An umbrella review of the literature on the effectiveness of goal setting interventions in improving health outcomes in chronic conditions

PurposeTo identify the contexts in which goal setting has been used in chronic disease management interventions and to estimate the magnitude of its effect on improvement of health outcomes.MethodsThe strength of evidence and extent of potential bias in the published systematic reviews of goal setting interventions in chronic conditions were summarized using AMSTAR2 quality appraisal tool, number of participants, 95% prediction intervals, and between-study heterogeneity. Components of goal setting interventions were also extracted.ResultsNine publications and 35 meta-analysis models were identified, investigating 25 health outcomes. Of the 35 meta-analyses, none found strong evidence and three provided some suggestive evidence on symptom reduction and perceived well-being. There was weak evidence for effects on eight health outcomes (HbA1c, self-efficacy, depression, anxiety, distress, medication adherence, health-related quality of life and physical activity), with the rest classified as non-significant. Half of the meta-analyses had high level of heterogeneity.ConclusionGoal setting by itself affects outcomes of chronic diseases only to a small degree. This is not unexpected finding as changing outcomes in chronic diseases requires a complex and individualized approach. Implementing goal setting in a standardized way in the management of chronic conditions would seem to be a way forward.