|dc.description.abstract||Background: Goal setting is considered ‘best practice' in stroke rehabilitation; however, there is no consensus regarding the key components of goal setting interventions or how they should be optimally delivered in practice. We developed a theory-based goal setting and action planning framework (G-AP) to guide goal setting practice. G-AP has 4 stages: goal negotiation, goal setting, action planning & coping planning and appraisal & feedback. All stages are recorded in a patient-held record. In this study we examined the implementation, acceptability and perceived benefits of G-AP in one community rehabilitation team with people recovering from stroke.
Methods: G-AP was implemented for 6 months with 23 stroke patients. In-depth interviews with 8 patients and 8 health professionals were analysed thematically to investigate views of its implementation, acceptability and perceived benefits. Case notes of interviewed patients were analysed descriptively to assess the fidelity of G-AP implementation.
Results: G-AP was mostly implemented according to protocol with deviations noted at the planning and appraisal and feedback stages. Each stage was felt to make a useful contribution to the overall process; however, in practice, goal negotiation and goal setting merged into one stage and the appraisal and feedback stage included an explicit decision making component. Only two issues were raised regarding G-APs acceptability: (i) health professionals were concerned about the impact of goal non-attainment on patient's well-being (patients did not share their concerns), and (ii) some patients and health professionals found the patient-held record unhelpful. G-AP was felt to have a positive impact on patient goal attainment and professional goal setting practice. Collaborative partnerships between health professionals and patients were apparent throughout the process.
Conclusions: G-AP has been perceived as both beneficial and broadly acceptable in one community rehabilitation team; however, implementation of novel aspects of the framework was inconsistent. The regulatory function of goal non-attainment and the importance of creating flexible partnerships with patients have been highlighted. Further development of the G-AP framework, training package and patient held record is required to address the specific issues highlighted by this process evaluation. Further evaluation of G-AP is required across diverse community rehabilitation settings.||en_UK|
|dc.publisher||BioMed Central Ltd||-|
|dc.relation||Scobbie L, MacLean D, Dixon D, Duncan E & Wyke S (2013) Implementing a framework for goal setting in community based stroke rehabilitation: A process evaluation, BMC Health Services Research, 13, Art. No.: 190.||-|
|dc.rights||© 2013 Scobbie et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.||-|
|dc.title||Implementing a framework for goal setting in community based stroke rehabilitation: A process evaluation||en_UK|
|dc.citation.jtitle||BMC Health Services Research||-|
|dc.type.status||Publisher version (final published refereed version)||-|
|dc.contributor.affiliation||HS Research - Stirling||-|
|dc.contributor.affiliation||NHS Forth Valley||-|
|dc.contributor.affiliation||University of Stirling||-|
|dc.contributor.affiliation||University of Glasgow||-|
|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|