PURPOSE: To examine how goal setting is used with caregivers of community residing adults and the effect of goal setting practices in improving the outcomes. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted. The methodological rigour of included studies was critiqued using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool, Downs and Black checklist and a framework for evaluating qualitative research. Narrative synthesis was created through tabulation and categorisation, visual mapping of the goal setting process, thematic analysis on common goal setting features and critical reflection on the accuracy and robustness of the synthesis. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included: 10 randomised trials, 5 other quantitative studies and two descriptive studies which incorporated qualitative methods. The trials demonstrated a relatively low risk of bias in contrast to the other studies that had varied methodological rigour. No studies isolated the effect of the goal setting process on outcomes and therefore the effectiveness of goal setting could not be evaluated. However, through a narrative synthesis six prominent features of collaborative goal setting were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that goal setting is an important component of client-centred care, and the prominence of client-centred care in healthcare discourse, the review uncovered a surprisingly limited number of studies. Goal setting is an elusive process that is of therapeutic value and warrants further investigation. Implications for Rehabilitation The current body of empirical evidence suggests that there are six prominent features of collaborative goal setting with caregivers. The goals that are most important to caregivers are often different to those that are important to clinicians; it is important that caregivers and clinicians agree on goals to maximise adherence to treatment and goal attainment. The quality of evidence for goal setting with caregivers is limited although some intervention trials illustrate the usefulness of collaborative goal setting in contributing to improved outcomes.
PURPOSE: To examine how goal setting is used with caregivers of community residing adults and the effect of goal setting practices in improving the outcomes. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted. The methodological rigour of included studies was critiqued using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool, Downs and Black checklist and a framework for evaluating qualitative research. Narrative synthesis was created through tabulation and categorisation, visual mapping of the goal setting process, thematic analysis on common goal setting features and critical reflection on the accuracy and robustness of the synthesis. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included: 10 randomised trials, 5 other quantitative studies and two descriptive studies which incorporated qualitative methods. The trials demonstrated a relatively low risk of bias in contrast to the other studies that had varied methodological rigour. No studies isolated the effect of the goal setting process on outcomes and therefore the effectiveness of goal setting could not be evaluated. However, through a narrative synthesis six prominent features of collaborative goal setting were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that goal setting is an important component of client-centred care, and the prominence of client-centred care in healthcare discourse, the review uncovered a surprisingly limited number of studies. Goal setting is an elusive process that is of therapeutic value and warrants further investigation. Implications for Rehabilitation The current body of empirical evidence suggests that there are six prominent features of collaborative goal setting with caregivers. The goals that are most important to caregivers are often different to those that are important to clinicians; it is important that caregivers and clinicians agree on goals to maximise adherence to treatment and goal attainment. The quality of evidence for goal setting with caregivers is limited although some intervention trials illustrate the usefulness of collaborative goal setting in contributing to improved outcomes.
Authors: L Crawford; J Maxwell; H Colquhoun; S Kingsnorth; D Fehlings; S Zarshenas; S McFarland; Nora Fayed Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Neeltje P C A Vermunt; Mirjam Harmsen; Gert P Westert; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Marjan J Faber Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Neeltje P Vermunt; Mirjam Harmsen; Glyn Elwyn; Gert P Westert; Jako S Burgers; Marcel G Olde Rikkert; Marjan J Faber Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.377