Cited by 21Occupational Therapy Practice and ResearchMedical Practices and RehabilitationNursing care and research

Goal setting with caregivers of adults in the community: a mixed methods systematic review

Tang Yan, Heidi Shaunna, Clemson, Lindy Maxted, Jarvis, Fiona, Laver, Kate·2014·Disability and Rehabilitation

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/09638288.2014.884173

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang Yan, H. S., Clemson, L. M., Jarvis, F., & Laver, K.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Clemson, Lindy Maxted
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation
Published
2014-05-23
Volume
36
Issue
23
Pages
1943-1963
ISSN
  • 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5165
OpenAlex
W2000379937
Cited by
21
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
goal setting, caregivers, community-dwelling adults, collaborative goal setting, client-centred care, medication adherence, goal achievement, rehabilitation outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Goals, Humans, Male, Quality Control, Residence Characteristics, Program Evaluation, Geriatric Assessment, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Caregivers, Independent Living

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