IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i2p1615-d1037349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protocols and Features of Goal-Setting-Based Intervention for Frail Older Adults in Community Exercise Facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Masashi Yamashita

    (Division of Research, ARCE Inc., Sagamihara 252-0306, Japan
    Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara 252-0329, Japan)

  • Yuki Mashizume

    (Department of Rehabilitation, Kitasato University Hospital, Sagamihara 252-0329, Japan
    Department of Rehabilitation, Kitasato University School of Allied Health Sciences, Sagamihara 252-0373, Japan)

  • Kento Yama

    (Division of Health Promotion, ARCE Inc., Sagamihara 252-0306, Japan)

  • Shun Sasaki

    (Division of Health Promotion, ARCE Inc., Sagamihara 252-0306, Japan)

  • Daiki Uehara

    (Division of Health Promotion, ARCE Inc., Sagamihara 252-0306, Japan)

  • Kentaro Kamiya

    (Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kitasato University, Sagamihara 252-0329, Japan
    Department of Rehabilitation, Kitasato University School of Allied Health Sciences, Sagamihara 252-0373, Japan)

Abstract

Appropriate goal setting for frail older adults is important because it drives effective rehabilitation. However, more insights into the types and degrees of frailty and goal-setting trends should be obtained. We conducted a multicenter prospective study to qualitatively examine the relation between each frailty domain (physical, social, and cognitive) and the goals of 201 subjects (median age: 79, 43.8% male) who began rehabilitation at a long-term care prevention facility. Goal setting was determined by the specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time to goal (SMART) framework up to three months, categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. The results showed that approximately 90% of the subjects had frailty in at least one domain, and about half had frailties in two or more domains. In total, 176 (87.6%) subjects had goals corresponding to activities and participation. The tendency to set goals to improve mobility was confirmed when the number of overlapping frailties was high, especially those in the physical and social domains. Those with milder frailties were more likely to establish goals targeting improvements in community, social, and civic life. These findings will lead to the development of practical goal-setting guidelines for frail older adults.

Suggested Citation

  • Masashi Yamashita & Yuki Mashizume & Kento Yama & Shun Sasaki & Daiki Uehara & Kentaro Kamiya, 2023. "Protocols and Features of Goal-Setting-Based Intervention for Frail Older Adults in Community Exercise Facilities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-11, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1615-:d:1037349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1615/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1615/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Chia-Hui Wang & Wen-Pei Chang & Su-Ru Chen & Wan-Ju Cheng & Kuei-Ru Chou & Li-Chung Pien, 2022. "Health Literacy and Exercise to Treat Frailty in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A National Survey Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-10, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    2. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    3. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    4. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    5. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    6. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    8. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    9. Meike Müller-Engelmann & Norbert Donner-Banzhoff & Heidi Keller & Lydia Rosinger & Carsten Sauer & Kerstin Rehfeldt & Tanja Krones, 2013. "When Decisions Should Be Shared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 37-47, January.
    10. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    12. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    13. Ruth Astbury & Ashley Shepherd & Helen Cheyne, 2017. "Working in partnership: the application of shared decision‐making to health visitor practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 215-224, January.
    14. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    15. Solomon, Josie & Knapp, Peter & Raynor, D.K. & Atkin, Karl, 2013. "Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 264-272.
    16. Debra Kerr & Rosie Crone & Trisha Dunning, 2020. "Perspectives about dignity during acute care for older people and their relatives: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4116-4127, November.
    17. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    18. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    19. K. Tiller & B. Meiser & C. Gaff & J. Kirk & T. Dudding & K.-A. Phillips & M. Friedlander & K. Tucker, 2006. "A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid for Women at Increased Risk of Ovarian Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 360-372, July.
    20. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1615-:d:1037349. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.