PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Goal setting”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Concordance in goal setting between patients with multiple sclerosis and their rehabilitation team.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the concordance between patients with multiple sclerosis and their clinical team members on the identification of goals for an inpatient rehabilitation stay. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of patients admitted for rehabilitation in an adult inpatient neurospinal unit at a Rehabilitation Centre in Ottawa, Canada. Twenty-seven patients (11 men and 16 women, mean age of 45.3 yrs) with either a laboratory or a clinically supported diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Patients rated 55 goals from a preexisting list, indicating the importance of each goal to be addressed during the inpatient stay. The goals fell into five broad domains of health/medical issues, daily activities, mobility, community life, and personal well-being. Patients also identified their five most important individual goals. In a separate session, the clinical team also rated the 55 goals in relation to each patient and identified an independent list of the five most important rehabilitation goals. Main outcome measures included concordance between patient and team ratings in the identification of goals, ratings of the likelihood of success of achieving each goal, and ratings of the amount of change required to realize a minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: The patients and the team agreed on an average of 1.7 of the patient's five top-rated goals. Compared with the team, patients gave higher importance ratings to goals within the health/medical, mobility, and daily activities domains. They also considered that a greater average improvement would be required to achieve a meaningful benefit, and they gave higher ratings of the likelihood of success in achieving their selected goals. CONCLUSION: Patients with multiple sclerosis and clinical team members do not necessarily agree on specific goals for a rehabilitation stay. Patients may also have greater expectations than clinicians with respect to the amount of improvement and the likelihood of achieving their goals.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1979

Statistical principles underlying analytic goal-setting in clinical chemistry.

The Survey programs of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) have assessed current levels of analytic variance in many biochemical measurements, and a number of clinical chemists have proposed analytic goals. The practical importance of further reductions in analytic variance depends on the specific use of the laboratory test. Three general areas of application are described: 1) surveying a population to detect disease, 2) determining whether a particular individual's level of a given analyte is above or below a predefined alarm point, 3) monitoring an individual over a period of time to detect trends. Within each of these different contests, statistical methods are proposed for judging the practical effect of improvements in current levels of analytic precision, taking into account recent estimates of biological variation within the average individual and between individuals. As might be expected, reductions in analytic variance have greatest impact in those applications where biological variance is minimal. Such reductions will generally have little effect on the efficiency of a population survey but may be extremely valuable in decision-making concerning a particular hospital patient.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1992

Analytical goal-setting for monitoring patients when two analytical methods are used.

Serial results from an individual are often obtained using more than one method. Results should be transferable over time and locale. Every method has inherent analytical error, and goals are required to delineate the maximum allowable random (imprecision) and systematic (inaccuracy, bias) errors to facilitate optimal patient care. Based on Harris's proposal [Am J Clin Pathol 1979;72:374-82] that desirable imprecision should be less than or equal to one-half the within-subject biological variation, if the methods have negligible imprecision, then the maximum allowable bias between two methods used for monitoring is one-third of the within-subject biological variation. A more general model has been developed that relates the analytical imprecisions of two methods, and the bias between them, to biological variation. Applying the general formula derived in specific clinical monitoring situations in which a known change in serial results (occurring at a stated probability) stimulates clinical action allows goals for the imprecisions of the two methods and allows the difference in bias between them to be determined quantitatively.

Bias↗