Setting meaningful goals in rehabilitation: A qualitative study on the experiences of clients and clinicians in working with a practical tool.
Elsbeth Littooij, Suzan Doodeman, Jasmijn Holla and 7 others
PMID 34730459WHAT IT FOUND
Clients and clinicians described a global meaning session as helping them set a stable overall rehabilitation goal.
This goal gave direction to specific therapy tasks and improved motivation. For some clients, this connection also supported actual behavior change.
Key findings
01Clients and clinicians identified themes including overall evaluation, impact on motivation, impact on behavior change, stability of global meaning, existential distress, and the process of setting goals.
02Clients reported that exploring global meaning helped them stay motivated by connecting specific rehabilitation goals to their personal values and relationships.
03While most clients found the session helpful, some experienced existential distress when confronting the summary of their global meaning, and a few felt the session came too early in their rehabilitation.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study relied entirely on self-report and was conducted by researchers who also delivered the intervention, which may bias results. Clients with severe communication or psychiatric problems were excluded, so findings do not apply to these groups. No clients with cerebral palsy were recruited, limiting generalizability to lifelong conditions. The sample was small and from two Dutch clinics, so results may not transfer to other healthcare systems. This is a formative evaluation; it describes experiences but does not measure clinical outcomes or prove the tool's efficacy.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. Funding was provided by the VU Vereniging, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret these themes as evidence that the tool improves clinical outcomes. This is a qualitative description of experiences, not a test of efficacy. The paper explicitly states that quantitative evaluation is needed to determine the impact on health outcomes.