Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey

Current Rehabilitation Practices of... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117" }, "headline": "Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey", "datePublished": "2025-01-21T16:03:04", "dateModified": "2025-05-06T10:15:15", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Monia Ashraf Megahed" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Gopala Krishna Alaparthi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Emad A. Aboelnasr" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Amira Hassan Bekhet" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kalyana Chakravarthy Bairapareddy" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Heba Hijazi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Alham Al-Sharman" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fatma A. Hegazy" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Abstract* Background Intensive care units (ICUs) are essential for patient recovery, but prolonged stays often result in complications like reduced mobility and muscle weakness. Aims This study examines current ICU rehabilitation practices in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) through a web-based cross-sectional survey involving 80 physiotherapists from both public and private sectors. Methods The questionnaire, validated by experts with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84, explored various rehabilitation strategies. Most participants held bachelor’s degrees and had 2-5 years of experience. Results Over 96% required physician referrals for ICU physiotherapy sessions, and 75% noted that hospitals provided development programs to enhance skills. Respiratory therapy, joint mobilization, and electrical stimulation were the most commonly used interventions, while massage, continuous passive motion machines, and taping were less frequently applied. Among neonatal ICU patients, 85.7% of physiotherapists regularly performed passive range of motion exercises, and 69% consistently involved parents in the treatment plan. The results indicate a variety of practices among ICU physiotherapists in the UAE, with no clear adherence to standardized protocols. This lack of consistency may negatively affect patient care quality. Conclusion The study underscores the importance of implementing standardized rehabilitation protocols and enhancing patient education to improve outcomes in ICU settings. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1", "name": "Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive..." } } ] } Home Browse Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Ashraf Megahed M, Alaparthi GK, Aboelnasr EA et al. Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159853.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] Monia Ashraf Megahed 1 , Gopala Krishna Alaparthi 2 , Emad A. Aboelnasr 3 , [...] Amira Hassan Bekhet 3 , Kalyana Chakravarthy Bairapareddy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5159-5951 1 , Heba Hijazi 4,5 , Alham Al-Sharman 1,6 , Fatma A. Hegazy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5355-8639 1,3,7 Monia Ashraf Megahed 1 , Gopala Krishna Alaparthi 2 , [...] Emad A. Aboelnasr 3 , Amira Hassan Bekhet 3 , Kalyana Chakravarthy Bairapareddy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5159-5951 1 , Heba Hijazi 4,5 , Alham Al-Sharman 1,6 , Fatma A. Hegazy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5355-8639 1,3,7 PUBLISHED 21 Jan 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 2 Department of Health Professions, Faculty of Health and Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England, UK 3 Cairo University Faculty of Physical Therapy, Ad Doqi, Giza Governorate, Egypt 4 Department of Health Care Management, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 5 Department of Health Management and Policy, Jordan University of Science and Technology Faculty of Medicine, Irbid, Irbid Governorate, Jordan 6 Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, , Physiotherapy, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Irbid Governorate, Jordan 7 Neuro musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Research Institute of Medical and Health Science, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Monia Ashraf Megahed Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Gopala Krishna Alaparthi Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Emad A. Aboelnasr Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Amira Hassan Bekhet Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Kalyana Chakravarthy Bairapareddy Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Heba Hijazi Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis Alham Al-Sharman Roles: Data Curation, Methodology Fatma A. Hegazy Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Health Services gateway. Abstract Abstract* Background Intensive care units (ICUs) are essential for patient recovery, but prolonged stays often result in complications like reduced mobility and muscle weakness. Aims This study examines current ICU rehabilitation practices in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) through a web-based cross-sectional survey involving 80 physiotherapists from both public and private sectors. Methods The questionnaire, validated by experts with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84, explored various rehabilitation strategies. Most participants held bachelor’s degrees and had 2-5 years of experience. Results Over 96% required physician referrals for ICU physiotherapy sessions, and 75% noted that hospitals provided development programs to enhance skills. Respiratory therapy, joint mobilization, and electrical stimulation were the most commonly used interventions, while massage, continuous passive motion machines, and taping were less frequently applied. Among neonatal ICU patients, 85.7% of physiotherapists regularly performed passive range of motion exercises, and 69% consistently involved parents in the treatment plan. The results indicate a variety of practices among ICU physiotherapists in the UAE, with no clear adherence to standardized protocols. This lack of consistency may negatively affect patient care quality. Conclusion The study underscores the importance of implementing standardized rehabilitation protocols and enhancing patient education to improve outcomes in ICU settings. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords ICU Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Practices, National Survey Corresponding Author(s) Fatma A. Hegazy ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Fatma A. Hegazy Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Ashraf Megahed M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Ashraf Megahed M, Alaparthi GK, Aboelnasr EA et al. Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159853.1 ) First published: 21 Jan 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159853.1 ) Latest published: 06 May 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159853.2 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction Intensive care Units (ICUs) are life-saving rooms that have increased the survival rates of several patient populations with various medical conditions ( Kosson et al. 2021 ). However, ICU admission and the nature of life-sustaining interventions have created several complications ( Bassford 2017 ). For example, prolonged admission to the ICU could lead to physical in-activity and pressure ulcers which potentially cause muscular atrophy, generalized weakness sepsis, infections, and deep vein thrombosis. Secondly, long-term dependency on mechanical ventilation could cause diaphragmatic weakness and which is considered one of the most life threatening ICU complications among adult patients ( Kosson et al. 2021 ). That is why, physical therapy and early rehabilitation is essential in ICU to prevent and treat the physical and neuropsychological consequences of ICU stay which could impede the return to normal functioning ( Kosson et al. 2021 ). Hospitals in the UAE offer a variety of specialized ICUs designed to address different patient needs based on medical conditions and the level of care required. These include Medical ICUs for severe non-surgical conditions, Surgical ICUs for post-surgery recovery, Cardiac Care Units for critical heart issues, and specialized units like Neonatal ICUs for newborns, Pediatric ICUs for children, Neuro-ICUs for brain and nervous system conditions, Trauma ICUs, Burn Units, Respiratory ICUs, and Transplant ICUs ( Latif et al. 2015 ). The range and capacity of these units vary by hospital, providing comprehensive care tailored to specific patient needs. In the ICU, physiotherapists aim to preserve or improve physical function, muscle strength, exercise tolerance and physical activities ( Bassford 2017 ). Physical therapy interventions include positioning, education, manual and ventilator hyperinflation, weaning from mechanical ventilation, non-invasive ventilation, percussion, vibration, suctioning, respiratory muscle strengthening, breathing exercises and mobilization ( Pascale et al. 2022 ). The former interventions boost muscle strength, physical functioning and quality of life as well as, delirium ( Kanejima et al. 2020 ; Eggmann et al. 2021 ; Pascale et al. 2022 ). In clinical practice, in addition to safety issues, there are several clinical barriers for the implementation of physical therapy for critically ill patients in the ICU. Recent literature report that lack of staff and time, potential risks of airway dislodgement, and the dislocation of intravenous and arterial lines are the common barriers for early rehabilitation in the ICU ( Anekwe et al. 2020 ; Cuthbertson et al. 2020 ; Morrow 2021 ). Several studies have reported the rehabilitation practice of physiotherapists in various countries. For instance, a UK study was conducted to investigate the use of physiotherapists of evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines in ICU ( Stockley et al. 2010 ). In Australia, another study was conducted in 2010 to investigate the efficacy of passive limb range of motion on adults in ICU ( Wiles and Stiller 2010 ). In the UAE, the number of practicing physiotherapists is 3,567, of them only 314 members are registered in the UAE wing of World Confederation of Physiotherapy (WCPT) In 2021, a study was conducted to investigate the attitude of UAE physiotherapists toward the use of EBP guidelines ( AlKetbi et al. 2021 ). It has been reported that the attitude towards EBP was related to the knowledge of EBP and the perception of barriers. Moreover, physiotherapists prefer to use their own experience, published textbooks and research articles to apply EBP guidelines ( AlKetbi et al. 2021 ). The previous results have reported a variation of practice among physiotherapists in ICU which could lead negatively the patients and deteriorate their physical and cardiopulmonary functions. That is why we formulated a questionnaire to investigate the current rehabilitation practices of UAE physiotherapists in ICU. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) currently has 3,567 practicing physiotherapists, yet only 314 are registered members of the UAE chapter of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) ( AlKetbi et al. 2021 ). This discrepancy raises concerns about the alignment of local physiotherapy practices with global standards. In 2021, a study examining the attitudes of UAE physiotherapists toward Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) guidelines highlighted a significant correlation between attitudes toward EBP and both knowledge of EBP and perceived barriers to its implementation ( AlKetbi et al. 2021 ). This study also revealed that many physiotherapists rely on personal experience, textbooks, and research articles as primary sources of knowledge for applying EBP, rather than formally adhering to standardized guidelines ( AlKetbi et al. 2021 ). Additionally, there is evidence of practice variation among physiotherapists working in ICUs, which could have detrimental effects on patients’ physical and cardiopulmonary outcomes ( Wiles and Stiller 2010 ). Inconsistent rehabilitation approaches in such critical settings may lead to suboptimal recovery, potentially prolonging ICU stays and increasing healthcare costs. Given the importance of standardized, evidence-based rehabilitation practices in improving patient outcomes, there is a need to investigate the current ICU rehabilitation practices among physiotherapists in the UAE. Ultimately, this research may potentially contribute to improving rehabilitation care in ICUs, ensuring that UAE physiotherapists are better equipped to follow consistent, evidence-based protocols that benefit patient recovery and overall health outcomes. Study objectives This study aims to explore the current physiotherapy practices in ICUs across the UAE. By investigating these practices, the study aims to improve patient outcomes and elevate the quality of care provided. Additionally, the findings of this research have the potential to inform healthcare policies optimizing resource allocation and ensuring that patients receive the most effective physiotherapy services. Ultimately, this study seeks to promote collaboration and innovation in critical care physiotherapy, contributing to the advancement of healthcare practices in the UAE. Methods Study design and participants This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in the UAE and included physiotherapists registered with the Emirates Physiotherapist Society (EPS) from all emirates. Eligible participants were physiotherapists working in private or public UAE hospitals, holding at least a bachelor’s degree, and having a minimum of one year of experience. Physiotherapists not specialized in ICU rehabilitation were excluded from the study. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Sharjah. A list of hospitals that offer physiotherapy services was collected from the EPS, and the emails of the registered physiotherapists were retrieved from the EPS website. A cover letter explaining the study’s purpose, along with the questionnaire, was then emailed to the physiotherapists. Participants received a hyperlink to the informed consent form, and those who consented to participate were granted access to the questionnaire. Data collection started on the 19 th of September 2022 and completed on the 2 nd of December 2023. Sample size calculation This study included 80 physiotherapists from various hospitals in the UAE. This sample size was calculated depending on the proportion (90%) stated in a previous study addressing the research question ( Çakmak et al. 2019 ). The appropriate sample size with sufficient power of 80% (alpha = 0.05) was calculated by the Epi Info, a program developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2022 ). Survey development The study aimed to review the current practices of physiotherapists in ICUs in the UAE. A literature review was conducted to identify gaps in knowledge and inform survey questions. Questions were developed based on the literature review, covering participant demographics, types of interventions used, session frequency and duration, and challenges faced by physiotherapists in delivering care. The survey was created with a mix of open-ended and close-ended Likert questions for easy administration and analysis. The questions were kept simple and short to be familiar to the participants. The survey was initially done in English before being transferred to an online platform using Google Forms. The data collected was then downloaded into Excel for further analysis. The survey was pre-tested with a small group of physiotherapists to make sure it was clear, relevant, and easy to understand. The feedback from the testing was used to improve the survey, ensuring that the questions were clear and accurately captured the information needed from participants. This process helped fine-tune the survey before it was given to a larger group of physiotherapists working in ICUs in the UAE. Questionnaire validity and reliability To examine the questionnaire’s validity, a group of experts specialized in physiotherapy practice was invited to judge the content, construct, clarity, and relevance. After the formulation of the first draft that included 30 items gathered from the previous literature, the experts added 36 items. Afterward, the experts assessed the relevance and clarity of the questions and the significance and completeness of responses. Each item in the questionnaire was assessed by the experts on Likert scale that ranges from 1-10 where a score that ranges from 1 to 4 means irrelevant or unclear, a score that ranges from 5 to 7 means partially relevant or partially clear, and a score that ranges from 8 to 10 means highly relevant or clear. Then, they started an open online discussion with several coworkers from different emirates in the UAE to assure the understandability, completeness, plausibility, and management of the instrument. For reliability analysis, a different group of ICU physical therapists in UAE were invited online to test the reliability of the questionnaire. Thirty physical therapists completed the process of pilot testing followed by the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha which is a way of assessing reliability by comparing the amount of shared variance, or covariance, among the items making up an instrument to the amount of overall variance. Finally, Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.843 was inducted which infers a good reliability. Statistical analysis Data was extracted from Google Forms and then IBM SPSS Statistics 27 was used to conduct all the descriptive statistics and analysis. Descriptive data analysis included calculating the frequencies and percentages of the participants’ demographic data. Chi square test was used to study the correlation between the different domains of the questionnaire and the demographic data. Ethical statement This research project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Sharjah, UAE [Certificate# REC-21-07-04-01-S]. Also, written informed consents were obtained from all participants before proceeding with the study questionnaires. All study procedures were conducted according to the ethical considerations stated by the declaration of Helsinki ( Goodyear et al. 2007 ). At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were asked to read a short paragraph about the components of the questionnaire and the main objectives. After that, if they agree to participate, they must click the “agree to participate” button before proceeding to fill in the questionnaire. However, they have the option of quitting the questionnaire at any time while they are proceeding through the various aspects of the questionnaire. Results Demographic Characteristics As shown in Table 1 , a total of 80 physiotherapists participated in the study, comprising 47.5% females and 52.5% males. The age range of participants varied, with nearly two-thirds of participants (61.3%) in the age group of 25 to 34 years. Regarding the distribution across emirates, 40% of the participants were working in Dubai, 27.5% in Abu Dhabi, 25% in Sharjah, and the rest were from other emirates. In terms of the type of hospital, 47.4% of participants worked in private hospitals, 48.8% in public hospitals, and only 3.8% in university hospitals. Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the overall sample (n=80). Variables Frequency Percent Gender Female 38 47.5 Male 42 52.5 Age 24 or below 3 3.8 25-34 49 61.3 35-44 23 28.8 45-54 5 6.3 Which emirate are you currently working in? Abu Dhabi 22 27.5 Ajman 3 3.8 Dubai 32 40.0 Fujeirah 1 1.3 Ras al-Khaimah 2 2.5 Sharjah 20 25.0 Type of hospital Private hospital 38 47.4 Public hospital 39 48.8 University hospital 3 3.8 No. of experience years as physiotherapist 0-2 years 9 11.3 2-5 years 44 55.0 5-10 years 15 18.8 10-15 years 7 8.8 15-20 years 3 3.8 20+ years 2 2.5 No. of experience years as physiotherapist in ICU 0-2 years 20 25.0 2-5 years 7 8.8 5-10 years 40 50.0 10-15 years 13 16.3 15-20 years 20 25.0 20+ years 7 8.8 Last earned academic degree in physiotherapy BSc 42 52.5 Diploma 3 3.8 MSc 25 31.2 PhD 10 12.5 Do you require a physician’s referral to start physiotherapy sessions in the ICU? No 3 3.8 Yes 77 96.3 Is there a program at the hospital where you work to develop the level of physiotherapists working in ICUs? No 20 25.0 Yes 60 75.0 Are the protocols for physical therapy assistance defined by a scientific team from the service in which you are part of? No 20 25.0 Yes 60 75.0 Does the physiotherapy service have any certification or quality seal? No 14 17.5 Yes 66 82.5 Participants’ years of experience as a physiotherapist ranged from 1 to over 20 years, with about 55% of the sample having physiotherapy experience between 2 and five years. Specifically, the years of experience working in ICU settings were noticeable, with 50% of participants having between 5 and 10 years of ICU experience. Regarding the last earned academic degree in physiotherapy, 52.5% of participants held a bachelor’s degree, 31.2% had a master’s degree, 12.5% held a doctoral degree, and only 3.8 had a diploma in physiotherapy. Among the participants, the vast majority (96.3%) reported that a physician’s referral was necessary to initiate physiotherapy sessions in the ICU, while only 3.8% indicated no requirement for a referral. Additionally, 75% of physiotherapists reported the presence of a development program at their hospital aimed at enhancing the skills of physiotherapists working in ICUs. Regarding the establishment of protocols for physical therapy assistance, 75% of participants reported that the protocols were defined by a scientific team within their service, while 25% reported otherwise. Furthermore, 82.5% of physiotherapy services had certification or quality seals indicating adherence to standardized practices. Physiotherapy respiratory practices Table 2 presents the survey results of physiotherapy practices. These results provide valuable insights into the different practices among physiotherapists. Regarding the assessment of vital parameters such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and SPO 2 pre- and post-treatment, a majority of respondents (84.1%) reported assessing these parameters always. However, a notable portion (7.2%) reported only sometimes or seldom conducting these assessments, suggesting potential variability in clinical protocols. Table 2. Physiotherapy practices among the study sample. Survey items Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never Do you assess vital parameters (Heart rate, Respiratory rate, SPO 2 ) pre and post treatment? 58 (84.1%) 6 (8.7%) 4 (5.8%) 1 (1.4%) 0 Are you involved in setting ventilator parameters? 38 (55.1%) 8 (11.6%) 13 (18.8%) 1 (1.4%) 9 (13%) Do you teach and prescribe deep breathing exercises? 51 (73.9%) 15 (21.75%) 3 (4.3%) 0 0 Do you perform vibration? 50 (72.5%) 14 (20.3) 0 0 5 (7.2%) Do you perform suctioning? 44(63.8%) 4 (5.8%) 8(11.6%) 1 (1.4%) 12 (17.4%) Do you perform percussion? 54 (78.3%) 11 (15.9%) 2 (2.9%) 2 (2.9%) 0 Do you perform postural drainage position? 46 (66.7%) 13 (18.8%) 9 (13%) 1 (1.4%) Do you perform prone postural drainage position? 15 (21.7%) 13 (18.8%) 24 (34.8%) 10 (14.5%) 7 (10.1%) Do you perform head down postural drainage position in ventilated patients? 12 (17.4%) 8 (11.6%) 25 (36.2%) 12 (17.4%) 12 (17.4%) Do you use AMBU while performing chest physiotherapy and/suctioning? 37 (53.6%) 4 (5.8%) 11 (15.9%) 5 (7.2%) 12 (17.4%) Are you involved in the weaning of the patient from the mechanical ventilation? 31 (44.9%) 8 (11.6%) 16 (23.2%) 7 (10.1%) 7 (10.1%) Do you apply nebulizer before the treatment? 25 (36.2%) 13 (18.8%) 24 (34.8%) 2 (2.9%) 5 (7.2%) Do you apply nebulizer post treatment? 34 (49.3%) 11 (15.9%) 13 (18.8%) 4 (5.8%) 7 (10.1%) Do you make discharge recommendations for the progression of rehabilitation at home? 49 (71%) 14 (20.3%) 4 (5.8%) 0 2 (2.9%) Do you involve and advice parents/caregivers in the treatment plan and/or discharge plan? 51 (73.9%) 14 (20.3%) 3 (4.3%) 1 (1.4%) 0 In terms of involvement in ventilator management, 55.1% of participants reported frequent participation in setting ventilator parameters, indicating a significant role in critical care settings. However, a considerable proportion (13%) reported never involvement in ventilator management, suggesting potential differences in practice patterns among physiotherapists. Similarly, while the prescription and teaching of deep breathing exercises were noted to be frequent by 73.9% of respondents, a small portion (4.3%) indicated some involvement, highlighting potential inconsistencies in patient education practices. Respiratory therapy techniques such as vibration, suctioning, and percussion were reported to be performed with varying frequencies. For instance, 72.5% of participants reported frequent use of vibration, while 63.8% reported frequent suctioning. Additionally, the utilization of postural drainage positions varied, with approximately 66.7% of respondents performing postural drainage positions frequently. The use of AMBU during chest physiotherapy and suctioning was reported to be frequent by more than half (53.6%) of participants. Similarly, nearly half (44.9%) of the respondents reported frequent involvement in the weaning of patients from mechanical ventilation, underscoring the integral role of physiotherapists in the critical care team. Regarding nebulizer application, approximately 36.2% of respondents reported frequent use before treatment, while 49.3% reported frequent use post-treatment. This suggests that nebulizer therapy is commonly integrated into respiratory treatment plans, although there may be variations in timing and protocol adherence. Lastly, the survey revealed that a majority of physiotherapists frequently make discharge recommendations for the progression of rehabilitation at home (71%) and involve/advice parents or caregivers in the treatment plan and/or discharge plan (73.9%). This emphasis on patient education and continuity of care highlights the holistic approach adopted by physiotherapists in respiratory therapy practice. Physiotherapy modalities and techniques As presented in Table 3 , the survey results provide comprehensive insights into the utilization of various physiotherapy modalities and techniques in the ICU setting. Among the surveyed physiotherapists, the application of passive/active range of motion exercises emerged as a common practice, with the majority (92.5%) reporting always applying these exercises. Additionally, bed mobility exercises and assistance in bed transfers were frequently implemented by 83.6% and 79.1% of respondents, respectively, highlighting the emphasis on promoting functional mobility and independence among ICU patients. Table 3. Physiotherapy modalities and techniques. Survey items Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never Do you apply passive/active range of motion exercises? 62 (92.5%) 2 (3%) 3 (4.5%) 0 0 Do you apply bed mobility exercises? 56 (83.6%) 8 (11.9%) 3 (4.5%) 0 0 Do you apply/assist in bed transfers? 53 (79.1%) 9 (13.4%) 4 (6%) 1 (1.5%) 0 Do you apply neuromuscular electrical stimulation? 38 (56.7%) 5 (7.5%) 12 (17.9%) 4 (6%) 8 (11.9%) Do you perform stretching exercises? 39 (58.2%) 14 (20.9%) 14 (20.9%) 0 0 Is continuous passive motion (CPM) machine used in your ICU setup? 40 (59.7%) 4 (6%) 6 (9%) 5 (7.5%) 12 (17.9%) Do you apply massage techniques? 24 (35.8%) 3 (4.5%) 23 (34.3%) 4 (6%) 13(19.4%) Do you apply scar tissue mobilization? 22 (32.8%) 4 (6%) 28 (41.8%) 4 (6%) 9 (13.4%) Do you apply taping? 13 (19.4%) 5 (7.5%) 26 (38.8%) 10 (14.9%) 13 (19.4%) At discharge, do you routinely apply a walk test? 30 (44.8%) 9 (13.4%) 17 (25.4%) 6 (9%) 5 (7.5%) Do you make discharge recommendations for the progression of rehabilitation at home? 49 (73.1%) 11 (16.4%) 6 (9%) 1 (1.5%) 0 Do you involve and advice parents/caregivers in the treatment plan and/or discharge plan? 49 (73.1%) 13 (19.4%) 4 (6%) 1 (1.5%) 0 Neuromuscular electrical stimulation, a modality used to facilitate muscle contraction and improve muscle strength, was reported to be frequently applied by 56.7% of participants. Similarly, stretching exercises were commonly performed by 58.2% of respondents, indicating the integration of flexibility training into rehabilitation protocols for ICU patients. However, continuous passive motion (CPM) machines, which aid in joint mobilization and rehabilitation, were less common, with about one-quarter of respondents reporting seldom or never using it in the ICU setting. Massage techniques and scar tissue mobilization were reported to be moderately applied by respondents, with 35.8% and 32.8%, respectively. Taping, another therapeutic modality used to provide support and stability to muscles and joints, was reported to be frequently applied only by 19.4% of participants. At discharge, 44.8% of respondents routinely applied a walk test, while the majority of physiotherapists (73.1%) reported routinely making discharge recommendations for the progression of rehabilitation at home. Involving and advising parents/caregivers in the treatment and discharge plan was considered essential by the majority of respondents (73.1%). This emphasis on patient and caregiver involvement underscores the collaborative approach to patient care in the ICU, emphasizing the importance of patient education in promoting optimal outcomes. Utilization of physiotherapy techniques on neonates The last part of the survey included questions about the utilization of physiotherapy techniques, specifically on neonate patients (see Table 4 ). The results provide valuable insights into the utilization of various physiotherapy modalities and approaches for neonates in the NICU setting. Passive range of motion exercises emerged as a commonly performed intervention, with the majority of respondents (85.7%) indicating that they always perform these exercises for neonates in the NICU. Table 4. Application of physiotherapy techniques on neonates. Survey items Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never Do you perform passive range of motion exercises for neonates in the NICU? 36 (85.7%) 4 (9.5%) 2 (4.8%) 0 0 Do you apply positioning to support alignment and movement? 30 (71.4%) 6 (14.3%) 6 (14.3%) 0 0 Do you perform therapeutic handling for neonates with movement impairments? 28 (66.7%) 6 (14.3%) 5 (11.9%) 3 (7.1%) 0 Do you give orofacial stimulation in neonates? 21 (50%) 5 (11.9%) 6 (14.3%) 10 (23.8%) 0 Do you consider hydrotherapy? 4 (9.5%) 2 (4.8%) 22 (52.4%) 4 (9.5%) 10 (23.8%) Do you apply massage techniques for neonates? 9 (21.4%) 5 (11.9%) 15 (35.7%) 5 (11.9%) 8 (19%) Do you apply scar tissue mobilization for neonates? 10 (23.8%) 4 (9.5%) 16 (38.1%) 4 (9.5%) 8 (19%) Do you apply taping for neonates? 6 (14.3%) 3 (7.1%) 15 (35.7%) 5 (11.9%) 13 (31%) Do you teach parents skin to skin holding (kangaroo mother care) for neonates? 16 (38.1%) 2 (4.8%) 15 (35.7%) 3 (7.1%) 6 (14.3%) Do you involve and advice parents in the treatment plan for neonates? 29 (69%) 5 (11.9%) 6 (14.3%) 1 (2.4%) 1 (2.4%) Positioning to support alignment and movement was reported to be frequently applied, with 71.4% of respondents indicating that they frequently employ positioning techniques for neonates in the NICU. Proper positioning is essential for optimizing neuromuscular development and facilitating motor skills acquisition in neonates, emphasizing the proactive approach of physiotherapists in promoting optimal positioning practices in the NICU. A significant proportion of respondents reported therapeutic handling for neonates with movement impairments, with 66.7% indicating that they frequently perform therapeutic handling interventions. Likewise, orofacial stimulation in neonates was reported to be always considered by 50% of respondents. However, nearly one-quarter (23.8%) reported seldom use of this approach with the neonates. This practice aims to promote oral feeding skills and sensory development in neonates; however, a variability exists in using orofacial stimulation techniques among physiotherapists in the NICU setting. Hydrotherapy, a modality involving therapeutic activities in water, was never considered by 23.8% of respondents, with only 9.5% indicating that they always consider hydrotherapy for neonates. While hydrotherapy has shown benefits in specific populations, its feasibility and safety in the NICU setting may be limited, warranting further investigation and consideration of alternative approaches. Massage techniques and scar tissue mobilization were reported to be occasionally applied by respondents, with 21.4% and 23.8%, respectively, indicating that they always employ these interventions for neonates in the NICU. These practices may promote relaxation, circulation, and tissue healing in neonates, highlighting the importance of individualized and holistic care approaches in the NICU. The utilization of taping for neonates was infrequent, with only 7.1% of respondents indicating that they sometimes apply taping techniques. Taping may provide support and stability to neonatal joints and muscles, suggesting potential variations in the utilization of this modality among physiotherapists in the NICU setting. Teaching parents skin-to-skin holding, also known as kangaroo mother care, emerged as a relatively commonly practiced intervention, with 38.1% of respondents indicating that they always teach parents skin-to-skin holding for neonates. Furthermore, the involvement and advice of parents in the treatment plan for neonates were considered essential by the majority of respondents (69%). Discussion This study aimed to investigate the current rehabilitation practices of physiotherapists in ICUs in the UAE. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, this is the first study in the UAE that focuses explicitly on physiotherapists’ practices in the ICUs. The findings of this study shed light on various demographic characteristics, professional experiences, and institutional factors among physiotherapists working in ICU settings in the UAE. The demographic findings The gender distribution among participants revealed a reasonably balanced representation, with slightly more male physiotherapists than females. This balance could reflect the increasing gender diversity within the field of ICU physiotherapy, which has traditionally been dominated by females ( Ou et al. 2022 ). However, further exploration into gender dynamics within different practice settings and their potential impact on patient care outcomes could help understand why female physiotherapists are more dominant in ICUs than their male counterparts. The age distribution of participants highlighted a significant proportion of physiotherapists belonging to the younger age groups, particularly between 25 and 34 years old. A similar age range was also reported in Singapore ( Ou et al. 2022 ) and Brazil ( Matilde et al. 2018 ), indicating that relatively younger physiotherapists are in the ICU workplace. This demographic trend could signify a generational shift within the profession, with implications for workforce dynamics, skillsets, and career trajectories. Future studies could investigate the factors influencing career choices and job satisfaction among younger physiotherapists, as well as their perceptions of working in ICU settings. Regarding the distribution across emirates and types of hospitals, the predominance of physiotherapists working in Dubai and private and public hospitals is noteworthy. This distribution reflects the urban concentration of healthcare facilities in Dubai and the prominence of private healthcare providers in the UAE. Understanding the geographic distribution of physiotherapists and healthcare resources is crucial for workforce planning and ensuring equitable access to rehabilitation services across different regions. The years of experience among participants indicate a diverse range of professional backgrounds, with a considerable proportion having substantial experience in both general physiotherapy practice and specifically in ICU settings. A study in Saudi Arabia reported half of the participants had over ten years of experience in the ICU ( Alqahtani et al. 2020 ). In our study, however, slightly over half of the participants (55%) had experience between two and five years, reflecting the younger physiotherapists working in the ICUs in the UAE. This is an interesting demographic finding as the depth of experience could contribute to enhanced clinical expertise and proficiency in managing complex cases in critical care environments ( Viloria et al. 2023 ). It also underscores the need for ongoing professional development and training programs to support the continuous learning needs of physiotherapists throughout their careers. The requirement for a physician’s referral to initiate physiotherapy sessions in the ICU is a notable finding, with the vast majority of participants indicating its necessity. Similar results have been documented in Saudi Arabia ( Alqahtani et al. 2020 ), Brazil ( Matilde et al. 2018 ), and Nepal ( Baidya et al. 2016 ). However, there are variations in physician’s referral requirements based on the geographic location and the nature of the healthcare system. For example, in Canada, physiotherapy practice is a primary healthcare service; therefore, physician referrals are not required in most cases ( Bath et al. 2018 ). In the middle eastern countries, physician’s referrals are required for physiotherapy services. Generally, the referral requirement may reflect the collaborative nature of healthcare delivery in ICU settings in the UAE, where interdisciplinary teamwork is essential for optimizing patient outcomes. However, further exploration of the referral process, its efficiency, and potential barriers to timely access to physiotherapy services could be warranted to improve care coordination and patient access. Finally, the high prevalence of certification or quality seals among physiotherapy services indicates a commitment to adherence to standardized practices and quality assurance within healthcare institutions. These certifications serve as indicators of excellence and may enhance patient confidence in the quality of care provided by physiotherapists in ICU settings. Collectively, these findings provide valuable insights into the demographic characteristics, professional experiences, and institutional factors shaping ICU physiotherapy practice in the UAE. By understanding these dynamics, healthcare stakeholders can identify areas for improvement, implement targeted interventions, and ultimately enhance the quality and effectiveness of physiotherapy services in critical care settings. Future research endeavours could further explore the impact of these factors on patient outcomes, healthcare delivery models, and workforce development strategies. Physiotherapy practices in the ICU In terms of physiotherapists’ practices, the results offer valuable insights into the diverse practices among participants, highlighting both areas of consistency and potential variations in clinical protocols. Firstly, assessing vital parameters such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and SPO 2 pre- and post-treatment emerged as a common practice among most respondents, with 84.1% reporting these parameters always. This finding highlights the importance of thorough patient monitoring in respiratory care, facilitating informed decision-making and timely interventions. Previous research consistently recommended assessing vital signs before applying clinical interventions in the ICU ( Sapra et al. 2024 ). However, a notable portion (7.2%) reporting sometimes or seldom conducting these assessments suggests the need for standardization and adherence to clinical guidelines to ensure comprehensive patient evaluation across all practice settings. Involvement in ventilator management emerged as another significant aspect of respiratory therapy practice, with over half (55.1%) of participants reporting frequent participation in setting ventilator parameters. This highlights the pivotal role of physiotherapists in critical care settings, where optimizing ventilator settings is crucial for patient outcomes. However, the proportion of respondents (13%) reporting never involvement in ventilator management signals potential disparities in practice patterns, which could impact the consistency and quality of care delivered in these settings. Physiotherapists in the ICU often administer treatments to sedated and mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia to enhance airway clearance, optimize pulmonary mechanics, enhance gas exchange, and support weaning from mechanical ventilation and functional recovery ( van der Lee et al. 2021 ). Nevertheless, there is inconsistency in clinical practice regarding the specifics of physiotherapy intervention, including type, duration, and frequency, and there is currently no established standard of practice ( Lee et al. 2017 ). It is evident that standardizing protocols and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration may help address these variations and ensure optimal patient care. The survey results on the utilization of various physiotherapy modalities and techniques within the ICU setting revealed interesting trends. For example, passive/active range of motion exercises emerged as a predominant intervention, with an overwhelming majority (92.5%) of respondents reporting always applying these exercises. Although previous reports suggested that these exercises are performed only by 15.4% of physiotherapists in the ICU ( Reid et al. 2018 ), the dominant passive/active range of motion exercises in our study may indicate paradigm shift towards manual techniques over other modalities in the UAE. This also underscores the recognized importance of maintaining joint mobility and preventing contractures among ICU patients, contributing to their overall functional recovery and rehabilitation ( Rahiminezhad et al. 2022 ). A considerable proportion of respondents reported the utilization of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and stretching exercises to improve muscle strength and flexibility (56.7% and 58.2%, respectively). Research shows that critically ill patients who underwent NMES in the ICU showed less reduction in muscle thickness and better functional outcomes ( García-Pérez-de-Sevilla and Sánchez-Pinto Pinto 2023 ). However, it did not seem to be effective in older patients (>75 years) ( Nonoyama et al. 2022 ), which may explain why only half of the participants in this current study applied the NMES. Moreover, the relatively lower utilization of continuous passive motion (CPM) machines, reported by about one-quarter of respondents, suggests potential opportunities for further exploration of its benefits and integration into ICU rehabilitation protocols. In contrast, hydrotherapy, a modality involving therapeutic activities in water, was seldom considered by a notable proportion of respondents, reflecting potential limitations and challenges in implementing hydrotherapy in the ICU setting. The limited utilization of hydrotherapy may be attributed to concerns regarding safety, feasibility, and logistical constraints in the ICU environment, warranting further investigation and consideration of alternative approaches. To ensure patient safety, when implementing hydrotherapy, several factors should be taken into account, such as staff experience, airway and ventilation management, and patient readiness for the procedure ( Felten-Barentsz et al. 2015 ; Wegner et al. 2017 ). At discharge, while a walk test was routinely applied by less than half of the respondents (44.8%), the majority (73.1%) reported routinely making discharge recommendations for the progression of rehabilitation at home. This underscores the proactive approach of physiotherapists in planning for patients’ post-discharge rehabilitation needs, aiming to facilitate a smooth transition from the ICU to the home environment. Furthermore, the majority of respondents (73.1%) emphasized the importance of involving and advising parents/caregivers in the treatment and discharge plan. This collaborative approach underscores the recognition of the crucial role that caregivers play in supporting patients’ recovery and rehabilitation at home, emphasizing the importance of patient education and continuity of care beyond the hospital setting. Overall, the diverse range of physiotherapy modalities and techniques reported in this study reflect a holistic approach to patient care to promote functional recovery and optimize patient outcomes. However, variations in the utilization of specific modalities suggest opportunities for further exploration and standardization of practices to ensure consistent and evidence-based care delivery in the ICU. Moreover, the emphasis on patient and caregiver involvement underscores the importance of collaborative care models in promoting optimal outcomes for ICU patients. Clinical applications and future research directions The results of the present study on the current rehabilitation practice in the ICU in UAE provide valuable insights into physical therapists’ views and their implications for clinical care and future research directions. In adult critical care settings, the widespread adoption of essential physiotherapy interventions such as passive/active range of motion exercises, bed mobility exercises, and assistance in bed transfers highlights their importance in promoting functional mobility, preventing complications associated with immobility, and facilitating early rehabilitation in critically ill patients. These interventions play a crucial role in optimizing patient outcomes, reducing the risk of complications such as muscle weakness, contractures, and pressure ulcers, and improving overall functional recovery ( Hashem et al. 2016 ). Moreover, the utilization of advanced interventions such as NMES and positioning to support ventilation optimization highlights the evolving role of physiotherapists in critical care settings. These interventions offer promising benefits in improving respiratory function, facilitating weaning from mechanical ventilation, and enhancing patient outcomes in the ICU ( Nonoyama et al. 2022 ). Therefore, healthcare providers should prioritize integrating evidence-based physiotherapy interventions into multidisciplinary ICU care protocols to optimize patient care and improve long-term outcomes. Furthermore, the findings on using physiotherapy techniques for neonates in the NICU underscore the importance of early and proactive interventions in promoting neonatal development and optimizing outcomes in this vulnerable population. Passive range of motion exercises, therapeutic handling, and orofacial stimulation are critical in fostering neuromuscular development, facilitating oral feeding skills, and supporting sensory development in neonates ( Chokshi et al. 2013 ). Additionally, parental involvement and education, particularly in the context of kangaroo mother care, are essential for promoting parental bonding, empowerment, and involvement in neonatal care ( Chan et al. 2016 ). Looking forward, future research should focus on several key areas to enhance the evidence base and advance the field of physiotherapy in critical care and neonatal care settings. Firstly, studies investigating the efficacy and optimal timing, duration, and frequency of physiotherapy interventions in critically ill patients are warranted to inform evidence-based practice guidelines and enhance the quality of care provided in the ICU. Additionally, research examining the long-term effects of physiotherapy interventions on patient outcomes, including functional recovery, quality of life, and healthcare utilization, can provide valuable insights into the impact of these interventions on patient care and healthcare resource utilization. In neonatal care settings, future research should explore the efficacy and safety of emerging interventions such as hydrotherapy and taping techniques in promoting neonatal development and optimizing outcomes in the NICU. Furthermore, studies investigating the effects of parental involvement and education on neonatal outcomes, family satisfaction, and healthcare utilization can inform the development of family-centred care models and support programs aimed at promoting parental bonding, involvement, and empowerment in neonatal care ( Jahan et al. 2021 ). By addressing these research priorities and embracing innovative approaches, healthcare providers can enhance the quality of care provided to critically ill patients and neonates in intensive care settings, optimize patient outcomes, and improve the overall delivery of physiotherapy services in clinical practice. Study Limitations While the study provides valuable insights into applying physiotherapy techniques in critical care and neonatal settings, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, the reliance on a convenience sample of physiotherapists introduces potential sampling bias. This sampling method may not adequately represent all practitioners in critical care and neonatal settings, potentially skewing the findings toward individuals with specific interests or expertise in physiotherapy. Consequently, the results may not generalize to the broader population of physiotherapists working in diverse healthcare contexts. Second, the data collected were based on self-reported responses from physiotherapists, which may be susceptible to self-reporting bias. Participants may have provided responses influenced by recall or social desirability bias, leading to overestimating, or underestimating certain practices. Moreover, self-reported data may not accurately reflect actual clinical practices, as respondents may have provided responses, they deemed more socially acceptable or aligned with best practices. Lastly, the study’s cross-sectional design only provides a snapshot of practices at a single point in time. While cross-sectional studies offer valuable insights into current practices, they do not allow for examining temporal trends or establishing causal relationships. Longitudinal studies would be necessary to assess changes in physiotherapy practices over time and their potential impact on patient outcomes. Conclusion In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into using physiotherapy techniques in critical care and neonatal settings. The findings highlight the widespread adoption of essential interventions such as passive range of motion exercises, positioning techniques, and therapeutic handling in promoting functional mobility and optimizing outcomes for patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Moreover, the study underscores the evolving role of physiotherapists in critical care settings, with interventions such as neuromuscular electrical stimulation and ventilation optimization techniques increasingly utilized to enhance patient outcomes. Future efforts should focus on standardizing physiotherapy protocols across different institutions and healthcare settings to ensure consistency and quality of care delivery. Ethical considerations This study was conducted in full compliance with ethical guidelines and principles for research involving human participants. Ethical approval for this research project was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies at the University of Sharjah, UAE. The project was approved under reference number REC-21-07-04-01-S on 06/07/2021. After obtaining the approval from the ethical committee, all participants signed a written informed consent prior to their involvement in the study. Confidentiality and anonymity of participants were maintained throughout the research process. All data collected were securely stored and used solely for the purposes of this study. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any repercussions. The research adhered to the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and other applicable international and institutional ethical guidelines. Data availability The data generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to ethical and confidentiality considerations, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies at the University of Sharjah, UAE. Participant data contain sensitive personal information, and sharing such data publicly could compromise confidentiality and anonymity. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) has mandated that data sharing is permissible only under specific conditions that ensure participant privacy and align with ethical guidelines. Access to the data may be granted to qualified researchers for legitimate academic purposes upon request. Requests for access must be submitted in writing to the corresponding author through [email protected] . Applicants are required to provide a detailed research proposal outlining the purpose of their request and how the data will be used. Additionally, applicants must agree to adhere to strict confidentiality agreements and institutional guidelines regarding data handling. Access will be granted at the discretion of the Ethics Committee, subject to the signing of a data use agreement. References AlKetbi H, Hegazy F, Alnaqbi A, et al. : Evidence-based practice by physiotherapists in UAE: Investigating behavior, attitudes, awareness, knowledge and barriers. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (6): e0253215. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Alqahtani M, et al. : Current Physical Therapy Practice in the Intensive Care Unit in Saudi Arabia: A Multicentre Cross-Sectional Survey. Crit. Care Res. Prac. 2020; 2020 : 6610027–6610027. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Anekwe DE, Milner SC, Bussières A, et al. : Intensive care unit clinicians identify many barriers to, and facilitators of, early mobilisation: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. J. Physiother. 2020; 66 (2): 120–127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Baidya S, Acharya RS, Coppieters MW: Physiotherapy practice patterns in Intensive Care Units of Nepal: A multicenter survey. Indian J. Crit. Care Med. 2016; 20 (2): 84–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Bassford C: Decisions regarding admission to the ICU and international initiatives to improve the decision-making process. Crit. Care. 2017; 21 (1): p. 174. [Accessed: 9 December 2023]. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Bath B, Lawson J, Ma D, et al. : Self-reported use of family physician, chiropractor and physiotherapy services among adult Canadians with chronic back disorders: an observational study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2018; 18 (1): 970. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Çakmak A, et al. : Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Implementation in Intensive Care Units: A Survey Study. Turk. Thorac. J. 2019; 20 (2): 114–119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Epi Info TM User Guide.2022. [Accessed: 24 September 2023]. Reference Source Chan GJ, Labar AS, Wall S, et al. : Kangaroo mother care: a systematic review of barriers and enablers. Bull. World Health Organ. 2016; 94 (2): 130–141J. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Chokshi T, Alaparthi GK, Krishnan S, et al. : Practice patterns of physiotherapists in neonatal intensive care units: A national survey. Indian J. Crit. Care Med. 2013; 17 (6): 359–366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Cuthbertson BH, et al. : Barriers and Facilitators to Early Rehabilitation in the ICU: A Theory Driven Delphi Study. Crit. Care Med. 2020; 48 (12): e1171–e1178. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Eggmann S, et al. : Early Physical Therapist Interventions for Patients With COVID-19 in the Acute Care Hospital: A Case Report Series. Phys. Ther. 2021; 101 (1): pzaa194. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Felten-Barentsz KM, Haans AJC, Slutsky AS, et al. : Feasibility and safety of hydrotherapy in critically ill ventilated patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2015; 191 (4): 476–477. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text García-Pérez-de-Sevilla G, Sánchez-Pinto Pinto B: Effectiveness of physical exercise and neuromuscular electrical stimulation interventions for preventing and treating intensive care unit-acquired weakness: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 2023; 74 : 103333. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Goodyear MDE, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T: The Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ Br. Med. J. 2007; 335 (7621): 624–625. [Accessed: 27 December 2023]. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text PubMed Abstract | Hashem MD, Parker AM, Needham DM: Early Mobilization and Rehabilitation of Patients Who Are Critically Ill. Chest. 2016; 150 (3): 722–731. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Jahan AM, Rwaiha AE, Gusaibat SR, et al. : Patient Satisfaction With Physiotherapy Services in Libya: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Patient Exp. 2021; 8 : 1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Kanejima Y, Shimogai T, Kitamura M, et al. : Effect of Early Mobilization on Physical Function in Patients after Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17 (19): 7091. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Kosson Z, Paśnicki M, Kołacz M: The role of physical therapy in the Intensive Care Unit. Emergency Medical Service. Ratownictwo Medyczne. 2021; 8 (3). [Accessed: 9 December 2023]. Reference Source Latif A, et al. : Implementing a Multifaceted Intervention to Decrease Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections in SEHA (Abu Dhabi Health Services Company) Intensive Care Units: The Abu Dhabi Experience. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015; 36 (7): 816–822. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Lee L, Hill A-M, Patman S: A survey of clinicians regarding respiratory physiotherapy intervention for intubated and mechanically ventilated patients with community-acquired pneumonia. What is current practice in Australian ICUs? J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2017; 23 (4): 812–820. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text van der Lee L , Hill A-M, Jacques A, et al. : Efficacy of Respiratory Physiotherapy Interventions for Intubated and Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Physiother. Can. 2021; 73 (1): 6–18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Matilde INE, Eid RAC, Nunes AF, et al. : Bronchial hygiene techniques in patients on mechanical ventilation: what are used and why? Einstein (São Paulo). 2018; 16 : eAO3856. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Morrow BM: Building a culture of early mobilization in the pediatric intensive care unit-a nuts and bolts approach. Transl. Pediatr. 2021; 10 (10): 2845–2857. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Nonoyama T, Shigemi H, Kubota M, et al. : Neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the intensive care unit prevents muscle atrophy in critically ill older patients: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine. 2022; 101 (31): e29451. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Ou GWM, Ng MJH, Ng CLW, et al. : Physiotherapy Practice Pattern in the Adult Intensive Care Units of Singapore – A Multi-Centre Survey. Proc. Singap. Healthc. 2022; 31 : 20101058211068589. Publisher Full Text Pascale C, Servillo G, Russo G, et al. : Weaning, Tracheostomy, and Chest Physiotherapy.2022. [Accessed: 9 December 2023]. Publisher Full Text Rahiminezhad E, Sadeghi M, Ahmadinejad M, et al. : A randomized controlled clinical trial of the effects of range of motion exercises and massage on muscle strength in critically ill patients. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2022; 14 (1): 96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reid JC, Unger J, McCaskell D, et al. : Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies. J. Intensive Care. 2018; 6 : 80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Sapra A, Malik A, Bhandari P: Vital Sign Assessment. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. [Accessed: 9 February 2024]. Reference Source Stockley RC, Hughes J, Morrison J, et al. : An investigation of the use of passive movements in intensive care by UK physiotherapists. Physiotherapy. 2010; 96 (3): 228–233. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Viloria MAD, Lee S-D, Takahashi T, et al. : Physical therapy in the intensive care unit: A cross-sectional study of three Asian countries. PLoS One. 2023; 18 (11): e0289876. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Wegner S, Thomas P, James C: Hydrotherapy for the long-term ventilated patient: A case study and implications for practice. Aust. Crit. Care. 2017; 30 (6): 328–331. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Wiles L, Stiller K: Passive limb movements for patients in an intensive care unit: a survey of physiotherapy practice in Australia. J. Crit. Care. 2010; 25 (3): 501–508. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 21 Jan 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 2 Department of Health Professions, Faculty of Health and Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England, UK 3 Cairo University Faculty of Physical Therapy, Ad Doqi, Giza Governorate, Egypt 4 Department of Health Care Management, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 5 Department of Health Management and Policy, Jordan University of Science and Technology Faculty of Medicine, Irbid, Irbid Governorate, Jordan 6 Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, , Physiotherapy, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Irbid Governorate, Jordan 7 Neuro musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Research Institute of Medical and Health Science, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Monia Ashraf Megahed Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Gopala Krishna Alaparthi Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Emad A. Aboelnasr Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Amira Hassan Bekhet Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Kalyana Chakravarthy Bairapareddy Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Heba Hijazi Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis Alham Al-Sharman Roles: Data Curation, Methodology Fatma A. Hegazy Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 06 May 2025, 14:117 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159853.2 version 1 Published: 21 Jan 2025, 14:117 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159853.1 Copyright © 2025 Ashraf Megahed M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Ashraf Megahed M, Alaparthi GK, Aboelnasr EA et al. Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159853.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 21 Jan 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Khallaf M. Reviewer Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r375222 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-375222 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 17 Apr 2025 Mohamed Khallaf , University of st. Augustine for health sciences, Austin, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r375222 The study is well-organized, clear, and structured for an academic audience with strengths including: Clear Purpose & Scope : You lay out your objectives and aims concisely, which anchors the rest of the paper well. ... Continue reading READ ALL The study is well-organized, clear, and structured for an academic audience with strengths including: Clear Purpose & Scope : You lay out your objectives and aims concisely, which anchors the rest of the paper well. Contextual Framing : The justification for the study is sound and taps into regional relevance (UAE, ICU/NICU rehab needs). I have a few comments: Introduction : - The United Arab Emirates (UAE) currently has 3,567 practicing physiotherapists, yet only 314 are registered members of the UAE chapter of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) ( AlKetbi et al. 2021 ). This sentence is repeated twice. Survey development : No information is provided on whether the questionnaire was translated , especially if some participants were non-English speakers. Questionnaire Validity and Reliability: It’s not clear how many experts were involved in the validation process or what their qualifications and experience levels were. There’s no mention of whether there was a consensus method used (e.g., Delphi technique, inter-rater agreement). Suggestion : Clarify the number, qualifications, and selection criteria of the experts. Discussion :The discussion does not fully explore why gaps exist in practice — e.g., low use of outcome measures or underutilization of certain interventions. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Neurorehabilitation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Khallaf M. Reviewer Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r375222 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-375222 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 06 May 2025 Fatma Hegazy , Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 06 May 2025 Author Response We would like to sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the ... Continue reading We would like to sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Comment: Repetition in Introduction regarding UAE physiotherapists. Response: The repeated sentence has been removed. Comment: No mention of translation for non-English speakers. Response: We outlined in the Methods section the questionnaire was administered in English, and no translations to any language was offered during data collection. Comment: Clarify the validation process of the questionnaire. Response: We have revised and elaborated on the validation section in the methods, including the number of experts (n=3), their qualifications (physiotherapists and academic faculty), and consensus strategy. Comment: Discussion lacks exploration of why certain gaps exist. Response: We revised the Discussion section to highlight factors that may explain underutilization of outcome measures and other variations in practice. Best regards, We would like to sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Comment: Repetition in Introduction regarding UAE physiotherapists. Response: The repeated sentence has been removed. Comment: No mention of translation for non-English speakers. Response: We outlined in the Methods section the questionnaire was administered in English, and no translations to any language was offered during data collection. Comment: Clarify the validation process of the questionnaire. Response: We have revised and elaborated on the validation section in the methods, including the number of experts (n=3), their qualifications (physiotherapists and academic faculty), and consensus strategy. Comment: Discussion lacks exploration of why certain gaps exist. Response: We revised the Discussion section to highlight factors that may explain underutilization of outcome measures and other variations in practice. Best regards, Competing Interests: I have no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 06 May 2025 Fatma Hegazy , Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 06 May 2025 Author Response We would like to sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the ... Continue reading We would like to sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Comment: Repetition in Introduction regarding UAE physiotherapists. Response: The repeated sentence has been removed. Comment: No mention of translation for non-English speakers. Response: We outlined in the Methods section the questionnaire was administered in English, and no translations to any language was offered during data collection. Comment: Clarify the validation process of the questionnaire. Response: We have revised and elaborated on the validation section in the methods, including the number of experts (n=3), their qualifications (physiotherapists and academic faculty), and consensus strategy. Comment: Discussion lacks exploration of why certain gaps exist. Response: We revised the Discussion section to highlight factors that may explain underutilization of outcome measures and other variations in practice. Best regards, We would like to sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Comment: Repetition in Introduction regarding UAE physiotherapists. Response: The repeated sentence has been removed. Comment: No mention of translation for non-English speakers. Response: We outlined in the Methods section the questionnaire was administered in English, and no translations to any language was offered during data collection. Comment: Clarify the validation process of the questionnaire. Response: We have revised and elaborated on the validation section in the methods, including the number of experts (n=3), their qualifications (physiotherapists and academic faculty), and consensus strategy. Comment: Discussion lacks exploration of why certain gaps exist. Response: We revised the Discussion section to highlight factors that may explain underutilization of outcome measures and other variations in practice. Best regards, Competing Interests: I have no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Samy Abdallah Ghoneim DO. Reviewer Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r375223 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-375223 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Apr 2025 Dr.Omnya Samy Abdallah Ghoneim , Department of Physical Therapy for Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Badr University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r375223 Type: Cross-sectional survey-based research Objective: To investigate the current physiotherapy practices in ICU settings across the UAE and evaluate their alignment with evidence-based guidelines. The study addresses a timely and critical issue in rehabilitation: the variation and standardization ... Continue reading READ ALL Type: Cross-sectional survey-based research Objective: To investigate the current physiotherapy practices in ICU settings across the UAE and evaluate their alignment with evidence-based guidelines. The study addresses a timely and critical issue in rehabilitation: the variation and standardization of ICU physiotherapy practices in the UAE. It fills a significant research gap, particularly in a region with limited published data on ICU physiotherapy practices. The methodology is sound, and the discussion is well contextualized, though larger, more inclusive studies and mixed-method approaches would strengthen generalizability and depth. Ethical approval and clear consent processes. All the source data underlying the results is available through written requests to the corresponding author. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Pediatric rehabilitation, Sensory integration, occupational therapy. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Samy Abdallah Ghoneim DO. Reviewer Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r375223 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-375223 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 26 Apr 2025 Fatma Hegazy , Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 26 Apr 2025 Author Response We would like to sincerely thank you for your time revieweing our work. Competing Interests: No competing interests. We would like to sincerely thank you for your time revieweing our work. We would like to sincerely thank you for your time revieweing our work. Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 26 Apr 2025 Fatma Hegazy , Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 26 Apr 2025 Author Response We would like to sincerely thank you for your time revieweing our work. Competing Interests: No competing interests. We would like to sincerely thank you for your time revieweing our work. We would like to sincerely thank you for your time revieweing our work. Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: da Silveira LTY. Reviewer Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r361737 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-361737 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 18 Feb 2025 Leda Tomiko Yamada da Silveira , University of Sao Paulo, University Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r361737 Dear authors, I appreciate the opportunity to revise this manuscript. I believe that mapping the Physiotherapy practice panel in a country is an essential step to assist in the development of plans that allow the improvement and ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear authors, I appreciate the opportunity to revise this manuscript. I believe that mapping the Physiotherapy practice panel in a country is an essential step to assist in the development of plans that allow the improvement and growth of the profession and also to capture and register regional data that may be important in the global vision of Physiotherapy. However, I believe the manuscript needs improvement. Please find below a few comments and suggestions to the authors. Abstract There is contents belonging to the ‘Results’ presented in the ‘Methods’ section of the Abstract. The ‘Methods’ section should mention important information such as the eligibility criteria, questionnaire delivery process, data analysis plan. The ‘Results’ that are presented in the abstract, such as the most and least performed procedures, do not give the readers the idea of variety of practices among ICU, which seems to be the main findings (at least, this is what is stated in the ‘Conclusion’). I suggest rephrasing it to reflect the authors’ conclusions from the findings. Please check spelling and grammar, such as in “ in-activity ”, “could cause diaphragmatic weakness and which is considered one of the most life threatening ICU complications”, “a UK study was conducted to investigate the use of physiotherapists of evidence-based practice”. Also, the fluidity of the text can be improved. The manuscript would benefit from an English language check. Introduction In the sentence: “For example, prolonged admission to the ICU could lead to physical in-activity and pressure ulcers which potentially cause muscular atrophy, generalized weakness sepsis, infections, and deep vein thrombosis.”, it looks like the pressure ulcer can cause muscle atrophy etc etc, and I don’t believe this is what was meant. Perhaps the authors should rephrase this statement. The sentence “These include Medical ICUs for severe non-surgical conditions, Surgical ICUs for post-surgery recovery, Cardiac Care Units for critical heart issues, and specialized units like Neonatal ICUs for newborns, Pediatric ICUs for children, Neuro-ICUs for brain and nervous system conditions, Trauma ICUs, Burn Units, Respiratory ICUs, and Transplant ICUs” could be shortened; there is no need to be so specific. For example, there is no need to say that pediatric ICU is meant for children. In the paragraph that starts with “Several studies have reported the rehabilitation practice of physiotherapists in various countries.”, the references that follow this sentence are not appropriated to base that affirmation. I suggest revising the choice of references in this paragraph. A few examples (not mandatory) that authors could use or consult in order to find other references are refer 1 to 7. 4. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the ‘Introduction’ section have some repeated information, even a repeated full sentence. I suggest rewriting both paragraphs into one single well-structured paragraph. Study objectives The study objective is simply: to explore the current physiotherapy practices in ICUs across the UAE. The other sentences presented in this section (to improve patient outcomes and elevate the quality of care, to inform healthcare policies optimizing resource allocation etc etc) is not what the study will be able to answer, therefore, they should be removed from this section. They can be placed in the end of the ‘Introduction’, in order to explain the reasons for which this study is important. The objective of a study should describe solely what the authors intend to do and what the findings from the proposed methodology can answer. Methods Regarding the study design, this is study is simply a cross-sectional study. Not prospective. A cross-sectional study cannot be prospective. A longitudinal study can be prospective or retrospective, because investigators follow participants through time. But in a cross-sectional study the participants are approached only once, there is no time sequence. Could the authors please be more specific about the sample size calculation? For example, which outcome from the cited reference was used to calculate the sample size? What is this 90% proportion the authors mention? In the ‘Statistical analysis’ section, the word ‘correlation’ is used incorrectly. The word ‘association’ is more appropriate in this case. Correlation can only be calculated for two quantitative variables. Results The presentation of Table 1 is not usual. It is more common to enumerate the variables on the left column (vertically), and n (%) are usually presented in the same column, by using parenthesis. Also, all abbreviations must be explained in the Table’s legend. The results must contain exclusively the study’s results. There are some phrases that should move to ‘Discusson’; basically, phrases that describe some kind of judgement or reasoning about the results, such as (but not limited to): “(…) suggesting potential variability in clinical protocols.”; “suggesting potential differences in practice patterns among physiotherapists.”, “This suggests that nebulizer therapy is commonly integrated into respiratory treatment plans, although there may be variations in timing and protocol adherence.”, “highlighting potential inconsistencies in patient education practices.” Tables 2 and 3 need to explain the format in which the results are presented, i.e., absolute and relative numbers [n(%)]. Since Table 4 mentions the work in the neonatal ICU, I think it is necessary to identify that the other answers (Tables 2 and 3) refer to the work in the adult ICU. Also, I suggest mentioning in the ‘Methods’ that physiotherapists that worked in adults or neonatal ICUs were invited to answer the survey. Results presented in the text of the ‘Results’ section is repeating much of the information in the Tables. Authors did not report the percentage of responses they got from their survey (response rate), which is an important parameter in survey students since they may have selection bias.] The meaning for the abbreviation NICU is not informed in the text. Discussion The ‘Discussion’ section is well-written and provides insights from the study’s results. However, I believe it is too long and shortening the text would be helpful. Conclusion Intensive care units (ICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs): these words were used before in the text, therefore, the abbreviation meaning should have already been informed to readers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Grammatopoulou E, Charmpas TN, Strati EG, Nikolaos T, et al.: The scope of physiotherapy services provided in public ICUs in Greece: A pilot study. Physiother Theory Pract . 2017; 33 (2): 138-146 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Sigera PC, Tunpattu TM, Jayashantha TP, De Silva AP, et al.: National Profile of Physical Therapists in Critical Care Units of Sri Lanka: Lower Middle-Income Country. Phys Ther . 2016; 96 (7): 933-9 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Timenetsky KT, Neto AS, Assunção MSC, Taniguchi L, et al.: Mobilization practices in the ICU: A nationwide 1-day point- prevalence study in Brazil. PLoS One . 2020; 15 (4): e0230971 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Skinner E, Berney S, Warrillow S, Denehy L: Rehabilitation and exercise prescription in Australian intensive care units. Physiotherapy . 2008; 94 (3): 220-229 Publisher Full Text 5. Norrenberg M, Vincent JL: A profile of European intensive care unit physiotherapists. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med . 2000; 26 (7): 988-94 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Viloria MAD, Lee SD, Takahashi T, Cheng YJ: Physical therapy in the intensive care unit: A cross-sectional study of three Asian countries. PLoS One . 2023; 18 (11): e0289876 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Gogniat E: Definición del rol y las competencias del kinesiólogo en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Rev Arg de Ter Int. 2018. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Physiotherapy applied at the Intensive Care Unit; Physiotherapy applied to in-hospital patients I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT da Silveira LTY. Reviewer Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r361737 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-361737 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 28 Apr 2025 Fatma Hegazy , Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 28 Apr 2025 Author Response We would like to sincerely thank all you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised ... Continue reading We would like to sincerely thank all you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Abstract Comment: “Methods” section includes ‘Results’. Eligibility criteria, data collection, and analysis plan are not mentioned. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the "Methods" section of the Abstract to clearly present the eligibility criteria, delivery method of the questionnaire, and analysis plan. We also moved any result-specific content to the appropriate section. Comment: “Results” in Abstract don’t reflect the variation in ICU practices. Response: Revised the Abstract results to emphasize the variability of physiotherapy practices across ICUs, aligning it with the conclusion. Comment: Grammar and spelling errors present. Suggested language polishing. Response: The entire manuscript has undergone professional English language editing to improve grammar and readability. Introduction Comment: Misleading causality in a sentence about pressure ulcers and muscle atrophy. Response: Sentence rephrased for clarity. Comment: Overly specific listing of ICU types. Response: We have condensed the description and removed redundant specificity. Comment: Inappropriate references for a key statement. Response: The references have been replaced with more suitable literature, including those suggested by you. Comment: Redundant paragraphs and repeated sentence in fifth and sixth paragraphs. Response: The two paragraphs have been merged and rewritten to avoid repetition. Study Objectives Comment: Objectives section includes outcomes that are not assessable. Response: The objectives section now strictly states: “To explore current physiotherapy practices in ICUs across the UAE.” Methods Comment: Incorrect use of “prospective” in cross-sectional study. Response: Corrected. The design is now clearly labeled as a cross-sectional study. Comment: Clarify sample size calculation and 90% proportion reference. Response: The method section now explains the outcome used for the sample size estimate, referencing the prevalence of physiotherapy interventions in a similar population. Comment: Misuse of “correlation” instead of “association”. Response: The term “association” has been used throughout when referring to categorical or mixed variables. Results Comment: Table 1 presentation format is non-standard. Response: Reformatted Table 1 using vertical listing and n (%) format. All abbreviations are now included in the table legend. Comment: Interpretative language should be in the Discussion, not Results. Response: All interpretive or inferential statements have been removed from the results section. Comment: Clarify data format in Tables 2 and 3. Response: Legends of Tables 2 and 3 were revised. Comment: NICU vs. adult ICU work should be differentiated. Response: We now state in the Methods section that physiotherapists working in both adult and neonatal ICUs were invited. Clarified which tables reflect adult ICU data. Comment: High redundancy between textual results and tables. Response: The Results section text has been revised to summarize findings more succinctly without repeating table content. Comment: Response rate missing. Response: Response rate has been calculated and reported in the Results section (e.g., “Out of 103 surveys distributed, 80 were completed and returned, yielding a response rate of 77.6%”). Comment: NICU abbreviation not explained. Response: NICU is now defined at first mention in the manuscript. Discussion Comment: Discussion is too long. Response: The Discussion section has been streamlined by removing redundancy and non-essential elaborations. Conclusion Comment: ICU and NICU should already be defined. Response: The conclusion was revised and the abbreviations ICU and NICU are now defined at first use in the manuscript. Kind regards, We would like to sincerely thank all you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Abstract Comment: “Methods” section includes ‘Results’. Eligibility criteria, data collection, and analysis plan are not mentioned. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the "Methods" section of the Abstract to clearly present the eligibility criteria, delivery method of the questionnaire, and analysis plan. We also moved any result-specific content to the appropriate section. Comment: “Results” in Abstract don’t reflect the variation in ICU practices. Response: Revised the Abstract results to emphasize the variability of physiotherapy practices across ICUs, aligning it with the conclusion. Comment: Grammar and spelling errors present. Suggested language polishing. Response: The entire manuscript has undergone professional English language editing to improve grammar and readability. Introduction Comment: Misleading causality in a sentence about pressure ulcers and muscle atrophy. Response: Sentence rephrased for clarity. Comment: Overly specific listing of ICU types. Response: We have condensed the description and removed redundant specificity. Comment: Inappropriate references for a key statement. Response: The references have been replaced with more suitable literature, including those suggested by you. Comment: Redundant paragraphs and repeated sentence in fifth and sixth paragraphs. Response: The two paragraphs have been merged and rewritten to avoid repetition. Study Objectives Comment: Objectives section includes outcomes that are not assessable. Response: The objectives section now strictly states: “To explore current physiotherapy practices in ICUs across the UAE.” Methods Comment: Incorrect use of “prospective” in cross-sectional study. Response: Corrected. The design is now clearly labeled as a cross-sectional study. Comment: Clarify sample size calculation and 90% proportion reference. Response: The method section now explains the outcome used for the sample size estimate, referencing the prevalence of physiotherapy interventions in a similar population. Comment: Misuse of “correlation” instead of “association”. Response: The term “association” has been used throughout when referring to categorical or mixed variables. Results Comment: Table 1 presentation format is non-standard. Response: Reformatted Table 1 using vertical listing and n (%) format. All abbreviations are now included in the table legend. Comment: Interpretative language should be in the Discussion, not Results. Response: All interpretive or inferential statements have been removed from the results section. Comment: Clarify data format in Tables 2 and 3. Response: Legends of Tables 2 and 3 were revised. Comment: NICU vs. adult ICU work should be differentiated. Response: We now state in the Methods section that physiotherapists working in both adult and neonatal ICUs were invited. Clarified which tables reflect adult ICU data. Comment: High redundancy between textual results and tables. Response: The Results section text has been revised to summarize findings more succinctly without repeating table content. Comment: Response rate missing. Response: Response rate has been calculated and reported in the Results section (e.g., “Out of 103 surveys distributed, 80 were completed and returned, yielding a response rate of 77.6%”). Comment: NICU abbreviation not explained. Response: NICU is now defined at first mention in the manuscript. Discussion Comment: Discussion is too long. Response: The Discussion section has been streamlined by removing redundancy and non-essential elaborations. Conclusion Comment: ICU and NICU should already be defined. Response: The conclusion was revised and the abbreviations ICU and NICU are now defined at first use in the manuscript. Kind regards, Competing Interests: I have no competing interests to discolse. Thanks, Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 28 Apr 2025 Fatma Hegazy , Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates 28 Apr 2025 Author Response We would like to sincerely thank all you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised ... Continue reading We would like to sincerely thank all you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Abstract Comment: “Methods” section includes ‘Results’. Eligibility criteria, data collection, and analysis plan are not mentioned. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the "Methods" section of the Abstract to clearly present the eligibility criteria, delivery method of the questionnaire, and analysis plan. We also moved any result-specific content to the appropriate section. Comment: “Results” in Abstract don’t reflect the variation in ICU practices. Response: Revised the Abstract results to emphasize the variability of physiotherapy practices across ICUs, aligning it with the conclusion. Comment: Grammar and spelling errors present. Suggested language polishing. Response: The entire manuscript has undergone professional English language editing to improve grammar and readability. Introduction Comment: Misleading causality in a sentence about pressure ulcers and muscle atrophy. Response: Sentence rephrased for clarity. Comment: Overly specific listing of ICU types. Response: We have condensed the description and removed redundant specificity. Comment: Inappropriate references for a key statement. Response: The references have been replaced with more suitable literature, including those suggested by you. Comment: Redundant paragraphs and repeated sentence in fifth and sixth paragraphs. Response: The two paragraphs have been merged and rewritten to avoid repetition. Study Objectives Comment: Objectives section includes outcomes that are not assessable. Response: The objectives section now strictly states: “To explore current physiotherapy practices in ICUs across the UAE.” Methods Comment: Incorrect use of “prospective” in cross-sectional study. Response: Corrected. The design is now clearly labeled as a cross-sectional study. Comment: Clarify sample size calculation and 90% proportion reference. Response: The method section now explains the outcome used for the sample size estimate, referencing the prevalence of physiotherapy interventions in a similar population. Comment: Misuse of “correlation” instead of “association”. Response: The term “association” has been used throughout when referring to categorical or mixed variables. Results Comment: Table 1 presentation format is non-standard. Response: Reformatted Table 1 using vertical listing and n (%) format. All abbreviations are now included in the table legend. Comment: Interpretative language should be in the Discussion, not Results. Response: All interpretive or inferential statements have been removed from the results section. Comment: Clarify data format in Tables 2 and 3. Response: Legends of Tables 2 and 3 were revised. Comment: NICU vs. adult ICU work should be differentiated. Response: We now state in the Methods section that physiotherapists working in both adult and neonatal ICUs were invited. Clarified which tables reflect adult ICU data. Comment: High redundancy between textual results and tables. Response: The Results section text has been revised to summarize findings more succinctly without repeating table content. Comment: Response rate missing. Response: Response rate has been calculated and reported in the Results section (e.g., “Out of 103 surveys distributed, 80 were completed and returned, yielding a response rate of 77.6%”). Comment: NICU abbreviation not explained. Response: NICU is now defined at first mention in the manuscript. Discussion Comment: Discussion is too long. Response: The Discussion section has been streamlined by removing redundancy and non-essential elaborations. Conclusion Comment: ICU and NICU should already be defined. Response: The conclusion was revised and the abbreviations ICU and NICU are now defined at first use in the manuscript. Kind regards, We would like to sincerely thank all you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Abstract Comment: “Methods” section includes ‘Results’. Eligibility criteria, data collection, and analysis plan are not mentioned. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the "Methods" section of the Abstract to clearly present the eligibility criteria, delivery method of the questionnaire, and analysis plan. We also moved any result-specific content to the appropriate section. Comment: “Results” in Abstract don’t reflect the variation in ICU practices. Response: Revised the Abstract results to emphasize the variability of physiotherapy practices across ICUs, aligning it with the conclusion. Comment: Grammar and spelling errors present. Suggested language polishing. Response: The entire manuscript has undergone professional English language editing to improve grammar and readability. Introduction Comment: Misleading causality in a sentence about pressure ulcers and muscle atrophy. Response: Sentence rephrased for clarity. Comment: Overly specific listing of ICU types. Response: We have condensed the description and removed redundant specificity. Comment: Inappropriate references for a key statement. Response: The references have been replaced with more suitable literature, including those suggested by you. Comment: Redundant paragraphs and repeated sentence in fifth and sixth paragraphs. Response: The two paragraphs have been merged and rewritten to avoid repetition. Study Objectives Comment: Objectives section includes outcomes that are not assessable. Response: The objectives section now strictly states: “To explore current physiotherapy practices in ICUs across the UAE.” Methods Comment: Incorrect use of “prospective” in cross-sectional study. Response: Corrected. The design is now clearly labeled as a cross-sectional study. Comment: Clarify sample size calculation and 90% proportion reference. Response: The method section now explains the outcome used for the sample size estimate, referencing the prevalence of physiotherapy interventions in a similar population. Comment: Misuse of “correlation” instead of “association”. Response: The term “association” has been used throughout when referring to categorical or mixed variables. Results Comment: Table 1 presentation format is non-standard. Response: Reformatted Table 1 using vertical listing and n (%) format. All abbreviations are now included in the table legend. Comment: Interpretative language should be in the Discussion, not Results. Response: All interpretive or inferential statements have been removed from the results section. Comment: Clarify data format in Tables 2 and 3. Response: Legends of Tables 2 and 3 were revised. Comment: NICU vs. adult ICU work should be differentiated. Response: We now state in the Methods section that physiotherapists working in both adult and neonatal ICUs were invited. Clarified which tables reflect adult ICU data. Comment: High redundancy between textual results and tables. Response: The Results section text has been revised to summarize findings more succinctly without repeating table content. Comment: Response rate missing. Response: Response rate has been calculated and reported in the Results section (e.g., “Out of 103 surveys distributed, 80 were completed and returned, yielding a response rate of 77.6%”). Comment: NICU abbreviation not explained. Response: NICU is now defined at first mention in the manuscript. Discussion Comment: Discussion is too long. Response: The Discussion section has been streamlined by removing redundancy and non-essential elaborations. Conclusion Comment: ICU and NICU should already be defined. Response: The conclusion was revised and the abbreviations ICU and NICU are now defined at first use in the manuscript. Kind regards, Competing Interests: I have no competing interests to discolse. Thanks, Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 21 Jan 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 06 May 25 read read Version 1 21 Jan 25 read read read Leda Tomiko Yamada da Silveira , University of Sao Paulo, University Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil Dr.Omnya Samy Abdallah Ghoneim , Badr University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt Mohamed Khallaf , University of st. Augustine for health sciences, Austin, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 da Silveira L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 Jun 2025 | for Version 2 Leda Tomiko Yamada da Silveira , University of Sao Paulo, University Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil 0 Views copyright © 2025 da Silveira L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I thank the authors for making the effort in addressing my previous comments. Most of them have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. Although some of the suggestions were not applied, I believe that the most important issues were responded. The manuscript has greatly improved from the first version. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Physiotherapy applied at the Intensive Care Unit; Physiotherapy applied to in-hospital patients I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) da Silveira LTY. Peer Review Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181124.r383102) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v2#referee-response-383102 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khallaf M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 May 2025 | for Version 2 Mohamed Khallaf , University of st. Augustine for health sciences, Austin, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khallaf M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have no further comments to make. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Neurorehabilitation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Khallaf M. Peer Review Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181124.r383100) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v2#referee-response-383100 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khallaf M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 17 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Mohamed Khallaf , University of st. Augustine for health sciences, Austin, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khallaf M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study is well-organized, clear, and structured for an academic audience with strengths including: Clear Purpose & Scope : You lay out your objectives and aims concisely, which anchors the rest of the paper well. Contextual Framing : The justification for the study is sound and taps into regional relevance (UAE, ICU/NICU rehab needs). I have a few comments: Introduction : - The United Arab Emirates (UAE) currently has 3,567 practicing physiotherapists, yet only 314 are registered members of the UAE chapter of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) ( AlKetbi et al. 2021 ). This sentence is repeated twice. Survey development : No information is provided on whether the questionnaire was translated , especially if some participants were non-English speakers. Questionnaire Validity and Reliability: It’s not clear how many experts were involved in the validation process or what their qualifications and experience levels were. There’s no mention of whether there was a consensus method used (e.g., Delphi technique, inter-rater agreement). Suggestion : Clarify the number, qualifications, and selection criteria of the experts. Discussion :The discussion does not fully explore why gaps exist in practice — e.g., low use of outcome measures or underutilization of certain interventions. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Neurorehabilitation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 06 May 2025 Fatma Hegazy, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates We would like to sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Comment: Repetition in Introduction regarding UAE physiotherapists. Response: The repeated sentence has been removed. Comment: No mention of translation for non-English speakers. Response: We outlined in the Methods section the questionnaire was administered in English, and no translations to any language was offered during data collection. Comment: Clarify the validation process of the questionnaire. Response: We have revised and elaborated on the validation section in the methods, including the number of experts (n=3), their qualifications (physiotherapists and academic faculty), and consensus strategy. Comment: Discussion lacks exploration of why certain gaps exist. Response: We revised the Discussion section to highlight factors that may explain underutilization of outcome measures and other variations in practice. Best regards, View more View less Competing Interests I have no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Khallaf M. Peer Review Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r375222) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-375222 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Samy Abdallah Ghoneim D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Dr.Omnya Samy Abdallah Ghoneim , Department of Physical Therapy for Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Badr University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt 0 Views copyright © 2025 Samy Abdallah Ghoneim D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Type: Cross-sectional survey-based research Objective: To investigate the current physiotherapy practices in ICU settings across the UAE and evaluate their alignment with evidence-based guidelines. The study addresses a timely and critical issue in rehabilitation: the variation and standardization of ICU physiotherapy practices in the UAE. It fills a significant research gap, particularly in a region with limited published data on ICU physiotherapy practices. The methodology is sound, and the discussion is well contextualized, though larger, more inclusive studies and mixed-method approaches would strengthen generalizability and depth. Ethical approval and clear consent processes. All the source data underlying the results is available through written requests to the corresponding author. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Pediatric rehabilitation, Sensory integration, occupational therapy. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 26 Apr 2025 Fatma Hegazy, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates We would like to sincerely thank you for your time revieweing our work. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Samy Abdallah Ghoneim DO. Peer Review Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r375223) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-375223 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 da Silveira L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 18 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Leda Tomiko Yamada da Silveira , University of Sao Paulo, University Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil 0 Views copyright © 2025 da Silveira L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Dear authors, I appreciate the opportunity to revise this manuscript. I believe that mapping the Physiotherapy practice panel in a country is an essential step to assist in the development of plans that allow the improvement and growth of the profession and also to capture and register regional data that may be important in the global vision of Physiotherapy. However, I believe the manuscript needs improvement. Please find below a few comments and suggestions to the authors. Abstract There is contents belonging to the ‘Results’ presented in the ‘Methods’ section of the Abstract. The ‘Methods’ section should mention important information such as the eligibility criteria, questionnaire delivery process, data analysis plan. The ‘Results’ that are presented in the abstract, such as the most and least performed procedures, do not give the readers the idea of variety of practices among ICU, which seems to be the main findings (at least, this is what is stated in the ‘Conclusion’). I suggest rephrasing it to reflect the authors’ conclusions from the findings. Please check spelling and grammar, such as in “ in-activity ”, “could cause diaphragmatic weakness and which is considered one of the most life threatening ICU complications”, “a UK study was conducted to investigate the use of physiotherapists of evidence-based practice”. Also, the fluidity of the text can be improved. The manuscript would benefit from an English language check. Introduction In the sentence: “For example, prolonged admission to the ICU could lead to physical in-activity and pressure ulcers which potentially cause muscular atrophy, generalized weakness sepsis, infections, and deep vein thrombosis.”, it looks like the pressure ulcer can cause muscle atrophy etc etc, and I don’t believe this is what was meant. Perhaps the authors should rephrase this statement. The sentence “These include Medical ICUs for severe non-surgical conditions, Surgical ICUs for post-surgery recovery, Cardiac Care Units for critical heart issues, and specialized units like Neonatal ICUs for newborns, Pediatric ICUs for children, Neuro-ICUs for brain and nervous system conditions, Trauma ICUs, Burn Units, Respiratory ICUs, and Transplant ICUs” could be shortened; there is no need to be so specific. For example, there is no need to say that pediatric ICU is meant for children. In the paragraph that starts with “Several studies have reported the rehabilitation practice of physiotherapists in various countries.”, the references that follow this sentence are not appropriated to base that affirmation. I suggest revising the choice of references in this paragraph. A few examples (not mandatory) that authors could use or consult in order to find other references are refer 1 to 7. 4. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the ‘Introduction’ section have some repeated information, even a repeated full sentence. I suggest rewriting both paragraphs into one single well-structured paragraph. Study objectives The study objective is simply: to explore the current physiotherapy practices in ICUs across the UAE. The other sentences presented in this section (to improve patient outcomes and elevate the quality of care, to inform healthcare policies optimizing resource allocation etc etc) is not what the study will be able to answer, therefore, they should be removed from this section. They can be placed in the end of the ‘Introduction’, in order to explain the reasons for which this study is important. The objective of a study should describe solely what the authors intend to do and what the findings from the proposed methodology can answer. Methods Regarding the study design, this is study is simply a cross-sectional study. Not prospective. A cross-sectional study cannot be prospective. A longitudinal study can be prospective or retrospective, because investigators follow participants through time. But in a cross-sectional study the participants are approached only once, there is no time sequence. Could the authors please be more specific about the sample size calculation? For example, which outcome from the cited reference was used to calculate the sample size? What is this 90% proportion the authors mention? In the ‘Statistical analysis’ section, the word ‘correlation’ is used incorrectly. The word ‘association’ is more appropriate in this case. Correlation can only be calculated for two quantitative variables. Results The presentation of Table 1 is not usual. It is more common to enumerate the variables on the left column (vertically), and n (%) are usually presented in the same column, by using parenthesis. Also, all abbreviations must be explained in the Table’s legend. The results must contain exclusively the study’s results. There are some phrases that should move to ‘Discusson’; basically, phrases that describe some kind of judgement or reasoning about the results, such as (but not limited to): “(…) suggesting potential variability in clinical protocols.”; “suggesting potential differences in practice patterns among physiotherapists.”, “This suggests that nebulizer therapy is commonly integrated into respiratory treatment plans, although there may be variations in timing and protocol adherence.”, “highlighting potential inconsistencies in patient education practices.” Tables 2 and 3 need to explain the format in which the results are presented, i.e., absolute and relative numbers [n(%)]. Since Table 4 mentions the work in the neonatal ICU, I think it is necessary to identify that the other answers (Tables 2 and 3) refer to the work in the adult ICU. Also, I suggest mentioning in the ‘Methods’ that physiotherapists that worked in adults or neonatal ICUs were invited to answer the survey. Results presented in the text of the ‘Results’ section is repeating much of the information in the Tables. Authors did not report the percentage of responses they got from their survey (response rate), which is an important parameter in survey students since they may have selection bias.] The meaning for the abbreviation NICU is not informed in the text. Discussion The ‘Discussion’ section is well-written and provides insights from the study’s results. However, I believe it is too long and shortening the text would be helpful. Conclusion Intensive care units (ICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs): these words were used before in the text, therefore, the abbreviation meaning should have already been informed to readers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Grammatopoulou E, Charmpas TN, Strati EG, Nikolaos T, et al.: The scope of physiotherapy services provided in public ICUs in Greece: A pilot study. Physiother Theory Pract . 2017; 33 (2): 138-146 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Sigera PC, Tunpattu TM, Jayashantha TP, De Silva AP, et al.: National Profile of Physical Therapists in Critical Care Units of Sri Lanka: Lower Middle-Income Country. Phys Ther . 2016; 96 (7): 933-9 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Timenetsky KT, Neto AS, Assunção MSC, Taniguchi L, et al.: Mobilization practices in the ICU: A nationwide 1-day point- prevalence study in Brazil. PLoS One . 2020; 15 (4): e0230971 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Skinner E, Berney S, Warrillow S, Denehy L: Rehabilitation and exercise prescription in Australian intensive care units. Physiotherapy . 2008; 94 (3): 220-229 Publisher Full Text 5. Norrenberg M, Vincent JL: A profile of European intensive care unit physiotherapists. European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med . 2000; 26 (7): 988-94 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Viloria MAD, Lee SD, Takahashi T, Cheng YJ: Physical therapy in the intensive care unit: A cross-sectional study of three Asian countries. PLoS One . 2023; 18 (11): e0289876 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 7. Gogniat E: Definición del rol y las competencias del kinesiólogo en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Rev Arg de Ter Int. 2018. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Physiotherapy applied at the Intensive Care Unit; Physiotherapy applied to in-hospital patients I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 28 Apr 2025 Fatma Hegazy, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Sharjah College of Health Sciences, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates We would like to sincerely thank all you for your insightful and constructive comments. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each suggestion and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes have been marked in the revised manuscript. Comments & Responses Abstract Comment: “Methods” section includes ‘Results’. Eligibility criteria, data collection, and analysis plan are not mentioned. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the "Methods" section of the Abstract to clearly present the eligibility criteria, delivery method of the questionnaire, and analysis plan. We also moved any result-specific content to the appropriate section. Comment: “Results” in Abstract don’t reflect the variation in ICU practices. Response: Revised the Abstract results to emphasize the variability of physiotherapy practices across ICUs, aligning it with the conclusion. Comment: Grammar and spelling errors present. Suggested language polishing. Response: The entire manuscript has undergone professional English language editing to improve grammar and readability. Introduction Comment: Misleading causality in a sentence about pressure ulcers and muscle atrophy. Response: Sentence rephrased for clarity. Comment: Overly specific listing of ICU types. Response: We have condensed the description and removed redundant specificity. Comment: Inappropriate references for a key statement. Response: The references have been replaced with more suitable literature, including those suggested by you. Comment: Redundant paragraphs and repeated sentence in fifth and sixth paragraphs. Response: The two paragraphs have been merged and rewritten to avoid repetition. Study Objectives Comment: Objectives section includes outcomes that are not assessable. Response: The objectives section now strictly states: “To explore current physiotherapy practices in ICUs across the UAE.” Methods Comment: Incorrect use of “prospective” in cross-sectional study. Response: Corrected. The design is now clearly labeled as a cross-sectional study. Comment: Clarify sample size calculation and 90% proportion reference. Response: The method section now explains the outcome used for the sample size estimate, referencing the prevalence of physiotherapy interventions in a similar population. Comment: Misuse of “correlation” instead of “association”. Response: The term “association” has been used throughout when referring to categorical or mixed variables. Results Comment: Table 1 presentation format is non-standard. Response: Reformatted Table 1 using vertical listing and n (%) format. All abbreviations are now included in the table legend. Comment: Interpretative language should be in the Discussion, not Results. Response: All interpretive or inferential statements have been removed from the results section. Comment: Clarify data format in Tables 2 and 3. Response: Legends of Tables 2 and 3 were revised. Comment: NICU vs. adult ICU work should be differentiated. Response: We now state in the Methods section that physiotherapists working in both adult and neonatal ICUs were invited. Clarified which tables reflect adult ICU data. Comment: High redundancy between textual results and tables. Response: The Results section text has been revised to summarize findings more succinctly without repeating table content. Comment: Response rate missing. Response: Response rate has been calculated and reported in the Results section (e.g., “Out of 103 surveys distributed, 80 were completed and returned, yielding a response rate of 77.6%”). Comment: NICU abbreviation not explained. Response: NICU is now defined at first mention in the manuscript. Discussion Comment: Discussion is too long. Response: The Discussion section has been streamlined by removing redundancy and non-essential elaborations. Conclusion Comment: ICU and NICU should already be defined. Response: The conclusion was revised and the abbreviations ICU and NICU are now defined at first use in the manuscript. Kind regards, View more View less Competing Interests I have no competing interests to discolse. Thanks, reply Respond Report a concern da Silveira LTY. Peer Review Report For: Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive Care Units in the UAE: A National Survey [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :117 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175639.r361737) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1#referee-response-361737 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Ashraf Megahed M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117", templates : { twitter : "Current Rehabilitation Practices of Physiotherapists in Intensive.... Ashraf Megahed M et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-117/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/159853/175639") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "175639"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "364933": 0, "364932": 0, "361735": 0, "364935": 0, "364934": 0, "361734": 0, "364929": 0, "364931": 0, "364930": 0, "361741": 0, "361740": 0, "361742": 0, "361737": 24, "364937": 0, "361736": 0, "364936": 0, "361739": 0, "361738": 0, "375221": 0, "375223": 11, "375222": 11, "375229": 0, "375228": 0, "375230": 0, "375225": 0, "375224": 0, "375227": 0, "375226": 0, "366285": 0, "367693": 0, "366284": 0, "367692": 0, "366287": 0, "367695": 0, "366286": 0, "367694": 0, "367689": 0, "367691": 0, "367690": 0, "366293": 0, "366292": 0, "366289": 0, "367697": 0, "366288": 0, "367696": 0, "366291": 0, "366290": 0, "367698": 0, "363487": 0, "363493": 0, "363492": 0, "363495": 0, "363494": 0, "363489": 0, "363488": 0, "363491": 0, "363490": 0, "363496": 0, "383101": 0, "383100": 1, "383102": 2, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "9ca706d5-ae85-49b7-b043-c03fb4426e1d"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });