MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293217247 · doi:10.1177/02692155221121006

Facilitators and barriers to patient-centred goal-setting in rehabilitation: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4293217247 on OpenAlexaff
Lesa Crawford, Jessica Maxwell, Heather Colquhoun, Shauna Kingsnorth, Darcy Fehlings, Sareh Zarshenas, Stephanie McFarland, Nora Fayed

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLThematic analysisMEDLINENursingRehabilitationMedicinePatient educationHealth careMedical educationPsychologyPsychological interventionQualitative researchPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Identify, map, and synthesize existing reviews, to extract and analyse the most prominent barriers and facilitators to applying patient-centred goal-setting practice in rehabilitation using the Capability, Opportunity Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) model. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCE: A primary search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo, and Cochrane. Citation chaining was employed. REVIEW METHODS: All types of review (systematic, scoping, and narrative) studies published up to June 14, 2022 that included physical and neurological rehabilitation, patient-centeredness, and goal-setting were reviewed. Studies were scrutinized for relevance, quality was not assessed. The most prominent barriers and facilitators were synthesized using thematic content analysis and mapped onto the COM-B model. RESULTS: Twenty-six review studies covering a range of conditions and settings, acute to community were included. Barrier and facilitators were identified at patient, provider, and organizational level. Barrier themes include provider's existing beliefs about goal-setting, lack of skills, and integration into clinical routines. Patient barriers related to capacity and opportunity to participate. Organizational barriers include lack of clinical guidelines, patient preparation, insufficient provider time, and high productivity expectations. Facilitators included goal-setting guidelines, training and education of providers and patients, revised clinical routines, performance monitoring, adequate time, and resources. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers should be the primary target of intervention. A provider's motivation to change current practice is the most prominent barrier, followed closely by capacity and opportunity. Patients require information, training, and structured engagement opportunities. Organizations play a key role in creating the optimal environmental conditions to enable patient-centred goal-setting.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.201
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.201
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0170.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207