↓ Skip to main content

Goal setting and strategies to enhance goal pursuit for adults with acquired disability participating in rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
374 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Goal setting and strategies to enhance goal pursuit for adults with acquired disability participating in rehabilitation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009727.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

William MM Levack, Mark Weatherall, E. Jean C Hay-Smith, Sarah G Dean, Kathryn McPherson, Richard J Siegert

Abstract

Goal setting is considered a key component of rehabilitation for adults with acquired disability, yet there is little consensus regarding the best strategies for undertaking goal setting and in which clinical contexts. It has also been unclear what effect, if any, goal setting has on health outcomes after rehabilitation. To assess the effects of goal setting and strategies to enhance the pursuit of goals (i.e. how goals and progress towards goals are communicated, used, or shared) on improving health outcomes in adults with acquired disability participating in rehabilitation. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, four other databases and three trials registers to December 2013, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We did not impose any language or date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effects of goal setting or strategies to enhance goal pursuit in the context of adult rehabilitation for acquired disability. Two authors independently reviewed search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We included 39 studies (27 RCTs, 6 cluster-RCTs, and 6 quasi-RCTs) involving 2846 participants in total. Studies ranged widely regarding clinical context and participants' primary health conditions. The most common health conditions included musculoskeletal disorders, brain injury, chronic pain, mental health conditions, and cardiovascular disease.Eighteen studies compared goal setting, with or without strategies to enhance goal pursuit, to no goal setting. These studies provide very low quality evidence that including any type of goal setting in the practice of adult rehabilitation is better than no goal setting for health-related quality of life or self-reported emotional status (8 studies; 446 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.88, indicative of a moderate effect size) and self-efficacy (3 studies; 108 participants; SMD 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.49, indicative of a moderate to large effect size). The evidence is inconclusive regarding whether goal setting results in improvements in social participation or activity levels, body structure or function, or levels of patient engagement in the rehabilitation process. Insufficient data are available to determine whether or not goal setting is associated with more or fewer adverse events compared to no goal setting.Fourteen studies compared structured goal setting approaches, with or without strategies to enhance goal pursuit, to 'usual care' that may have involved some goal setting but where no structured approach was followed. These studies provide very low quality evidence that more structured goal setting results in higher patient self-efficacy (2 studies; 134 participants; SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.71, indicative of a small effect size) and low quality evidence for greater satisfaction with service delivery (5 studies; 309 participants; SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56, indicative of a small effect size). The evidence was inconclusive regarding whether more structured goal setting approaches result in higher health-related quality of life or self-reported emotional status, social participation, activity levels, or improvements in body structure or function. Three studies in this group reported on adverse events (death, re-hospitalisation, or worsening symptoms), but insufficient data are available to determine whether structured goal setting is associated with more or fewer adverse events than usual care.A moderate degree of heterogeneity was observed in outcomes across all studies, but an insufficient number of studies was available to permit subgroup analysis to explore the reasons for this heterogeneity. The review also considers studies which investigate the effects of different approaches to enhancing goal pursuit, and studies which investigate different structured goal setting approaches. It also reports on secondary outcomes including goal attainment and healthcare utilisation. There is some very low quality evidence that goal setting may improve some outcomes for adults receiving rehabilitation for acquired disability. The best of this evidence appears to favour positive effects for psychosocial outcomes (i.e. health-related quality of life, emotional status, and self-efficacy) rather than physical ones. Due to study limitations, there is considerable uncertainty regarding these effects however, and further research is highly likely to change reported estimates of effect.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 374 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 371 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 73 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 16%
Unspecified 57 15%
Researcher 47 13%
Student > Bachelor 40 11%
Other 99 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 76 20%
Unspecified 71 19%
Psychology 47 13%
Social Sciences 22 6%
Other 55 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,258,262
of 13,601,191 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,709
of 10,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,326
of 232,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,601,191 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.