An umbrella review of the literature on the effectiveness of goal setting interventions in improving health outcomes in chronic conditions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To identify the contexts in which goal setting has been used in chronic disease management interventions and to estimate the magnitude of its effect on improvement of health outcomes. The strength of evidence and extent of potential bias in the published systematic reviews of goal setting interventions in chronic conditions were summarized using AMSTAR2 quality appraisal tool, number of participants, 95% prediction intervals, and between-study heterogeneity. Components of goal setting interventions were also extracted. Nine publications and 35 meta-analysis models were identified, investigating 25 health outcomes. Of the 35 meta-analyses, none found strong evidence and three provided some suggestive evidence on symptom reduction and perceived well-being. There was weak evidence for effects on eight health outcomes (HbA1c, self-efficacy, depression, anxiety, distress, medication adherence, health-related quality of life and physical activity), with the rest classified as non-significant. Half of the meta-analyses had high level of heterogeneity. Goal setting by itself affects outcomes of chronic diseases only to a small degree. This is not unexpected finding as changing outcomes in chronic diseases requires a complex and individualized approach. Implementing goal setting in a standardized way in the management of chronic conditions would seem to be a way forward.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe link between goal setting and health outcomes seems to be weak.Some levels of positive behavioural change could be of benefits to patients as seen by improved self-efficacy, patients’ satisfaction and overall quality of life.Systematic and consistent application of personalized goal-oriented interventions considering patient’s readiness to change could better predict improved outcomes.Incorporation of various goal setting components while actively engaging patient and/or their care givers in the process could appraise how goal setting could help with challenges in faced by people living with chronic conditions in different areas. The link between goal setting and health outcomes seems to be weak. Some levels of positive behavioural change could be of benefits to patients as seen by improved self-efficacy, patients’ satisfaction and overall quality of life. Systematic and consistent application of personalized goal-oriented interventions considering patient’s readiness to change could better predict improved outcomes. Incorporation of various goal setting components while actively engaging patient and/or their care givers in the process could appraise how goal setting could help with challenges in faced by people living with chronic conditions in different areas.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,074 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».