Self-Management Goal Setting: Identifying the Practice Patterns of Community-Based Physical Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the collaborative goal-setting practices of community-based physical therapists trained in a self-management (SM) approach who work with clients with chronic conditions and to describe clients' goal-achievement rates. Methods : A retrospective chart review was conducted for 296 randomly selected home-care clients from July 2009 through July 2010 using a chart-abstraction form created to capture demographic data and information related to goal setting and achievement. Data were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, and Pearson's chi-square tests. RESULTS: There was no significant relationship between sex, age, or number of chronic conditions and setting SM or non-self-management (NSM) goals or the type of SM goal set. The majority of goals set were "action" as opposed to "verbal" goals. A high proportion (89-100%) of both SM and NSM goals were met. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware that it is possible to set SM goals regardless of the client's sex, age, or number of chronic conditions. Other possible influences on goal setting, such as severity of chronic conditions and challenges of the health care system, should be further investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".