae have a great influence on the patients’ overall functional activity and health-related quality of life [8].

Early mobilization is the early application and intensification of physical rehabilitation given to patients with critical illness, commenced within the initial two to five days of critical illness [9]. It includes activities such as in-bed mobility activities, range of motion exercises, sitting, standing, transfers, and gait training [6]. Early mobility in the ICU has been proposed to limit or prevent physical and cognitive dysfunction and provide various benefits [9,10]. Physiotherapists in ICU have an essential role in designing and practicing rehabilitation programs that aim to reinforce the mobility and strength of critically ill patients [11].

Ranges of motion exercises- active, active assisted and passive- maintain the muscle and joint integrity thus maintaining the function [12]. Passive range of motion is produced by an external force during muscular inactivity or when muscular activity is voluntarily reduced as much as possible to permit movements. Benefits of passive range of motion exercises include preventing adhesion formation and maintaining present free range of motion. When active movement is impossible, because of muscular insufficiency, these movements may help to preserve the memory of the movement patterns by stimulating the receptors of kinaesthetic sense. Extensibility of muscle is maintained and adaptive shortening is prevented. Venous and lymphatic return may be assisted slightly by mechanical pressure and by stretching of the thin walled vessels that pass across the joint moved [12].

A study was conducted in the United Kingdom to investigate the current use of passive joint movements by a physiotherapist working with sedated and ventilated patients in critical care settings. A questionnaire was distributed in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, among 246 physiotherapists working in ICU. The study reported that 99% of the respondents’ practiced passive movements regularly in more than 70% of the patients admitted in ICU with medical, surgical or neurological disorders [11].

Likewise, a study in Australia was carried out to investigate physiotherapists’ practice of passive limb range of motion on adult patients in ICU. A questionnaire was sent to physiotherapists working in level 3 adult ICU and responses showed variable application of passive limb range of motion. 35% of respondents undertook a routine assessment of passive limb range of motion for the patients admitted to ICU and 14% provided passive limb range of motion exercises in routine bases for all adult patients in ICU [8].

Variability in the practice of passive limb range of motion has been seen in different regions [8,11]. However, there is a lack of evidence on practice of passive limb range of motion in patients admitted to the ICU in the United Arab Emirates. Understanding the current practices may help in implementing and reforming its application in these patients and may also serve as a platform for future research. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the current physiotherapy practice patterns regarding passive limb range of motion in the patients admitted to the ICU in the United Arab Emirates.

Materials and methods

Ethical considerations, registration of the study protocol and development of questionnaire

This survey, conducted from January 2021 to February 2021 in College of Physiotherapy, Sharjah University, studied practice of physiotherapists in the intensive care units. Approval was taken from the Research Ethics Committee, University of Sharjah (REC-21-01-S). A questionnaire was developed with reference to a previous survey done in Australia after taking consent from the authors [8]. The clinical practice of passive limb range of motion by a physiotherapist in ICU’ questionnaire had forty-two questions that were divided among five main sections: physiotherapy service provision, physiotherapy assessment, and physiotherapy intervention, reflection on current practice, background, and personal information. It also consisted descriptive information regarding the ICU the participant worked in and other questions regarding the participant’s characteristics. Some questions were close-ended, whereas others required ranking of responses using a scale. The questionnaire was given to five physiotherapists in ICU and an expert in the field of cardio-pulmonary physiotherapy for content validation (content validity ratio, CVR = 1).

Selection of participants

Physiotherapists currently treating patients admitted to the intensive care units in the United Arab Emirates were eligible to be included in the survey. Those having less than one-year experience in treating critically ill patients were excluded.

Recruitment

Lists of major private and governmental hospitals were obtained from the database of the Emirates physiotherapy society, UAE. Each hospital was contacted through physical visits or phone calls to identify the number of physiotherapists working in the Intensive Care Unit. From these hospitals (both government and private), 54 physiotherapists were identified as working in ICUs.

Administration of questionnaire

The data collection took place over a period of four weeks. A Google hyperlink- consisting of a questionnaire along with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and a consent form- was sent to the 54 physiotherapists via email. The participants were requested to complete the questionnaire based on their clinical experiences with the patients in ICU. Two weeks, from the date of mailing, was given for sending back the responses. A reminder was sent to non-responders after two weeks via phone calls and emails. The investigators waited for responses for another two weeks, after which the non-responder were excluded from the study.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive summaries, frequencies and percetages were obtained by numerical coding of data and analysis using Statistical packages for social sciences (SPSS) version 16.36.

Results

Questionnaires were sent to 54 participants out of whom 33 of them responded giving a response rate of 61.1%. Respondent characteristics and descriptive information regarding the intensive care units in which they practiced are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics and descriptive data of respondents and intensive care units.

Respondents
Age, year n (%)
20–30 years	22(66.7%)
31–40 years	6(18.1%)
41–50 years	4(12.1%)
>50 years	1(3.0%)
Sex (male/female) n (%)	12(36.4%)/21(63.6%)
Years since graduation (Mean±SD)	7.4±7.7
Postgraduate qualification * n (%)
Master’s Degree in Physiotherapy	4(12.1%)
Doctor of Physiotherapy (DPT)	1(3.0%)
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)	2(6.1%)
Sport physiotherapy certificate	1(3.0%)
Master of Business Administration	1(3.0%)
Years of ICU experience n (%)
<5 years	25(75.7%)
5–10 years	5(15.2%)
11–15 years	2(6.1%)
>15 years	1(3.0%)
Intensive Care Units
No. of beds n (%)
<15 beds	14(42.4%)
16–30 beds	11(33.3%)
31–50 beds	6(18.2%)
>50 bed	2(6.1%)
No. of admissions per year n (%)
<50 admission	7(21.2%)
50–100 admission	19(57.6%)
>100 admission	7(21.2%)
Average duration of ICU stay in days (Mean±SD)	15.06±10.1
Average duration of mechanical ventilation in days	7.5±4.82
Types of patients admitted to ICU n(%)
Medical	23(69.7%)
Surgical	20(60.6%)
Trauma	23(69.7%)
Burns	17 (51.5%)

*All physiotherapists practicing in United Arab Emirates are qualified with an undergraduate physiotherapy degree.

Physiotherapy service provision

18 (54.5%) of the respondents indicated that their intensive care unit had a blanket referral for physiotherapy (all the patients admitted to the ICU are automatically referred for physiotherapy), whereas the remaining 15 (45.5%) of them required referral from medical staff. The mean and standard deviation of full-time equivalent (FTE) physiotherapists allocated to each intensive care unit for its weekdays regular service was 3.2±1.8, and the range was variable (1.0–8.0 FTE).

Physiotherapy assessment

Most of the respondents (n = 22; 66.6%) indicated that all referred patients in the ICU were assessed by physiotherapists routinely. For respondents who reported that patients were not assessed routinely (n = 11; 33.3%), criteria for assessment included physiotherapists’ judgment based on patients’ medical records (n = 4; 12.1%) or current medical condition of the patients (n = 7; 21.2%).

A majority of the respondents assessed PROM routinely for all the patients in ICU (n = 25; 75.8%).For those not performing the assessment regularly, criteria for assessment included prolonged ICU length of stay (n = 5; 15.1%), the reason for admission (n = 6; 18.2%), past medical history (n = 3; 9.1%), patient sedation (n = 2; 6.1%), and intubation status (n = 1; 3.0%). Moreover, when assessing PROM, most respondents (n = 28; 84.8%) assessed all joints, while others assessed selected joints, as shown in Fig 1. 26 respondents (78.8%) reported that they used visual estimation measures to joint range of motions whereas others used goniometric measures (n = 6; 18.2%). 1 participant responded that he used objective assessment but the method was not specified. As shown in Fig 2, passive limb range of motion, for every patient, was most commonly assessed twice to three times per week (n = 15; 45.5%) and the assessment most often took 6–15 minutes per patient (n = 23; 69.7%).

Fig 1

Joints assessed for passive limb range of motion reported by the 33 respondents.

Fig 2

Frequency and duration of performing passive range of motion assessment reported by the 33 respondents.

Physiotherapy intervention

Nineteen (57.8%) respondents indicated that they routinely treated all the patients with a passive limb range of motion exercises irrespective of their assessment findings. For the others, criteria for its administration, were as following: increased risk of loss of limb range of motion (e.g., increased tone, burns) (n = 11; 33.3%), a unilateral reduction in limb range of motion in comparison to the patient’s other side (n = 4; 12.1%), and reduced limb range of motion with respect to normal parameters (n = 6; 18.2%).

Tables 2 and 3 show the respondents’ rankings based on their aim of performing passive limb range of motion exercises on the patients and the treatment technique/modalities used. Considering the aim of the treatment, maintaining joint range of motion was ranked as most important (n = 21; 63.6%) (Table 2). The most important treatment technique was manually applied passive limb range of motion (Table 3). 15 (45.5%) respondents reported that the aim of treatment affected their choice of treatment technique or modalities.

Table 2

Rankings awarded by respondents based on the importance of the aims of passive limb range of motion exercises.

Ranking Aims	1 Most Important	2	3	4	5	6	7 Least Important
Maintain joint range of motion	21	5	3	0	0	3	1
Maintain soft tissue extensibility	1	19	4	4	1	2	2
Reduce loss of joint range of motion	1	0	17	6	6	1	2
Reduce loss of soft tissue extensibility	0	2	3	18	6	4	0
Increase joint range of movement	1	0	2	4	17	4	5
Increase soft tissue extensibility	2	3	2	1	1	18	6
Preserve function	7	4	2	0	2	1	17

Numbers in the boxes represent the frequencies of respondents.

Blue-0% of respondents.

White-1-25% of respondents.

Orange-26-50% of respondents.

Green-51-75% of respondents.

Yellow->75% of respondents.

Table 3

Rankings awarded by respondents based on the importance of the use of passive range of motion techniques/modalities.

Rankings Uses	1 Most Important	2	3	4	5	6	7 Least Important
Manually applied passive limb range of motion	25	2	0	1	1	0	4
Orthoses/splints	0	13	7	5	4	2	2
Positioning regimen	1	9	13	2	4	4	0
Continuous passive motion machine	1	1	3	15	6	4	3
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation	1	3	4	5	11	4	5
Mobilization (standing, walking)	2	3	4	1	5	16	2
Compression garments	3	2	2	4	2	3	17

Numbers in the boxes represent the frequencies of respondents.

Blue-0% of respondents.

White-1-25% of respondents.

Orange-26-50% of respondents.

Green-51-75% of respondents.

Yellow->75% of respondents.

Furthermore, highest number of respondents reported that they performed passive limb range of motion exercises once daily in weekdays i.e. Sunday to Thursday (n = 12; 36.4%). The second most common response was twice daily during the weekdays (n = 8; 24.2%) 1 respondent reported that its frequency depends on the case (condition of the patient). Responses pertaining to sets and repetitions of passive limb range of motion exercises were variable ranging from 1–6 sets and from 3 to 30 repetitions. Some of the respondents (n = 12; 36.4%) prescribed 3 sets of 10 repetitions while the others (n = 6; 18.2%) prescribed 1 set of 10 repetitions. End of resistance (n = 16; 48.5%) and limit of pain (n = 15; 45.5%) were the most common parameters, reported by the respondents, that were used to limit the range while administering these exercises. 26 (78.8%) of the respondents reported that they reassessed effects of passive limb range of motion and was mostly done via visual estimation (n = 26; 78.8%).

17(51.6%) respondents reported that nursing staff (n = 11; 33.3%) and physiotherapy assistants (n = 10; 30.3%), were the staff other than physiotherapists, who performed passive limb range of motion for patients in ICU. They followed instructions of physiotherapists (n = 10; 30.3%), nursing staff (n = 5; 15.1%) or medical staff (n = 3; 9.1%). 11(33.3%) respondents indicated that all the patients were treated by the non- physiotherapist staff, 3(9.09%) of them indicated that only patients with a reduction in passive limb range of motion with respect to normal parameters were treated while the and the other 3(9.09%) of them reported that patients who were at increased risk of limb loss of range of motion were treated by them.

Reflection of current practice

When reflecting on the current practice in intensive care units (Fig 3), most respondents (n = 20; 60.7%) commonly encountered patients with loss of passive limb range of motion or contractures (1–10% admissions) and were managed mostly by increased repetitions or sets of passive limb range of motion exercises (n = 17; 51.5%) or by increased use of splint (n = 10; 36.4%). According to 18(54.5%) respondents, loss of passive limb range of motion or contracture was a major problem. Patients’ quality of life (n = 10; 30.3%) was ranked the highest and increased physiotherapy time required (n = 11; 33.3%) was ranked the lowest among the problems caused by the contractures (Table 4).

Fig 3

Frequencies for the incidence, magnitude of the problem, and management in relation to loss of passive limb range of motion/contracture reported by the 33 respondents.

Table 4

Rankings awarded by respondents for the problems that resulted from loss of passive limb range of motion/contracture.

Rankings Problems	1 Most Important	2	3	4	5	6 Least Important
Patient cosmesis	9	0	4	9	4	7
Patient hygiene	3	11	8	3	6	2
Patient function	7	9	10	2	2	3
Patient quality of life	10	6	5	8	3	1
Increased hospital length of stay	2	5	2	6	9	9
Increased physiotherapy time required	2	2	4	5	9	11

Numbers in the boxes represent the frequencies of respondents.

Blue-0% of respondents.

White-1-25% of respondents.

Orange-26-50% of respondents.

Green-51-75% of respondents.

Yellow->75% of respondents.

Some respondents (n = 12; 36.4%) indicated that they spent less than 25% of their time with intensive care unit patients doing passive limb range of motion exercises, while the others (n = 12; 36.4%) spent 25–50% of their time. 19 (57.6%) of them thought that the current practices with respect to these exercises were mostly effective. Although all the other factors were considered as predisposing factors for developing contractures, neurological conditions (n = 23; 69.7%) and burns (n = 23; 69.7%), were considered the most important factors (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Frequencies for predisposing factors for loss of passive limb range of motion reported by the 33 respondents.

Table 5 shows the ranking of factors that influence the physiotherapy practice with respect to the passive limb range of motion for the patients admitted to ICU. Personal experience, resources/financial consideration and research findings were found to have influence on the practice, whereas patients’ status being public or private had the least influence.

Table 5

Rankings awarded by respondents for the influence of selected factors on respondents’ physiotherapy practice with respect to passive limb range of motion.

Rankings Factors	1 No Influence	2	3 Moderate Influence	4	5 Very Influential
Personal experience	4	0	6	8	15
Research findings	1	7	10	9	6
Advice from colleagues	4	6	10	9	4
Medical staff preferences	4	8	8	11	2
Resource/financial considerations	4	7	8	7	7
Established practice	4	6	10	8	5
Staffing numbers/caseload	5	6	11	7	4
Local/non-local patients	15	5	7	4	2

Numbers in the boxes represent the frequencies of respondents.

Blue-0% of respondents.

White-1-25% of respondents.

Orange-26-50% of respondents.

Green-51-75% of respondents.

Yellow->75% of respondents.

Discussion

This survey studied the practice of passive limb range of motion performed by physiotherapists in the intensive care units across the United Arab Emirates. We found that patients in the ICU received passive limb range of motion either by blanket referral (when all the patients admitted to the ICU are automatically referred for physiotherapy), or by referral from medical staff (doctors). A major portion of the respondents assessed passive limb range of motion routinely.

Range of motion can be measured using different methods including various goniometers or visual estimation [13]. Most respondents assessed all joints (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle) routinely, usually by visual estimation. They assessed the passive limb range of motion twice or thrice a week, each assessment session taking a maximum 6 to 15 minutes.

Immobility, contraindication to active movements and stiffness are some of the indications for passive range of motion exercises [14]. But, our results showed that nearly half of the respondents provided these exercises for all the patients in ICU. Only a minority of respondents provided the treatment based on the patients’ risk of developing limb range of motion loss.

Passive limb range of motion could be provided to patients manually or using equipment like continuous passive motion machines or cycle ergometer [15,16]. In our survey, the most frequently used mode of treatment by physiotherapists was manually applied passive limb range of motion exercises. Number of sets varied significantly among different respondents. Aims for performing these exercises are maintaining muscle strength and range of motion, minimizing contractures and assisting circulation [12,14]. We found that most of the respondents administered these exercises with the main aim of maintaining joint range of motion. A survey done in the United Kingdom also identified ‘maintaining joint range of motion’ and ‘preventing contractures’ as the main aims of administering passive range of motion to the patients in ICU [17].

Passive limb range of motion exercises can be administered to patients in ICU to increase proportion of perfused vessels [18] and strength of the muscles [19,20]. They can also decrease the pain, cytokine levels [21] and incidence of ICU acquired weakness [22] without having any significant hemodynamic changes, even in mechanically ventilated patients [16,18,21].

The common frequency of performing passive joint range of motion was found to be once daily, 5 days a week. The sets and repetitions had a varied range from 1–6 sets and from 3–10 repetitions for each joint. In a survey done in Australia, by Wiles et al, the common frequencies were found to be once daily for seven days a week and once daily for five days a week [8]. Similarly, the sets and repetitions had a variable range from 1–4 sets and 2 to 30 receptions for each joint. However, for patients who were developing or had already developed loss of joint range of motion, therapists intensified their interventions by adding sets and repetitions to the range of motion exercise and increasing the time in splints.

The survey reported that passive limb range of motion exercises were also performed by staff other than physiotherapists like nursing staff and physiotherapy assistants. Similar result was found in a study done by Wiles et al [8]. According to most of the respondents, time spent on these exercises was upto 50% of their time with the patients. Similar results found in the survey done by Wiles et al [8].

Joint contracture is a limitation in the passive limb range of motion of a joint secondary to shortening of the periarticular connective tissues and muscles. Abnormal posture, immobility and muscle weakness are predisposing factors for contractures [23]. In our survey, burns and neurological conditions were found to be the most common predisposing factor for contractures. Many respondents indicated that contractures were fairly common among the patients in ICU and that they were a major problem as the patients’ cosmesis and quality of life would be affected.

We limited our study sample to physiotherapists only, as they are mostly responsible for mobility of the patients. Other studies mostly included senior physiotherapists (depending on the number of years of experience) as respondents [8,11]. Instead, we gathered responses from physiotherapists with at least one year of experience in the ICU to have an idea about overall practice of passive limb range of motion in patients admitted to ICU. Most of our respondents (66.7%) were juniors (20–30 years) and they considered experience as a factor that would influence their practice. The practice patterns explored in the study may be influenced by therapists’ age, gender qualifications and years of experience.

The limitation of this survey was the small sample size, the reason being that there are less number of physiotherapists treating patients in ICU and having atleast one year of experience. Another factor that contributed to the small sample size was the response rate. This could be because this survey took approximately twenty minutes which could have led to reduction in completion rates and abandonment of survey. Also, this survey was conducted through online mode. Although it allows reaching a larger population in a short span of time, some participants- such as the senior population who are less familiar with advancement in technology- could have faced difficulty in filling the survey. This could be one of the reasons why most of our respondents were younger physiotherapists.

Our study is the first of its kind in the United Arab Emirates that provides descriptive data about the passive limb range of motion in ICU settings. Similar studies could take place in other countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council region to identify differences and allow the comparison of the different practices in these regions. The results of this study aided in understanding the practices of passive limb range of motion in ICU, which could guide in making protocols for the same. Physiotherapy practice in the intensive care units of the United Arab Emirates is still nascent and requires development in many domains. Studies of this nature help to highlight the practices of physiotherapists working in intensive care units and can aid in reforming these practices.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

29 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-07815

A national survey in United Arab Emirates on practice of passive range of motion by physiotherapists in intensive care unit

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alaparthi,

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 Jun 13 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please upload a copy of the questionnaire as a supplemental file.

3. 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 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 identifying or sensitive patient information) 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

**********

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: Reviewer comments:

Abstract:

1. The background of the study is too long and also not justified the research gap.

2. The methods section is missing the study design, study setting, and the study duration.

3. The results component should consist of the correlation between the passive movement and its improvement in joint range of motion.

4. The conclusion is not drawn on the basis of the results drawn.

Article

1. How come this study is differing from articles 9, 01, 11?

2. How come the UAE ethnicity and demographic characters are differed from England and Australia people?

3. Authors failed to find the research gap and its clinical significance.

4. Include the ethical committee name and its reference number.

5. Include the reliability and validity of the questionnaire used for this survey.

6. Include the name of the questionnaire.

7. Include the method used for finding the sample size?

8. Mention the statistical analysis performed for this survey.

9. The results component should consist of the correlation between the passive movement and its improvement in joint range of motion.

10. Mention the role of age, gender, educational qualification, years of experience etc… in physical therapy intervention.

11. The discussion part should define the mechanism, how passive movement improves patient’s symptoms in ICU with recent references.

12. Overall, this study is not scientifically strong and also technically week for publishing.

Reviewer #2: PLOS ONE REVIEW

Topic: A national survey in United Arab Emirates on practice of passive range of motion by physiotherapists in intensive care unit

Abstract

Line 33: Sample size extremely too small for a national survey.

Line 39: 51.6% is more than half and not almost half

Line 43: What assessment is being referred to? statement not clear.

Introduction

Line 78: Effects should be changed to Benefits

Materials and Methods

Line 110: was made should be changed to was developed.

Line 116: Reflection on their current practice is repeated. It is already written in line 113.

Lines 122-125: What are the exclusion criteria. This statement on inclusion criteria is not clear.

Lines 126-127: Was required sample size not calculated? What physiotherapy Groups exactly? This has to be clearly stated. Would the national licensing body not be better? Were they from both private and government hospitals?

Results

Line 140: Are there a total 54 ICU physiotherapist with at least one year experience?

Line 143: Table should be properly labelled as n (%), n, meaning frequency. The frequency data under age, gender and years of ICU experience do not add up to 33. The mean value for year of graduation says .3, I don’t know how that can be. The average duration of ICU stay should be clear if it was recorded in days, weeks or months. Under types of patients admitted to the ICU, Burns (the frequency and the percentage) was written twice. What is GCC Region? Please be clear on that. Generally, be consistent with the number of decimal points.

Line 148: What is Blanket referral? Please be clear on that.

Line 151: Please include the standard deviation to the mean of 3.75

Lines 166-168: It is good to clarify if the statement is per patient.

Line 182: Tables 2 and 3. S should be added to table.

Line 190 and 194: Tables should be better labelled to indicate that these figures are all frequencies. The coding is not clear.

Line 204: Percentage of 37.5 cannot be referred to as majority.

Line 206 and 207: The percentage calculation of 26 (81.3%) or 26 (96.3%) is not correct.

Line 212: Frequency of 10 cannot be referred to as most of the respondents. Frequency of 10 cannot give a percentage of 55,6.

Line 223: What percentage of the respondents reported contractures to be the major problem.

Line 238: Table should be better labelled to indicate that these figures are all frequencies. The coding should be made clearer.

Line 249: According to figure 4, we had both neurological condition and burns, can this be made clearer?

Line 260: Table should be better labelled to indicate that these figures are all frequencies. The coding should be made clearer.

Many of the percentage calculations are not correct. Some are lower, while some are higher.

It is difficult to ascertain the actual sample size, 30 0r 33. Please this has to be clear, what exactly is the sample size?

Discussion

Line 269: What is Blanket referral? Can it be reworded?

Line 270: What other staff? Doctors? other physiotherapist? It has to be clearly stated.

Line 315: Who are senior physiotherapist? By age or by cadre? Are senior Physiotherapists not included at all in this study.

Line 318-320: Could this be as a result of the mode of data collection? could it be that younger individuals generally have better reaction towards activities online?

Line 321: I am worried that the sample size of 33 or 30 may not represent the perception of ICU physiotherapists in the UAE.

What are the possible limitations to this study?

Any acknowledgements?

Figures

Can the bars on Fig 3 be better aligned?

Raw Data

Not available for review.

**********

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: Ajepe, Titilope Oluwatobiloba

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

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

10 Jun 2021

Thank You for the corrections. We have tried our best to incorporate all the corrections. Please find attached the revised manuscript and response to reviewers file for your kind perusal.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-07815R1

A national survey in United Arab Emirates on practice of passive range of motion by physiotherapists in intensive care unit

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alaparthi,

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 Aug 12 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Five new authors have been added to the authors list.

Each authors’ contribution should be explained. Please provide the authors’ contributions in line with ICMJE4 criteria.

The major concern in the study is the small sample size compared with the study design. The authors have to explain how did they calculate the sample size and power of the study?

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

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

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

5 Jul 2021

Thank You for your comments. We have provided explanation for your valuable comments.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Aug 2021

A national survey in United Arab Emirates on practice of passive range of motion by physiotherapists in intensive care unit

PONE-D-21-07815R2

Dear Dr. Alaparthi,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D.

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Dear Author,

I regret to say that this is a very outdated title, which could not be reviewed.

Regards

Reviewer #3: -

Reviewer #4: Dear authors of the manuscript entitled "A national survey in United Arab Emirates on practice of passive range of motion by physiotherapists in intensive care unit

" i found your article quite intresting, i have no comments and i believe that the manuscript is eligible for publication

best wishes

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

13 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-07815R2

A national survey in United Arab Emirates on practice of passive range of motion by physiotherapists in intensive care unit

Dear Dr. Alaparthi:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Walid Kamal Abdelbasset

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE