3.8 Review

Goal-Setting Method and Goal Attainment Measures in Physical Therapy for Stroke Patients: a Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY SCIENCE
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 399-415

Publisher

SOC PHYSICAL THERAPY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1589/jpts.21.399

Keywords

Goal-setting; Goal attainment; Stroke

Categories

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [17530698]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17530698] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

[Purpose] This review aimed: (1) to obtain all the facts regarding existing goal-setting methods in physical therapy; (2) to clarify the application status of the methods for stroke patients; and (3) to put forth a suggestion for the development of a format prepared by collaboration between stroke patients and physical therapists. [Methods] A systematic search was performed to identify the existing goal-setting methods and to obtain the relevant literature. We reviewed a total of 165 reports. [Results] We identified 8 types of goal-setting methods: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), coal forum intervention, and others. GAS was evaluated for its validity, reliability, and sensitivity for physically disabled children and the elderly, but there were no reports on the applicability of GAS to stroke patients. The COPM, which is a subjective measurement method using self-reporting, was evaluated for validity, reliability, and sensitivity for occupational therapy patients and physically disabled children. The goal forum intervention is a goal-setting method involving the collaboration of patients and physical therapists with the use of a check-list, but this method was developed for rheumatoid arthritis patients. [Conclusion] We recommend further Studies oil the development of a goal-setting method using a checklist for stroke patients and the evaluation of the validity and reliability of GAS for stroke patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available