It Is Smart to Set Treatment Goals, But Are Set Treatment Goals SMART? A Qualitative Assessment of Goals Described in the Assessment of the Burden of COPD Tool

Abstract

The Assessment of the Burden of COPD (ABC) tool facilitates shared decision-making and goal setting to develop a personalized care plan. In a previous trial (RCT), the ABC tool was found to have a significant effect on patients’ Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL). In this exploratory study we used data from the intervention group of the RCT to investigate if patients with health-related goals had an improved HRQoL compared to those without goals, and if the quality and types of goals differed for those who have a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL. We hypothesized that the quality and the type of the goal described in the ABC tool, relates to an improved HRQoL. We assessed the quality of the goals according to the Specificity, Measurability, Achievability, Relevance and Timeliness (SMART) criteria, and coded and counted each type of goal. We found that having a goal or not, did not differ significantly for those who had a clinically meaningful improved HRQoL versus those who had not, nor was the quality or type of goal significantly different. The most common types of goals were exercise more, smoke less, and improve weight. Based on the results, we speculate that when a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL is achieved, it is not related to a single component (i.e. goal setting as part of shared decision-making) but that the different components of the ABC tool (visualization of burden, shared decision making, utilization of tailored evidence based interventions, and regular monitoring of progress) may have a synergistic effect on disease cognition and/or behavior change. Noteworthy, the sample size was small while the calculated effect size was moderate, making it unlikely to find a significant effect.