Levack William M M, Weatherall Mark, Hay-Smith E Jean C, Dean Sarah G, McPherson Kathryn, Siegert Richard J
Rehabilitation Teaching and Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Mein St, Newtown, PO Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand, 6242.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 20;2015(7):CD009727. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009727.pub2.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.
目标设定被认为是成年后天性残疾患者康复的关键组成部分,但对于进行目标设定的最佳策略以及在何种临床环境下进行目标设定,几乎没有共识。同样不清楚的是,目标设定对康复后的健康结果是否有任何影响。
评估目标设定以及增强目标追求的策略(即目标以及朝着目标的进展如何传达、使用或共享)对参与康复的成年后天性残疾患者改善健康结果的影响。
我们检索了截至2013年12月的Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)以及其他四个数据库和三个试验注册库,并进行参考文献核对、引文检索以及与研究作者联系以识别其他研究。我们未设置任何语言或日期限制。
评估目标设定或增强目标追求的策略在成年后天性残疾康复背景下效果的随机对照试验(RCT)、整群随机对照试验和半随机对照试验。
两位作者独立审查检索结果以确定是否纳入。灰色文献检索由一位作者进行并审查。两位作者独立提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们与研究作者联系以获取更多信息。
我们纳入了39项研究(27项RCT、6项整群随机对照试验和6项半随机对照试验),共涉及2846名参与者。研究在临床环境和参与者的主要健康状况方面差异很大。最常见的健康状况包括肌肉骨骼疾病、脑损伤、慢性疼痛、心理健康状况和心血管疾病。18项研究将有或没有增强目标追求策略的目标设定与无目标设定进行了比较。这些研究提供了非常低质量的证据,表明在成年康复实践中纳入任何类型的目标设定在改善与健康相关的生活质量或自我报告的情绪状态方面优于无目标设定(8项研究;446名参与者;标准化均数差(SMD)0.53,95%置信区间(CI)0.17至0.88,表明效应量中等)以及自我效能感(3项研究;108名参与者;SMD 1.07,95%CI 0.64至1.49,表明效应量中等至大)。关于目标设定是否能改善社会参与或活动水平、身体结构或功能,或患者在康复过程中的参与程度,证据尚无定论。没有足够的数据来确定与无目标设定相比,目标设定是否与更多或更少的不良事件相关。14项研究将有或没有增强目标追求策略的结构化目标设定方法与“常规护理”进行了比较,常规护理可能涉及一些目标设定但未遵循结构化方法。这些研究提供了非常低质量的证据,表明更结构化的目标设定会导致更高的患者自我效能感(2项研究;134名参与者;SMD 0.37,95%CI 0.02至0.71,表明效应量小)以及低质量的证据表明对服务提供的满意度更高(5项研究;30%参与者;SMD 0.33,95%CI 0.10至0.56,表明效应量小)。关于更结构化的目标设定方法是否会导致更高的与健康相关的生活质量或自我报告的情绪状态、社会参与度、活动水平,或身体结构或功能的改善,证据尚无定论。该组中的三项研究报告了不良事件(死亡、再次住院或症状恶化),但没有足够的数据来确定结构化目标设定与常规护理相比是否与更多或更少的不良事件相关。在所有研究的结果中观察到中度异质性,但研究数量不足,无法进行亚组分析以探究这种异质性的原因。该综述还考虑了研究不同增强目标追求方法效果的研究,以及研究不同结构化目标设定方法的研究。它还报告了包括目标达成和医疗保健利用在内的次要结果。
有一些非常低质量的证据表明,目标设定可能会改善成年后天性残疾康复患者的一些结果。这些证据中最有力的似乎支持对心理社会结果(即与健康相关的生活质量。情绪状态和自我效能感)而非身体结果产生积极影响。然而,由于研究局限性,这些影响存在相当大的不确定性,并且进一步的研究很可能会改变报告的效应估计值。