Search

Objectives: Theory has offered suggestions on how people may adjust their personal goals after goal disturbance or altered life situations. However, the actual use of these goal adjustment strategies has rarely been studied. This study aimed to investigate whether the goal adjustment strategies identified in the literature are used in the first 6 months following a diagnosis of cancer and whether alternative strategies can be identified.Design: Exploratory design with a qualitative method of data collection.Methods: Patients were asked to list their current personal goals within a month after being diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Six months later, they were asked what had happened to each of these goals. For each goal, raters scored whether (1) it was achieved or being pursued as planned, (2) a known strategy was used, or (3) an alternative strategy was used.Results: Patients with colorectal cancer (n = 130) reported that more than half of their goals had been achieved or were being pursued as planned. The remaining goals (n = 210) required goal adjustment strategies. Patients used five of six known strategies that involved mostly limited adjustment. Additionally, they used combinations of goal adjustment strategies, and two alternative strategies were identified.Conclusions: This study found that patients with cancer use goal adjustment strategies, and it provides illustrations on how these strategies are used, thus deepening and extending existing knowledge of and theory on goal adjustment. Future studies should take the newly identified strategies into account as well as the possible use of combinations of strategies.Statement Of Contribution: What is already known on this subject? The successful pursuit of personal goals is important for maintaining well-being. However, an unexpected and serious illness such as cancer can lead to the need to adjust goals, either because they have become difficult or impossible to attain due to physical hindrance of the illness and/or its treatment, or because other goals have become important due to the confrontation with the fragility of life. Theories have proposed options of how people may deal with their personal goals, but whether these so-called goal adjustment strategies are actually used by cancer patients, and whether there are alternative strategies we need to take into account, is still unclear. What does this study add? This study employs a qualitative method of data collection to study what actually happens to cancer patients' goals during the first 6 months after diagnosis. This study found that almost all goal adjustment strategies from theory are indeed used by cancer patients and that they mostly use strategies which involve only limited adjustment and a continued focus on the original goal. We found that patients with cancer use combinations of strategies and two alternative strategies, thereby complementing and expanding theories on goal adjustment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stroke survivors encounter emotional problems in the chronic phase after stroke. Post-stroke depressive symptoms have major impact on health-related quality of life (HRQol) and lead to increased hospitalization and therefore substantial healthcare costs. We present a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility evaluation of a cognitive behavioural therapy augmented with occupational and movement therapy to support patients with a stroke with depressive symptoms in goal-setting and goal attainment (augmented CBT) in comparison with a computerized cognitive training program (CogniPlus) as a control intervention.Methods: A trial-based economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective with a time horizon of 12 months. Stroke patients (aged 18+ years) with signs of depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) - subscale depression > 7) were eligible to participate. Primary outcomes were the HADS and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) based on the three-level five-dimensional EuroQol (EQ-5D-3 L). Missing data were handled through mean imputation (costs) and multiple imputation (HADS and EuroQol), and costs were bootstrapped. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of baseline assumptions.Results: Sixty-one patients were included. The average total societal costs were not significantly different between the control group (€9,998.3) and the augmented CBT group (€8,063.7), with a 95 % confidence interval (-5,284, 1,796). The augmented CBT intervention was less costly and less effective from a societal perspective on the HADS, and less costly and slightly more effective in QALYs, in comparison with the control treatment. The cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses provided greater effects and fewer costs for the augmented CBT group, and fewer effects and costs for the HADS. Based on a willingness to pay (WTP) level of €40,000 per QALY, the augmented CBT intervention had a 76 % chance of being cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of results.Conclusion: The stroke-specific augmented CBT intervention did not show convincing cost-effectiveness results. In addition to other literature, this study provided new insights into the potential cost-effectiveness of an adjusted cognitive behavioural therapy intervention. However, as our study showed a 76 % chance of being cost-effective for one outcome measure (QALY) and did not provide convincing cost-effectiveness results on the HADS we recommend further research in a larger population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]