Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLevack, WMM
dc.contributor.authorWeatherall, M
dc.contributor.authorHay-Smith, JC
dc.contributor.authorDean, SG
dc.contributor.authorMcPherson, K
dc.contributor.authorSiegert, RJ
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-04T10:07:18Z
dc.date.issued2016-01-15
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: Goal setting is considered an essential part of rehabilitation, but approaches to goal setting vary with no consensus regarding the best approach. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of goal setting and strategies to enhance the pursuit of goals on improving outcomes in adult rehabilitation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, four other databases and three trial registries for randomized control trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, or quasi-RCTs published before December 2013. Two reviewers independently screened all search results, then critically appraised and extracted data on all included studies. We identified 39 trials, which differed in clinical context, participant populations, research question related to goal use, and outcomes measured. Eighteen studies compared goal setting, with or without strategies to enhance goal pursuit, to no goal setting. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: These 18 studies provided very low-quality evidence for a moderate effect size that any type of goal setting is better than no goal setting for improving health-related quality of life or self-reported emotional status (N.=446, standard mean difference [SMD]=0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17 to 0.88), and very low-quality evidence of a large effect size for self-efficacy (N.=108, SMD=1.07, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.49). Fourteen studies compared a structured approach to goal setting to “usual care” goal setting, where some goals may have been set but no structured approach was followed. These studies provided very low-quality evidence for a small effect size that more structured goal setting results in higher patient self-efficacy (N.=134, SMD=0.37, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.71). No conclusive evidence was found to support the notion that goal setting, or structured goal setting in comparison to “usual care” goal setting, changes outcomes for patients for measures of participation, activity, or engagement in rehabilitation programs. CONCLUSIONS: This review found a large and increasing amount of research being conducted on goal setting in rehabilitation. However, problems with study design and diversity in methods used means the quality of evidence to support estimated effect sizes is poor. Further research is highly likely to change reported estimates of effect size arising from goal setting in rehabilitation.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipSD’s position at the University of Exeter Medical School is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health.en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/21370
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherEdizioni Minerva Medicaen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.minervamedica.it/en/journals/europa-medicophysica/article.php?cod=R33Y2016N03A0400
dc.rights.embargoreasonPublisher Policyen_GB
dc.subjectGoalsen_GB
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_GB
dc.subjectMeta-analysisen_GB
dc.subjectPatient-centered careen_GB
dc.subjectRehabilitationen_GB
dc.subjectPatient care planningen_GB
dc.titleGoal setting and strategies to enhance goal pursuit in adult rehabilitation: summary of a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysisen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.identifier.issn1973-9095
dc.descriptionThis is the author proof version. Final version available from the publisher.en_GB
dc.descriptionVol. 2(3), pp. 400-416
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicineen_GB
pubs.funderSD’s position at the University of Exeter Medical School is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health.
refterms.dateFOA2017-01-15T00:00:00Z


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record