Areas of consensus and controversy about goal setting in rehabilitation: a conference report

Abstract

Objective: To consider clinical issues surrounding goal setting in neurological rehabilitation, and to identify priorities for future research.

Participants: Twenty-four rehabilitation professionals were invited to attend because they had taught or published on the topic of goal setting. In addition two patient groups were represented.

Evidence: (1) The results of a systematic literature review, (2) presentations given during the two-day conference by investigators working within the field of goal setting, (3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion, (4) a report initially formulated by a panel composed of four of the conference attendees, and then circulated to all attendees for comment, (5) views of the conference attendees gathered using a modified Delphi technique.

Consensus: There were significant areas of consensus about goal setting. The Delphi studies highlighted and confirmed these areas of general agreement with consensus that goal setting is a core component of the rehabilitation process, and that goals should be specific, ambitious, relevant and time limited, with incremental steps that lead to progressive achievement. It was also agreed that that goal setting has a major impact on the relationship between patient and professional, with the availability of professional time and expertise being key to the success of the process.

Controversy: Areas in which there was more controversy centred on the evaluation of goal achievement and the benefits of ambitious rather than achievable goals. The need for patient-centred goal setting was recognized, although it was felt at times that there were conflicts that prevented this being attainable.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Davis AM , Davis S. , Moss N. et al. First steps towards an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation . Clin Rehabil 1992; 6: 237-44.

Barnes M. Multiple sclerosis. In Greenwood R , McLellen TM. eds. Neurological rehabilitation . Churchill Livingstone, 1993, 485-504.

Partridge C. , Edwards S. The bases of practice - neurological physiotherapy . Physiother Res Int 1996; 3: 205-208.

Playford ED , Dawson L. , Limbert V. , Smith M. , Ward CD , Wells R. Goal-setting in rehabilitation: report of a workshop to explore professionals' perceptions of goal-setting. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 491-96.

Wade DT

Goal planning in rehabilitation: why, what, how?

Top Stroke Rehabil 1999; 6: 1-7.

Schut HA , Stam HJ Goals in rehabilitation teamwork. Disabil Rehabil 1994; 16: 223-26.

Locke EA , Latham GP Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol 2002; 57: 705-17.

Austin JT , Vancouver JB Goal constructs in psychology: structure, process and content. Psychol Bull 1996; 120: 338-75.

Barnes MP , Ward AB Textbook of rehabilitation medicine. Oxford University Press, 2000.

10.

Mastos M. , Miller K. , Eliasson AC , Imms C. Goal-directed training: linking theories of treatment to clinical practice for improved functional activities in daily life. Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 47-55.

11.

McLellan DL Introduction to rehabilitation. In Wilson BA , McLellan L eds. Rehabilitation studies handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997.

12.

Monaghan J. , Channell K. , McDowell D. , Sharma A. Improving patient and carer communication, multidisciplinary team working and goal-setting in stroke rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil 2005; 19: 194-99.

13.

Richardson J. , McKie J. Increasing the options for reducing adverse events: Results from a modified Delphi technique. Aust N Z Health Policy 2008; 5: 25.

14.

Hart T. , Evans J. Self-regulation and goal theories in brain injury rehabilitation. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2006; 21: 142-55.

15.

Kirschenbaum DS Self-regulation of sport performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1987; 19(suppl): S106-13.

16.

Siegert RJ , McPherson KM , Taylor WJ

Toward a cognitive-affective model of goal-setting in rehabilitation: is self-regulation theory a key step?

Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 1175-83.

17.

Levine B. , Robertson IH , Clare L. et al. Rehabilitation of executive functioning: an experimental-clinical validation ofgoal management training. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2000; 6: 299-312.

18.

Ylvisaker M. , Feeney TJ Executive functions after traumatic brain injury: supported cognition and self-advocacy. Semin Speech Lang 1996; 17: 217-32.

19.

Ylvisaker M. , McPherson K. , Kayes N. , Pellett E. Metaphoric identity mapping: facilitating goal setting and engagement in rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury . Neuropsychol Rehabil 2008; 18: 713-41.

20.

World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, diability and health (ICF). Accessed from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/

21.

Levack WM , Taylor K. , Siegert RJ , Dean SG , McPherson KM , Weatherall M. Is goal planning in rehabilitation effective? A systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 739-55.

22.

Turner-Stokes L. , Nyein K. , Turner-Stokes T. , Gatehouse C. The UK FIM+FAM: development and evaluation . Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 277-87.

23.

Kiresuk TJ , Sherman RE Goal attainment scaling: A general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal 1968; 4(6): 443-453.

24.

Tennant A. Goal attainment scaling: current methodological challenges. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 1583-88.

25.

Turner-Stokes L. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) in rehabilitation: a practical guide. Clin Rehabil 2009; 23: 362-70.

26.

Lewin SA , Skea ZC , Entwistle V. , Zwarenstein M. , Dick J. Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (4): CD003267. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003267.

27.

Thompson AG The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy. Soc Sci Med 2007; 64: 1297-310.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB