CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 202Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMedical Practices and RehabilitationTraumatic Brain Injury Research

What are the barriers and facilitators to goal-setting during rehabilitation for stroke and other acquired brain injuries? A systematic review and meta-synthesis

Open access
Plant, Sarah E, Tyson, Sarah F, Kirk, Susan, Parsons, John·2016·Clinical Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1177/0269215516655856PMC PMC4978164
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: To identify the barriers and facilitators to goal-setting during rehabilitation for stroke and other acquired brain injuries. Data sources: AMED, Proquest, CINAHL and MEDLINE. Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and undertook thematic content analysis for papers examining the barriers and facilitators to goal-setting during stroke/neurological rehabilitation (any design). Last searches were completed in May 2016. Results: Nine qualitative papers were selected, involving 202 participants in total: 88 patients, 89 health care professionals and 25 relatives of participating patients. Main barriers were: Differences in staff and patients perspectives of goal-setting; patient-related barriers; staff-related barriers, and organisational level barriers. Main facilitators were: individually tailored goal-setting processes, strategies to promote communication and understanding, and strategies to avoid disappointment and unrealistic goals. In addition, patients’ and staff’s knowledge, experience, skill, and engagement with goal-setting could be either a barrier (if these aspects were absent) or a facilitator (if they were present). Conclusion: The main barriers and facilitators to goal-setting during stroke rehabilitation have been identified. They suggest that current methods of goal-setting during inpatient/early stage stroke or neurological rehabilitation are not fit for purpose.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269215516655856

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The discovery of core values and their use in value-based goal setting and committed action are key ACT features that may improve on traditional goal setting practice in stroke.

    “The discovery of a person's core values and the facilitation of their use in value-based goal setting and 'committed action' are key features of ACT that may represent an improvement on the traditional goal setting practice in stroke which has been criticized (Sugavanam et al., 2013;Plant, Tyson, Kirk, & Parsons, 2016).”

    From Brief group‐based acceptance and commitment therapy for stroke survivors. (2019) · cites this paper as Plant et al., 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. [1]Wade DT Goal setting in rehabilitation: an overview of what, why and how. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2009; 23: 291– 295. 19293289
  2. [2]Playford ED Siegert R Levack W Freeman J Areas of consensus and controversy about goal setting in rehabilitation: a conference report. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2009; 23: 334– 344. 19449469
  3. [3]Davis A Davis S Moss N Marks J McGrath J Hovard L First steps towards an interdisciplinary approach to rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation 1992; 6: 237– 244.
  4. [4]Wade DT de Jong BA Recent advances in rehabilitation. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2000; 320: 1385– 1388. 10818031 PMC1118051
  5. [6]Rosewilliam S Roskell CA Pandyan AD A systematic review and synthesis of the quantitative and qualitative evidence behind patient-centred goal setting in stroke rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation 2011; 25: 501– 514. 21441308
  6. [7]Sugavanam T Mead G Bulley C Donaghy M van Wijck F The effects and experiences of goal setting in stroke rehabilitation – a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation 2012; 35: 177– 190. 22671934
  7. [9]Levack WMM Dean SG McPherson KM Siegert RJ How clinicians talk about the application of goal planning to rehabilitation for people with brain injury–variable interpretations of value and purpose. Brain Injury 2006; 20: 1439– 1449. 17378236
  8. [10]Levack WMM Siegert RJ Dean SG McPherson KM Goal planning for adults with acquired brain injury: How clinicians talk about involving family. Brain Injury 2009; 23: 192– 202. 19205955
  9. [11]Levack WMM Dean SG Siegert RJ McPherson KM Navigating patient-centered goal setting in inpatient stroke rehabilitation: How clinicians control the process to meet perceived professional responsibilities. Patient Education and Counseling 2011; 85: 206– 213. 21306859
  10. [12]Van De Weyer RC Ballinger C Playford ED Goal setting in neurological rehabilitation: staff perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation 2010; 32: 1419– 1427. 20624106
  11. [13]Cott C Client-centred rehabilitation: client perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation 2004; 26: 1411– 1422. 15764361
  12. [14]Conneeley AL Interdisciplinary Collaborative Goal Planning in a Post-Acute Neurological Setting: A Qualitative Study. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2004; 67: 248– 255.
  13. [15]Holliday RC Ballinger C Playford ED Goal setting in neurological rehabilitation: Patients’ perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2007; 29: 389– 394. 17364791
  14. [16]Laver K Halbert J Stewart M Crotty M Patient Readiness and Ability to Set Recovery Goals During the First 6 Months After Stroke. Journal of Allied Health. 2010; 39: 149E– 154E. 21184017
  15. [17]Leach E Cornwell P Fleming J Haines T Patient centered goal-setting in a subacute rehabilitation setting. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2010; 32: 159– 172. 19562579
  16. [18]Holliday RC Cano S Freeman JA Playford ED Should patients participate in clinical decision making? An optimised balance block design controlled study of goal setting in a rehabilitation unit. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 2007; 78: 576– 580. PMC2077947 17178823
  17. [19]Scobbie L McLean D Dixon D Duncan E Wyke S Implementing a framework for goal setting in community based stroke rehabilitation: a process evaluation. BMC Health Services Research. 2013; 13: 190. 23705824 PMC3671148
  18. [20]Wressle EWA Oberg B Henriksson C The rehabilitation process for the geriatric stroke patient-an exploratory study of goal setting and interventions. Disability and Rehabilitation. 1999; 21: 80– 87. 9990493
  19. [21]Dalton C Farrell R De Souza A Wujanto E McKenna-Slade A Thompson S Patient inclusion in goal setting during early inpatient rehabilitation after acquired brain injury. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2012; 26: 165– 173. 21937524
  20. [22]Stevens A Beurskens A Köke A van der Weijden T The use of patient-specific measurement instruments in the process of goal-setting: a systematic review of available instruments and their feasibility. Clinical rehabilitation. 2013; 27: 1005– 1019 23881336
  21. [23]Barten JA Pisters MF Huisman PA Takken T Veenhof C Measurement properties of patient-specific instruments measuring physical function. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2012; 65: 590– 601. 22459427
  22. [27]Brown M Levack W McPherson KM Dean SG Reed K Weatherall M Survival, momentum, and things that make me “me”: patients’ perceptions of goal setting after stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2014; 36: 1020– 1026. 23962191
  23. [28]Wade D Rehabilitation – a new approach. Part two: the underlying theories. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2015; 29: 1145– 1154. 26581670
  24. [30]Wade DT Goal Planning in Stroke Rehabilitation: Why? Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 1999; 6: 1– 7.
  25. [31]Levinson W Kao A Kuby A Thisted RA Not All Patients Want to Participate in Decision Making. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005; 20: 531– 535. 15987329 PMC1490136
  26. [32]Suddick KM De Souza L Therapists’ experiences and perceptions of teamwork in neurological rehabilitation: reasoning behind the team approach, structure and composition of the team and teamworking processes. Physiotherapy Research International. 2006; 11: 72– 83. 16808088
  27. [33]Baker SM Marshak HH Rice GT Zimmerman GJ Patient Participation in Physical Therapy Goal Setting. Physical Therapy. 2001; 81: 1118– 1126. 11319937
  28. [34]Parry RH Communication during goal-setting in physiotherapy treatment sessions. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2004; 18: 668– 682. 15473119
  29. [36]Lawler J Dowswell G Hearn J Forster A Young J Recovering from stroke: a qualitative investigation of the role of goal setting in late stroke recovery. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1999; 30: 401– 409. 10457242
  30. [37]Pickles J Hide E Maher L Experience based design: a practical method of working with patients to redesign services. Clinical Governance: An International Journal. 2008; 13: 51– 58.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Plant, S. E., Tyson, S. F., Kirk, S., & Parsons, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Tyson, Sarah F
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-08-04
Volume
30
Issue
9
Pages
921-930
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
DOI
10.1177/0269215516655856
PMC
PMC4978164
OpenAlex
W2488913670
Cited by
202
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
goal setting, stroke rehabilitation, acquired brain injury, neurorehabilitation, barriers and facilitators, staff-patient communication, patient engagement, employee knowledge and skills, relatives of stroke patients
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Brain Injuries, Goals, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Patient Care Planning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review