Goal attainment in a randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation after myocardial infarction.

PURPOSE Goal setting is an established strategy in health behavior change programs although its usefulness remains uncertain. The authors investigate the validity of attainment of a patient-identified goal as an outcome measure in cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction. METHODS On entry into a randomized controlled trial of cardiac rehabilitation after an acute myocardial infarction, patients identified one activity that, if and when attained, would reflect their perception of a successful recovery. Patients reported whether they had attained their goal and the time of goal attainment. This was then related to trial outcomes that included generic and specific health-related quality of life and percent predicted exercise tolerance. RESULTS Goals identified by 180 of the 201 (89.6%) patients, were attained by 51.5% at 8 weeks and by 86.5% at 12 months. At the end of the 8-week intervention, there was a substantial trend for fewer rehabilitation than usual care patients to have attained their identified goal (P < 0.06), although rehabilitation patients demonstrated greater improvement in specific health-related quality of life and exercise tolerance than usual care patients (P < 0.05). Among patients who identified a recreational physical activity goal (26.7%), significantly fewer (P < 0.007) rehabilitation than usual care patients had attained their goal at the end of the intervention with no differences in improvement in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Although improvement in outcomes was greater in rehabilitation patients than usual care patients at 8 weeks, goal attainment, particularly for the recreational physical activity goal, was greater among usual care patients. The validity of self-identified activity goal attainment as a measure of the efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation is unclear and might give misleading results.

[1]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Predictors of health-related quality of life with cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction. , 1998, Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.

[2]  B. Franklin,et al.  Contemporary cardiac rehabilitation services. , 1997, The American journal of cardiology.

[3]  Richard P. Lewis,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). , 1996, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  S. Oparil,et al.  Physical activity and cardiovascular health , 1996 .

[5]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Quality of life after myocardial infarction. , 1993, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  A. Dobson,et al.  A self-administered quality-of-life questionnaire after acute myocardial infarction. , 1993, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  K. Rockwood,et al.  Use of goal attainment scaling in measuring clinically important change in the frail elderly. , 1993, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  A. Dobson,et al.  Secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction. , 1993, The American journal of cardiology.

[9]  D. Streiner,et al.  The Use of Goal Attainment Scaling in a Geriatric Care Setting , 1992, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[10]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Effects on quality of life with comprehensive rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction. , 1991, The American journal of cardiology.

[11]  J. Malec,et al.  Goal attainment scaling and outcome measurement in postacute brain injury rehabilitation. , 1991, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  F. V. van Dam,et al.  Underreporting by cancer patients: the case of response-shift. , 1991, Social science & medicine.

[13]  N. Oldridge Cardiac Rehabilitation, Self-responsibility, and Quality of Life , 1986 .

[14]  G. Torrance Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. , 1986, Journal of health economics.

[15]  E. Lusk,et al.  Psychosocial status in chronic illness. A comparative analysis of six diagnostic groups. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.