Factors influencing the integration of self-management in daily life routines in chronic conditions: A scoping review of qualitative evidence

1 QamaE, etal. BMJ Open 2022;12:e066647. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 Open access Factors influencing the integration of selfmanagement in daily life routines in chronic conditions: a scoping review of qualitative evidence Enxhi Qama ,1,2 Sara Rubinelli,1,2 Nicola Diviani1,2 To cite: QamaE, RubinelliS, DivianiN. Factors influencing the integration of selfmanagement in daily life routines in chronic conditions: a scoping review of qualitative evidence. BMJ Open 2022;12:e066647. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2022-066647 ►Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bmjopen-2022-066647). Received 15 July 2022 Accepted 02 December 2022 1Personcentered Healthcare & Health Communication Group, Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland 2University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland Correspondence to Dr Enxhi Qama; enxhi. qama@ paraplegie. ch Original research © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Reuse permitted under CC BYNC. No commercial reuse. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. ABSTRACT Objective Selfmanagement of chronic diseases is regarded as dynamic experience which is always evolving and that requires constant adjustment. As unexpected and new shifts in diseases occur, patients tend to abandon acquired behaviours calling into question their sustainability over time. Developing a daily selfmanagement routine as a response to lifestyle changes is considered to facilitate selfmanagement performance. However, fitting selfmanagement recommendations in one’s daily life activities is a constant challenge. In this review, we describe the performance of selfmanagement routines within daily settings in people living with chronic conditions with the aim of identifying factors that challenge its integration in daily life. Design Scoping review. Data sources We searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO on February 2022. Eligibility criteria We included qualitative studies on selfmanagement experience, in English, with adult participants, original and peerreviewed, and depicting the performance of selfmanagement activities in one’s own environment. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. After agreement, one reviewer screened the full text of relevant articles and extracted the data. The data were synthesised and analysed thematically. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist was used for reporting the steps. Results Twentytwo studies were included. The thematic analysis brought up two overreaching themes. The first one is the Environment support with three subthemes: family and cultural norms; health professionals and guiding communication; and society and disease perceptions. The second theme is comprehension gap with two subthemes: reading the body and applying information. Conclusions The integration of selfmanagement requirements in a daily routine is affected by the patients’ inability to apply disease knowledge in different context and by the challenge of understanding body symptoms and predicting body reactions in advance. INTRODUCTION In healthcare selfmanagement has been defined as ‘the ability of the individual in conjunction with family, community and healthcare professionals, to manage symptoms, treatments, lifestyle changes and psychosocial, cultural and spiritual consequences of health conditions’.1 Patients combine medical management with other attributes that include role and emotional management.2 Chronic conditions on the other side are defined as conditions that need frequent monitoring because of multiple and different symptoms and changes in physiological parameters, and that require commitment of time and effort to manage.3 4 Indeed, selfmanagement of chronic diseases is regarded as dynamic and always evolving; as a result, it is not always a simple experience.5–7 As unexpected and new shifts in diseases occur, patients tend to abandon acquired behaviours calling into question their sustainability over time.8 9 For instance, experiencing a new symptom or encountering information that contradicts previous knowledge puts patients STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY ⇒The strength of our study was the use of standards for the conduct and reporting of reviews, employed a rigorous thematic analysis process, which involved independent analysis by two researchers and several critical discussion meetings with all reviewers involved. ⇒The methodology followed allowed for assessing an extensive body of literature, across different study aims, conditions and populations, which made it possible to identify gaps in the literature: longitudinal qualitative study design; education and learning needs throughout different phases and turning points in selfmanagement integration. ⇒Because of the nature of our review, a quality appraisal of the included studies was not undertaken, therefore, the strength of their evidence was not evaluated. ⇒Even though we discuss our results by reflecting on the existing evidence in the field, we acknowledge that another limitation of our review is the potential exclusion of relevant studies. Protected by copyright, including for uses related to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. . Hochschulbibliothek Luzen Sempacherstrasse 10 at Zentral und on October 31, 2025 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from 30 December 2022. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 on BMJ Open: first published as 2QamaE, etal. BMJ Open 2022;12:e066647. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 Open access in unknown territory to which the standard recommendations of selfmanagement might not apply.10 Three important reviews on selfmanagement in different conditions have a common denominator: integrating recommendations in one’s daily life is probably the biggest challenge in selfmanagement.11–13 The authors describe that ‘living a life and living an illness’12 are two different things, and developing a daily selfmanagement routine as a response to lifestyle changes11 is considered to facilitate selfmanagement.13 They suggest that patients need scheduling and prioritisation skills in their familial and societal roles, such as work or special occasions like holidays and vacations.11 13 To better conceptualise the important challenge of developing a selfmanagement routine, it is of significant value to understand the underlying factors that affect such process in people living with chronic conditions. Literature offers valuable evidence on general aspects that influence selfmanagement, from personal factors such as one’s emotional needs and health beliefs,14 15 to more logistical ones like access and financial constraints.11 13 16 Notwithstanding the important contribution, we believe that in order to grasp the complexities of selfmanagement routines there is a need to synthesise the evidence of patients’ lived experience on closer lens. Instead of the existing description of selfmanagement within the frame of concepts like barriers and facilitators, we believe that a more personal approach should be presented. Van de Velde et al2 said that selfmanagement is not a task that has an end point, on the opposite, it is a lifetime task that is based on how patients see their own problems in their own daily lives; selfmanagement will look different for each person, depending on their skills.2 Therefore, with this review, we want to describe the performance of selfmanagement routines within daily settings in people living with chronic conditions with the aim of identifying factors that challenge its integration in daily life. To reach the aim of our study, we chose to follow a scoping review methodology. Since our ‘phenomena of interest’—the performance of selfmanagement routines—is very broad, we deem this methodology to be appropriate for scoping the range of the available evidence.17 By summarising different research findings in qualitative research, this scoping review will allow us to identify possible research gaps and to make recommendations for future research in the field of patient education. METHODS To reach the aforementioned objective, we followed Arksey and O'Malley’s methodology for conducting a scoping review.18 We adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR) checklist for reporting the steps (see online supplemental material 1, PRISMAScR Checklist).19 Identifying the research question The review was guided by the following questions: RQ1: What are the factors that challenge the performance of selfmanagement routines within daily settings in people living with chronic conditions? RQ2: How do these factors influence this process? Inclusion and exclusion criteria We based the selection of studies on the following eligibility criteria: (1) qualitative studies on selfmanagement experience, (2) in English, (3) adult participants, (4) original and peerreviewed and (5) depicting the performance of selfmanagement activities in one’s own environment. We excluded studies that focus on selfmanagement interventions, portraying challenges related to an individual’s personal attribute such as age, gender and origins. Furthermore, we excluded studies looking at selfmanagement in chronic condition, such as substance abuse, central nervous system disease, and insomnia, given that they can be particularly different in these population due to affected cognitive function20 and involve specific requirements for selfmanagement, such as more medication dependency.21 However, is worth mentioning that we included those multimorbidity studies that look at these conditions among others. Lastly, we excluded articles exploring selfmanagement of HIV/ AIDS or cancer, given that these conditions are characterised by a great amount of unpredictability and considered lifethreating.22 They require complex therapeutic routines in closer collaboration with health professionals because of demanding and frequent monitoring and there is an extensive use of health services like palliative care for symptom control.23 24" Search for relevant studies In February 2022, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO for relevant articles using a group of keywords that reflect our objective and research question as shown in table 1. We combined the keywords using Boolean operators and truncations. A preliminary screening of the literature in these databases revealed that most of the research in the field has been done in the new millennium. Therefore, a time limit was placed, starting from the year 2000. Selection of sources of evidence One reviewer carried out the search through electronic databases and kept a record of the searches. The identified records were exported into EndNote and duplicates were removed. The screening of the articles was performed in two levels. In the first level of screening, two reviewers applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to all titles and abstracts independently for study eligibility. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or the participation of a third reviewer. For the second level of screening, two reviewers independently performed a fulltext screening of a sample of the articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria (ie, ‘depicting the performance of selfmanagement activities in one’s own environment’ and ‘portraying challenges related to an individual’s personal Protected by copyright, including for uses related to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. . Hochschulbibliothek Luzen Sempacherstrasse 10 at Zentral und on October 31, 2025 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from 30 December 2022. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 on BMJ Open: first published as 3 QamaE, etal. BMJ Open 2022;12:e066647. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 Open access attribute such as age, gender and origins’) to determine the degree of consistency in the individual assessment. Any disagreements were resolved through discussions with the third reviewer. After reaching an agreement one reviewer screened the full texts for inclusion and exclusion criteria. (see online supplemental figure 1 PRISMA flow chart). Charting the data Two reviewers prepared a standardised table to extract relevant information from eligible articles. Data extraction was conducted independently by the same reviewers. Online supplemental table 1 includes the primary author, year of publication, country, sample size, place of recruitment, type of disease, study design, selfmanagement activity/recommendation and aim of study. Online supplemental table 2 summarised the extracts from the included studies and initial codes. When conducting the database research, we did not include the keywords ‘challenge’ or ‘barrier’, neither did we discriminate according to the study aim when selecting eligible studies. Therefore, findings of the included studies did not necessarily report only on challenges of the performing selfmanagement routines. For this reason, only those parts of the findings where challenges in one’s environment and daily routines are mentioned, were taken in consideration. Furthermore, the reviewers agreed to extract only the author’s own interpretation of the data accompanied by author’s chosen quotes for illustration. Collating, summarising and reporting the results For this stage of the review, we followed Braun and Clarke’s methodology for inductive thematic analysis, based on the theoretical framework of a realist account.25 In the first stage of data extraction, we became familiar with the results of each included study, by repeatedly reading the content in depth. In this phase, one reviewer started taking notes on possible codes. The same key findings could contribute in more than one code and theme. After generating the initial codes, two reviewers went through the process of generating themes and subthemes, through continual revisions and definitions of themes as seen in online supplemental table 3. Any discrepancy was resolved by the participation of a third reviewer. For the final phase, we produced the report by following an analysis of the challenges of performing selfmanagement routines within one’s daily environment guided by our research question: what are challenges of keeping up with recommendations of selfmanagement regardless of the setting or daily activities of the participants? Patient and public involvement None. Table 1 Search string combination of keywords Database Search string combination PubMed (("chronic disease" OR "chronic condition" OR "chronic illness" OR “complex chronic condition” OR “complex chronic disease” OR “complex chronic illness"[Title/Abstract] OR multimorbid*[Title/Abstract] OR "multiple diseases"[Title/Abstract] OR "multiple conditions"[Title/Abstract] OR "multiple illnesses"[Title/ Abstract] OR comorbid*[Title/Abstract]) AND ("self management"[Title/Abstract] OR "self efficacy"[Title/ Abstract] OR "self care"[Title/Abstract] OR “health behaviour”[Title/Abstract])) AND (adapt*[Title/ Abstract] OR intergrat*[Title/Abstract] OR adjust*[Title/Abstract] OR transit*[Title/Abstract] OR "lived experience"[Title/Abstract] OR sustain*[Title/Abstract] OR balance*[Title/Abstract] OR maintain*[Title/ Abstract] OR learn*[Title/Abstract] OR "problem solving"[Title/Abstract] OR "decision making"[Title/ Abstract]) Cinahl Complete TX (“chronic disease” OR “chronic condition” OR “chronic illness” OR “complex chronic condition” OR “complex chronic disease” OR “complex chronic illness” OR multimorbid* OR “multiple diseases” OR “multiple conditions” OR “multiple illnesses” OR comorbid*) AND AB (“self management” OR “self efficacy” OR “self care” OR “health behaviour”) AND AB (adapt* OR intergrat* OR adjust* OR transit* OR “lived experience” OR sustain* OR balance* OR maintain* OR learn* OR “problem solving” OR “decision making” Web of Science “chronic disease” OR “chronic condition” OR “chronic illness” OR “complex chronic condition” OR “complex chronic disease” OR “complex chronic illness” OR multimorbid* OR “multiple diseases” OR “multiple conditions” OR “multiple illnesses” OR comorbid* (Abstract) and “self management"OR “self efficacy” OR “self care” OR “health behaviour” (Abstract) and adapt* OR intergrat* OR adjust* OR transit* OR “lived experience” OR sustain* OR balance* OR maintain* OR learn* OR “problem solving” OR “decision making” (All Fields) and 2000 or 2001 or 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or 2009 or 2010 or 2011 or 2012 or 2013 or 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or 2020 or 2021 or 2022 (Publication Years) and English (Languages) PsycInfo ((“chronic disease” or “chronic condition” or “chronic illness” or “complex chronic condition” or “complex chronic disease” or “complex chronic illness” or multimorbid* or “multiple diseases” or “multiple conditions” or “multiple illnesses” or comorbid*) and (“self management” or “self efficacy” or “self care” or “health behaviour”)).ab. and (adapt* or intergrat* or adjust* or transit* or “lived experience” or sustain* or balance* or maintain* or learn* or “problem solving” or “decision making”).af. Protected by copyright, including for uses related to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. . Hochschulbibliothek Luzen Sempacherstrasse 10 at Zentral und on October 31, 2025 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from 30 December 2022. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 on BMJ Open: first published as 4QamaE, etal. BMJ Open 2022;12:e066647. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 Open access RESULTS Study characteristics After screening the abstracts of 9360 articles, 717 were included for fulltext screening. Of these, 694 studies were deemed ineligible. Ultimately, 22 articles in total were included for synthesis,26–47 as illustrated in online supplemental figure 1. The studies were conducted between 200142 and 2021.43 The majority (n=9) are from the USA27 29 33–36 38 41 44; there are three from Australia,28 31 46 three from Canada,30 40 42 two from Sweden26 32 and one each from Switzerland,47 the UK,37 Malawi,39 the Netherlands,45 and Malaysia.43 There are 20 qualitative studies26–34 36 37 39–47 and 2 mixedmethods studies35 38 (from which only the qualitative data were extracted) represent more than 690 participants. Articles cover a wide range of conditions including diabetes (n=12),26 28–30 32 36 37 39 42 44–46 cardiovascular conditions (n=11),26 28–31 33 36 38 44–46 lung conditions (n=7),28 30 31 35 36 41 43 rheumatic diseases (n=5),26 29 30 36 45 kidney disease (n=4),26 27 45 46 spinal cord injury (n=2),40 47 cancer (n=2),29 45 depression (n=2),29 36 inflammatory bowel disease (n=1),26 multiple sclerosis (n=1),26 back pain or sciatica (n=1),29 obesity (n=1),30 glaucoma (n=1),45 hearing disability (n=1),45 vision problems (n=1),45 tuberculosis (n=1),45 immune disease (n=1)45 and gastric bypass surgery (n=1).45 Twentyone studies used a crossedsectional design,27–47 and only one study followed a longitudinal approach for data collection and analysis.26 Most of the studies aim at describing the experience, understanding and performance of selfmanagement (n=9).28 30 33 37–39 41 43 Six studies aim at exploring facilitators and barriers of selfmanagement (n=6).27 29 31 36 40 44 Fours studies explore issues and challenges in selfmanagement.32 34 35 45 Two studies explore decisionmaking and adaptation styles in selfmanagement42 47 and one investigates the patterns of selfmanagement behaviours over time.26 Thematic analysis The synthesis of results yielded two main overreaching themes: the Environment support with three subthemes: family and cultural norms, health professionals and guiding communication, and society and chronic disease perceptions; and the Comprehension gap with two subthemes: reading the body and applying information. Environment support The first theme describes that the way patients make decisions about selfmanagement and prioritise on a daily basis, could be influenced by their relationship with family and society, and information exchange with health professionals. Family and cultural norms The first subtheme involves cultural norms and gender roles within a family and explains different perceptions of personal responsibility in disease selfmanagement . Given that most of a person’s daily disease management is spent at home, it is not unexpected that patients feel compelled to incorporate their recommendations as best they can within their family’s traditions and expectations.27 33 36 37 39 40 46 While some of them highlight that they receive unconditional support,27 36 others emphasise that sometimes gender roles (eg, spouses and mothers) within a family could jeopardise selfcare.36 37 46 They feel the pressure of having to choose and prioritise27 33 39 46 between their selfmanagement routines or family needs46: ‘a participant stated: I have three (grown) men to look after and it influences my medicine taking. Other participants cared for sick family members, which was an added stress, and prioritised their care over their own at times’.46 Health professionals and guiding communication The second subtheme illustrates the support of healthcare professionals through instructions on practical aspects of selfmanagement routines. Patients believe that it is crucial to have the right professional guidance in order to understand the ‘larger picture’ of the condition.27 29 34 36 38 42 45 47 Some patients advocated for medical paternalism and needed an active support for every problem and decisional process in their selfmanagement.45 47 More independent patients reported receiving fragmented information27 34 in a hurried encounter with their physicians36 : ‘participants reported feeling ‘‘rushed’’ through doctor visits: ‘The doctor doesn’t have time to be thorough’.36 43 They also believed that advice was not based on the reality29 38 42 of the patient’s environment38: ‘cognitive artefacts were ill suited for older users, their experiences, mental models, limitations and daily routines’.38 As a result, they felt ill equipped to deal with unanticipated situations36 42 and make educated decisions on how to deal with them42: ‘practitioners who give information irrelevant to their unique situations impair the ability to use that information’.42 Finally, this led to a loss of faith in the health professionals, which caused patients to experience feelings of incompetence and disempowerment.29 42 Society and chronic disease perceptions The third theme describes general societal expectations towards people living with a chronic condition that have to constantly selfmanage. Patients describe feeling as though they are not leading an enjoyable life despite their disease30 39 43 until they were confident enough to follow instructions in various settings43: ‘playing football were identified as essential activities in embodying health identities…for these participants, using an inhaler before a game or during a match demonstrated ‘weakness’ and invited unwanted social reactions’.43 Stigmatising events like distancing attitudes30 or unpleasant reactions from friends or peers,43 inevitably influenced selfmanagement and brought out feelings of isolation30: ‘My cousin has a cabin in the woods 2 hours away and doesn’t dare invite me anymore because of my health’.30 In general, participants in this sample preferred to do things alone rather than to deal with the pressure of spending time with others’.30 Protected by copyright, including for uses related to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. . Hochschulbibliothek Luzen Sempacherstrasse 10 at Zentral und on October 31, 2025 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from 30 December 2022. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 on BMJ Open: first published as 5 QamaE, etal. BMJ Open 2022;12:e066647. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 Open access Comprehension gap The second theme describes that a patients’ ability to plan and schedule selfmanagement recommendations around work or social events seems to be influenced by their understanding of the disease and body cues. Reading the body This theme describes the difficulties that patients experience in recognising deviations from standard physiological norms and how it challenges their ability plan selfmanagement in different situations.26 28 31 32 34 35 41 44 This can often make it difficult for them to apply selfmanagement recommendations in the best way possible31 32 34 44 in order to reach the desired result44: ‘Knowledge gaps included misunderstandings about what constitutes the appropriate frequency, intensity and duration of physical activity and how to incorporate dietary changes into their lifestyle’.44 Patients also had difficulty leading normal lives with selfmanagement because they were unable to comprehend and predict how their bodies could respond to outside stimuli.32 34 35 41 A typical example was: ‘one challenge was to understand…. how blood glucose levels and daily routines affect each other’.32 Sometimes family members could provide help in identifying and reacting to certain cues28; in more independent cases these knowledge gaps could make patients clueless of the fact that a good life can be achieved with proper selfmanagement41: ‘Patients had accepted a level of restricted freedom of movement as a result of asthma and did not recognise the potential quality of life he or she could achieve with greater asthma control’.41 Applying information The final subtheme illustrates how, even when one has the knowledge, the ability to apply that knowledge to one’s specific situation and selfmanage one’s condition is what requires their attention.29 32 36 Patients faced difficulties in exercising planning and scheduling skills to fit selfmanagement activities around work or social engagements.29 32 Additionally, there were patients that tended to give up their recommendations because of poor information evaluating skills like in this example32: ‘One participant…assumed that walking or climbing stairs at work only affected blood cholesterol values…He assumed that physical activity needs to be exercised in another way for maximum health benefit’.32 DISCUSSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH Discussion This review aimed to describe the routine of selfmanagement in patients with chronic conditions within their own environment and it demonstrates their difficulties in reading body signals and cues and applying knowledge to specific circumstances. Our analysis suggests that patients are in need of better training and information coordination that would support their ability to understand; to react accordingly; to make plans and predictions in selfmanagement regardless of the environment. Interestingly, there is a twodimensional knowledge gap among patients. On the one hand, they are unsure whether the advice of medical professionals can be implemented uniformly in all circumstances. On the other hand, they do not know whether the information coming from their bodies can be predictable enough for them to feel confident and react appropriately. Our findings are consistent with other reviews on different chronic conditions12 13 in describing the need for flexibility and creativity in order to regulate and keep the same selfmanagement routines in a changing context. Our results extend on that knowledge by highlighting that what is actually needed is the ‘knowhow’ approach in trainings and education, which can better assist the creation of a routine and a life with selfmanagement. We did not at look into specific selfmanagement education interventions and whether they cover all the necessary skills need in selfmanagement. Yet we know that skills like problemsolving interventions have shown their contribution on selfmanagement maintenance over time in complex conditions like diabetes,48 depression49 or spinal cord injury.50 More studies should explore methods used by health professionals to build personalised profiles, and whether they use skill assessment tools for their patients with chronic conditions. Additionally, we explored only the views of patients. However, literature shows that the way family members experience chronic conditions51–54 or what is considered for health professionals the right way to solve unexpected situations in daily routines55 56 often is very different from patients' perspective. Accounts on the livedexperience of selfmanagement of all actors involved would add to our data. Important research efforts have contributed on further conceptualisation of selfmanagement integration, by developed models that explain its trajectory by different phases and turning points.57 58 Patients use strategy like developing selfawareness of the ways the body responds to certain stimuli or situations through trial and error59–61 as well as constantly clarifying the information they receive.62–64 This review identified one longitudinal study exploring different patterns of chronic illness selfmanagement.26 To better grasp the developmental character of selfmanagement routines, more longitudinal evidence is required on strategies and learning needs throughout different stages.65 66 Strengths and limitations Our review has some important strengths to be highlighted. First, the methodology followed for this scoping review allowed for assessing an extensive body of literature, across different study aims, different conditions and populations. This made possible to identify important gaps for further research, with longitudinal qualitative study design in selfmanagement being one of them. Another strength was the use of the standards for conducting and reporting reviews, and the employment of a rigorous thematic analysis process which involved Protected by copyright, including for uses related to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. . Hochschulbibliothek Luzen Sempacherstrasse 10 at Zentral und on October 31, 2025 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from 30 December 2022. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 on BMJ Open: first published as 6QamaE, etal. BMJ Open 2022;12:e066647. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 Open access independent analysis by two researchers and several critical discussion meetings with all reviewers . Finally, to our knowledge, this is the first scoping review that explores selfmanagement solely from the context of creating a routine within one’s daily setting, giving contribution to the existing literature. Notwithstanding the above, the study had some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, a quality appraisal of the reviewed studies was not undertaken. The synthesis, however, did not aim to identify the impact of what has been studied or evaluate the strength of the evidence available17 67; instead, the aim was to provide an overview that is as comprehensive as possible of aspects of selfmanagement routines in daily settings. The second limitation is the potential exclusion of relevant studies, as a result of the conceptualisation of the search strategy. We may have neglected some aspects of the routines of selfmanagement, since there is no clear conceptualisation in the literature and we only explored a limited number of concepts linked to it. However, the large number of screened articles and engagement with the existing literature suggest that the results reflect the most important aspects that were intended to be explored in this review. Almost all reviewed articles were conducted in Western countries. Further exploration of this topic should be undertaken to determine particularities in different countries and cultures.68 This research entailed synthesising evidence on a broad range of chronic diseases and selfmanagement activities. Although it can offer a strong basis for generalisation, more indepth research on individual conditions or selfmanagement activities and recommendations should be carried out. CONCLUSION The integration of selfmanagement requirements in a daily routine is affected by the patients' inability to apply disease knowledge in different context and by the challenge of understanding body symptoms and predicting body reactions in advance. Health professionals could benefit from using skill assessment tools for their patients, in order to create more comprehensive and personalised interventions for patient education in chronic condition selfmanagement. Twitter Enxhi Qama @enxhiqama Contributors All authors contributed to the conceptualisation of the study. ND and SR secured funds for the study. EQ and ND designed the study. ND and SR collected data, carried out the analysis and interpreted the data. EQ collected data, carried out the analysis, interpreted the data and prepared the original draft of the manuscript. ND supervised the project. All authors contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting and revisions. They also read and approved the final manuscript. EQ acted as guarantor. Funding The work presented in this paper has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation ( www. snf. ch; Grant No. 10001C_200520). Competing interests None declared. Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Patient consent for publication Not applicable. Ethics approval Our study did not require an ethical board approval because it did not contain human or animal trials. Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peerreviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise. Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BYNC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work noncommercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is noncommercial. See:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. ORCID iD EnxhiQama http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9466-3379 REFERENCES 1 Richard AA, Shea K. Delineation of selfcare and associated concepts. J Nurs Scholarsh 2011;43:255–64. 2 Van de Velde D, De Zutter F, Satink T, etal. Delineating the concept of selfmanagement in chronic conditions: a concept analysis. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027775. 3 Goodman RA, Posner SF, Huang ES, etal. Defining and measuring chronic conditions: imperatives for research, policy, program, and practice. Prev Chronic Dis 2013;10. 4 O'Halloran J, Miller GC, Britt H. Defining chronic conditions for primary care with ICPC2. Fam Pract 2004;21:381–6. 5 Shaul MP. From early twinges to mastery: the process of adjustment in living with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 1995;8:290–7. 6 SchulmanGreen D, Jaser S, Martin F, etal. Processes of selfmanagement in chronic illness. J Nurs Scholarsh 2012;44:136–44. 7 Robinson CA. Managing life with a chronic condition: the story of normalization. Qual Health Res 1993;3:6–28. 8 Kwasnicka D, Dombrowski SU, White M, etal. Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: a systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychol Rev 2016;10:277–96. 9 Sniehotta FF, Schwarzer R, Scholz U, etal. Action planning and coping planning for longterm lifestyle change: theory and assessment. Eur J Soc Psychol 2005;35:565–76. 10 Mackey LM, Doody C, Werner EL, etal. Selfmanagement skills in chronic disease management: what role does health literacy have? Med Decis Making 2016;36:741–59. 11 Koch G, Wakefield BJ, Wakefield DS. Barriers and facilitators to managing multiple chronic conditions: a systematic literature review. West J Nurs Res 2015;37:498–516. 12 Liddy C, Blazkho V, Mill K. Challenges of selfmanagement when living with multiple chronic conditions: systematic review of the qualitative literature. Can Fam Physician 2014;60:1123–33. 13 SchulmanGreen D, Jaser SS, Park C, etal. A metasynthesis of factors affecting selfmanagement of chronic illness. J Adv Nurs 2016;72:1469–89. 14 Russell S, Ogunbayo OJ, Newham JJ, etal. Qualitative systematic review of barriers and facilitators to selfmanagement of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: views of patients and healthcare professionals. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2018;28:1–13. 15 Siabani S, Leeder SR, Davidson PM. Barriers and facilitators to selfcare in chronic heart failure: a metasynthesis of qualitative studies. Springerplus 2013;2:320. 16 Miles C, ArdenClose E, Thomas M, etal. Barriers and facilitators of effective selfmanagement in asthma: systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient and healthcare professional views. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2017;27:57. 17 Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, etal. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13:141–6. 18 Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32. Protected by copyright, including for uses related to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. . Hochschulbibliothek Luzen Sempacherstrasse 10 at Zentral und on October 31, 2025 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from 30 December 2022. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 on BMJ Open: first published as 7 QamaE, etal. BMJ Open 2022;12:e066647. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 Open access 19 Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, etal. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMAScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73. 20 Botvin GJ, Griffin KW, Scheier LM. Developmental trajectories of selfmanagement skills and adolescent substance use. Salud Drogas 2009;9:15–37. 21 Trivedi MH, Lin EHB, Katon WJ. Consensus recommendations for improving adherence, selfmanagement, and outcomes in patients with depression. CNS Spectr 2007;12:1–27. 22 Chattopadhyay S, Karlsson J, Mañas A, etal. Evolutionary unpredictability in cancer model system. bioRxiv 2022. 23 Mansky PJ, Wallerstedt DB. Complementary medicine in palliative care and cancer symptom management. Cancer J 2006;12:425–31. 24 Harding R. Palliative care as an essential component of the HIV care continuum. Lancet HIV 2018;5:e524–30. 25 Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. 26 Audulv Åsa. The over time development of chronic illness selfmanagement patterns: a longitudinal qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2013;13:452. 27 Bowling CB, Vandenberg AE, Phillips LS, etal. Older patients' perspectives on managing complexity in CKD selfmanagement. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;12:635–43. 28 Corcoran KJ, Jowsey T, Leeder SR. One size does not fit all: the different experiences of those with chronic heart failure, type 2 diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aust Health Rev 2013;37:19–25. 29 Dixon A, Hibbard J, Tusler M. How do people with different levels of activation selfmanage their chronic conditions? Patient 2009;2:257–68. 30 Duguay C, Gallagher F, Fortin M. The experience of adults with multimorbidity: a qualitative study. J Comorb 2014;4:11–21. 31 Fuller BG, Stewart Williams JA, Byles JE. Active living--the perception of older people with chronic conditions. Chronic Illn 2010;6:294–305. 32 Gardsten C, Blomqvist K, Rask M, etal. Challenges in everyday life among recently diagnosed and more experienced adults with type 2 diabetes: a multistage focus group study. J Clin Nurs 2018;27:3666–78. 33 Gary R. Selfcare practices in women with diastolic heart failure. Heart Lung 2006;35:9–19. 34 Haverhals LM, Lee CA, Siek KA, etal. Older adults with multimorbidity: medication management processes and design implications for personal health applications. J Med Internet Res 2011;13:e44. 35 Janevic MR, Ellis KR, Sanders GM, etal. Selfmanagement of multiple chronic conditions among African American women with asthma: a qualitative study. J Asthma 2014;51:243–52. 36 Jerant AF, von FriederichsFitzwater MM, Moore M. Patients' perceived barriers to active selfmanagement of chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2005;57:300–7. 37 MajeedAriss R, Jackson C, Knapp P, etal. BritishPakistani women's perspectives of diabetes selfmanagement: the role of identity. J Clin Nurs 2015;24:2571–80. 38 Mickelson RS, Willis M, Holden RJ. Medicationrelated cognitive artifacts used by older adults with heart failure. Health Policy Technol 2015;4:387–98. 39 Mphwanthe G, Carolan M, Earnesty D, etal. Perceived barriers and facilitators to diet and physical activity among adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in Malawi. Glob Public Health 2021;16:469–84. 40 Munce SEP, Webster F, Fehlings MG, etal. Perceived facilitators and barriers to selfmanagement in individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Neurol 2014;14:48. 41 O'Conor R, Martynenko M, Gagnon M, etal. A qualitative investigation of the impact of asthma and selfmanagement strategies among older adults. J Asthma 2017;54:39–45. 42 Paterson B. Myth of empowerment in chronic illness. J Adv Nurs 2001;34:574–81. 43 Salim H, Young I, Lee PY, etal. Insights into how Malaysian adults with limited health literacy selfmanage and live with asthma: a Photovoice qualitative study. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. Health Expect 2021. 44 Steinman L, Heang H, van Pelt M, etal. Facilitators and barriers to chronic disease selfmanagement and mobile health interventions for people living with diabetes and hypertension in Cambodia: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8:e13536. 45 van de Bovenkamp HM, Dwarswaard J. The complexity of shaping selfmanagement in daily practice. Health Expect 2017;20:952–60. 46 Williams A, Manias E, Cross W, etal. Motivational interviewing to explore culturally and linguistically diverse people's comorbidity medication selfefficacy. J Clin Nurs 2015;24:1269–79. 47 Zanini C, Brach M, Lustenberger N, etal. Engaging in the prevention of pressure injuries in spinal cord injury: a qualitative study of communitydwelling individuals' different styles of prevention in Switzerland. J Spinal Cord Med 2020;43:247–56. 48 Fitzpatrick SL, Schumann KP, HillBriggs F. Problem solving interventions for diabetes selfmanagement and control: a systematic review of the literature. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2013;100:145–61. 49 Gellis ZD, Kenaley B. Problemsolving therapy for depression in adults: a systematic review. In: Research on social work practice, 182008: 117–31. 50 Elliott TR, Shewchuk RM, Richards JS. Caregiver social problemsolving abilities and family member adjustment to recentonset physical disability. Rehabil Psychol 1999;44:104–23. 51 Crespo C, Santos S, Canavarro MC, etal. Family routines and rituals in the context of chronic conditions: a review. Int J Psychol 2013;48:729–46. 52 Gallant MP, Spitze GD, Prohaska TR. Help or hindrance? How family and friends influence chronic illness selfmanagement among older adults. Res Aging 2007;29:375–409. 53 Satink T, Josephsson S, Zajec J, etal. Negotiating role management through everyday activities: narratives in action of two stroke survivors and their spouses. Disabil Rehabil 2016;38:2354–64. 54 Whitehead L, Jacob E, Towell A, etal. The role of the family in supporting the selfmanagement of chronic conditions: a qualitative systematic review. J Clin Nurs 2018;27:22–30. 55 Anderson RM. Patient empowerment and the traditional medical model. A case of irreconcilable differences? Diabetes Care 1995;18:412–5. 56 Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, etal. Patient selfmanagement of chronic disease in primary care. JAMA 2002;288:2469–75. 57 Audulv A, Asplund K, Norbergh KG. The integration of chronic illness selfmanagement. Qual Health Res 2012;22:332–45. 58 Hörnsten Åsa, Jutterström L, Audulv Åsa, etal. A model of integration of illness and selfmanagement in type 2 diabetes. J Nurs Healthc Chronic Illn 2011;3:41–51. 59 Deshaies K, Hernandez CA. Integration: a phenomenon to explore in chronic nonmalignant pain (CNP). Pain Manag Nurs 2011;12:2–14. 60 Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL, etal. Lifestyle change in type 2 diabetes a process model. Nurs Res 2002;51:18–25. 61 Diviani N, Obrenovic J, Montoya CL, etal. Disentangling health information appraisal competence: results from an interdisciplinary scoping review and online consultation among Swiss stakeholders. PLoS One 2020;15:e0235474. 62 Mickelson RS, Unertl KM, Holden RJ. Medication management: the Macrocognitive workflow of older adults with heart failure. JMIR Hum Factors 2016;3:e27. 63 Dickson VV, Buck H, Riegel B. Multiple comorbid conditions challenge heart failure selfcare by decreasing selfefficacy. Nurs Res 2013;62:2–9. 64 Vest JR, Gamm LD. Health information exchange: persistent challenges and new strategies. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010;17:288–94. 65 Hermanowicz JC. The longitudinal qualitative interview. Qual Sociol 2013;36:189–208. 66 Saldaña J. Longitudinal qualitative research: analyzing change through time. Rowman Altamira, 2003. 67 Lucas PJ, Baird J, Arai L, etal. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:1–7. 68 Paterson BL, Russell C, Thorne S. Critical analysis of everyday selfcare decision making in chronic illness. J Adv Nurs 2001;35:335–41. Protected by copyright, including for uses related to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. . Hochschulbibliothek Luzen Sempacherstrasse 10 at Zentral und on October 31, 2025 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/Downloaded from 30 December 2022. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066647 on BMJ Open: first published as