Goal-setting in geriatric rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: To explore the effect of goal-setting on physical functioning, quality of life and duration of rehabilitation in geriatric rehabilitation compared to care as usual. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched from initiation to October 2018. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before–after studies and studies using historic controls of older patients (mean age ⩾55 years) receiving rehabilitation for acquired disabilities. Our primary outcome was physical functioning; secondary outcomes were quality of life and rehabilitation duration. Cochrane guidelines were used to assess the risk of bias of the studies and extract data. Only RCT data were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: We included 14 studies consisting of a total of 1915 participants with a mean age ranging from 55 to 83 years. Ten out of the 14 studies had a randomized controlled design, 7 of which could be pooled for the primary outcome. The risk of bias was judged high in several domains in all included studies. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between goal-setting and care as usual for physical functioning (SMD −0.11 (−0.32 to 0.10)), quality of life (SMD 0.09 (−0.56 to 0.75)) and rehabilitation duration (MD 13.46 days (−2.46 to 29.38)). Conclusion: We found low-quality evidence that goal-setting does not result in better physical functioning compared to care as usual in geriatric rehabilitation. For quality of life and duration of rehabilitation, we could not exclude a clinically relevant effect.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)128-140
Number of pages13
JournalClinical Rehabilitation
Volume33
Issue number1
Early online date2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2019

Cite this

@article{f04c87c245254e4489e2d12a2f10b878,
title = "Goal-setting in geriatric rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objective: To explore the effect of goal-setting on physical functioning, quality of life and duration of rehabilitation in geriatric rehabilitation compared to care as usual. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched from initiation to October 2018. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before–after studies and studies using historic controls of older patients (mean age ⩾55 years) receiving rehabilitation for acquired disabilities. Our primary outcome was physical functioning; secondary outcomes were quality of life and rehabilitation duration. Cochrane guidelines were used to assess the risk of bias of the studies and extract data. Only RCT data were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: We included 14 studies consisting of a total of 1915 participants with a mean age ranging from 55 to 83 years. Ten out of the 14 studies had a randomized controlled design, 7 of which could be pooled for the primary outcome. The risk of bias was judged high in several domains in all included studies. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between goal-setting and care as usual for physical functioning (SMD −0.11 (−0.32 to 0.10)), quality of life (SMD 0.09 (−0.56 to 0.75)) and rehabilitation duration (MD 13.46 days (−2.46 to 29.38)). Conclusion: We found low-quality evidence that goal-setting does not result in better physical functioning compared to care as usual in geriatric rehabilitation. For quality of life and duration of rehabilitation, we could not exclude a clinically relevant effect.",
author = "Smit, {Ewout B.} and Hylco Bouwstra and Hertogh, {Cees M. PM} and Wattel, {Elizabeth M.} and {van der Wouden}, {Johannes C.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0269215518818224",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "128--140",
journal = "Clinical Rehabilitation",
issn = "0269-2155",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Goal-setting in geriatric rehabilitation

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Smit, Ewout B.

AU - Bouwstra, Hylco

AU - Hertogh, Cees M. PM

AU - Wattel, Elizabeth M.

AU - van der Wouden, Johannes C.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective: To explore the effect of goal-setting on physical functioning, quality of life and duration of rehabilitation in geriatric rehabilitation compared to care as usual. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched from initiation to October 2018. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before–after studies and studies using historic controls of older patients (mean age ⩾55 years) receiving rehabilitation for acquired disabilities. Our primary outcome was physical functioning; secondary outcomes were quality of life and rehabilitation duration. Cochrane guidelines were used to assess the risk of bias of the studies and extract data. Only RCT data were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: We included 14 studies consisting of a total of 1915 participants with a mean age ranging from 55 to 83 years. Ten out of the 14 studies had a randomized controlled design, 7 of which could be pooled for the primary outcome. The risk of bias was judged high in several domains in all included studies. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between goal-setting and care as usual for physical functioning (SMD −0.11 (−0.32 to 0.10)), quality of life (SMD 0.09 (−0.56 to 0.75)) and rehabilitation duration (MD 13.46 days (−2.46 to 29.38)). Conclusion: We found low-quality evidence that goal-setting does not result in better physical functioning compared to care as usual in geriatric rehabilitation. For quality of life and duration of rehabilitation, we could not exclude a clinically relevant effect.

AB - Objective: To explore the effect of goal-setting on physical functioning, quality of life and duration of rehabilitation in geriatric rehabilitation compared to care as usual. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched from initiation to October 2018. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before–after studies and studies using historic controls of older patients (mean age ⩾55 years) receiving rehabilitation for acquired disabilities. Our primary outcome was physical functioning; secondary outcomes were quality of life and rehabilitation duration. Cochrane guidelines were used to assess the risk of bias of the studies and extract data. Only RCT data were pooled using standardized mean difference (SMD). Results: We included 14 studies consisting of a total of 1915 participants with a mean age ranging from 55 to 83 years. Ten out of the 14 studies had a randomized controlled design, 7 of which could be pooled for the primary outcome. The risk of bias was judged high in several domains in all included studies. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between goal-setting and care as usual for physical functioning (SMD −0.11 (−0.32 to 0.10)), quality of life (SMD 0.09 (−0.56 to 0.75)) and rehabilitation duration (MD 13.46 days (−2.46 to 29.38)). Conclusion: We found low-quality evidence that goal-setting does not result in better physical functioning compared to care as usual in geriatric rehabilitation. For quality of life and duration of rehabilitation, we could not exclude a clinically relevant effect.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85059665231&origin=inward

UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30537854

U2 - 10.1177/0269215518818224

DO - 10.1177/0269215518818224

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 128

EP - 140

JO - Clinical Rehabilitation

JF - Clinical Rehabilitation

SN - 0269-2155

IS - 1

ER -