Progress monitoring and goal attainment 2 AbstractControl Theory and other frameworks for understanding self-regulation suggest that monitoring goal progress is a crucial process that intervenes between setting and attaining a goal, and helps to ensure that goals are translated into action. However, the impact of progress monitoring interventions on rates of behavioral performance and goal attainment has yet to be quantified. A systematic literature search identified 138 studies (N = 19,951) that randomly allocated participants to an intervention designed to promote monitoring of goal progress versus a control condition. All studies reported the effects of the treatment on Moderation tests revealed that progress monitoring had larger effects on goal attainment when the outcomes were reported or made public, and when the information was physically recorded. Taken together, the findings suggest that monitoring goal progress is an effective self-regulation strategy, and that interventions that increase the frequency of progress monitoring are likely to promote behavior change. The present review investigates the impact of monitoring goal progress on rates of goal attainment. Goals are mental representations of desired outcomes (Austin & Vancouver, 1996) -such as to run a marathon or to be happy -and goal intentions are selfinstructions to act towards those outcomes (Sheeran & Webb, 2011;Triandis, 1980). Goal intentions capture both the nature of the set goal (e.g., the number of exercise sessions that one intends to engage in this week) and how committed one is to attaining it (e.g., the strength of one's intention to exercise five times this week). Intentions are the starting point for the willful control of action (Gollwitzer & Moskowitz, 1996). However, evidence indicates that intentions have only a modest impact on performance. A meta-analysis of 47 experimental studies found that a medium-to-large-sized change in intentions had a smallto-medium-sized effect on subsequent behavior (Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Evidence indicates that people who intend to exercise do not necessarily do so (Rhodes & de Bruijn, 2013), that most people want to be happier than they are (Oishi, Diener, & Lucas, 2007), and that it has become almost as traditional to fail to achieve New Year's resolutions as it is to form them in the first place (Marlatt & Kaplan, 1972;Norcross & Vangarelli, 1988). In short, forming a goal intention is not, on its own, sufficient to ensure goal attainment (for reviews, see Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006;Sheeran, Milne, Webb, & Gollwitzer, 2005;Sheeran & Webb, 2011;Webb, 2006). This 'gap' between intention and action (Sheeran, 2002) has led researchers to investigate which factors determine intention-behavior consistency. For instance, properties of intentions such as temporal stability (Cooke & Sheeran, 2004; Sheeran & Abraham, Progress monitoring and goal attainment 4 2003), the extent of actual control over performance (Sheeran, Trafimow, & Armitage, 2003), and the operation of habits (Neal, Wood, Wu...

BackgroundThe positive deviance approach focuses on those who demonstrate exceptional performance, despite facing the same constraints as others. ‘Positive deviants’ are identified and hypotheses about how they succeed are generated. These hypotheses are tested and then disseminated within the wider community. The positive deviance approach is being increasingly applied within healthcare organisations, although limited guidance exists and different methods, of varying quality, are used. This paper systematically reviews healthcare applications of the positive deviance approach to explore how positive deviance is defined, the quality of existing applications and the methods used within them, including the extent to which staff and patients are involved.MethodsPeer-reviewed articles, published prior to September 2014, reporting empirical research on the use of the positive deviance approach within healthcare, were identified from seven electronic databases. A previously defined four-stage process for positive deviance in healthcare was used as the basis for data extraction. Quality assessments were conducted using a validated tool, and a narrative synthesis approach was followed.Results37 of 818 articles met the inclusion criteria. The positive deviance approach was most frequently applied within North America, in secondary care, and to address healthcare-associated infections. Research predominantly identified positive deviants and generated hypotheses about how they succeeded. The approach and processes followed were poorly defined. Research quality was low, articles lacked detail and comparison groups were rarely included. Applications of positive deviance typically lacked staff and/or patient involvement, and the methods used often required extensive resources.ConclusionFurther research is required to develop high quality yet practical methods which involve staff and patients in all stages of the positive deviance approach. The efficacy and efficiency of positive deviance must be assessed and compared with other quality improvement approaches.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014009365.

IntroductionSelf-management has received growing attention as an effective approach for long-term condition management. Little is known about which outcomes of supported self-management are valued by patients, their families, health professionals and those who commission self-management services. This study systematically reviewed published empirical evidence in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to determine the outcomes of self-management valued by these key stakeholder groups, using three prominent exemplar conditions: colorectal cancer, diabetes and stroke.AimTo systematically review the literature to identify which generic outcomes of self-management have been targeted and are considered important using three exemplar conditions (colorectal cancer, diabetes and stroke), which collectively have a range of features that are likely to be representative of generic self-management issues.MethodsSystematic searching of nine electronic databases was conducted in addition to hand searches of review articles. Abstracts were identified against inclusion criteria and appraised independently by two reviewers, using a critical appraisal tool. Synthesis of findings was conducted using mixed research synthesis.ResultsOver 20,536 abstracts were screened. 41 studies which met the review criteria were fully retrieved and appraised. The majority of evidence related to diabetes. Few studies directly focussed on stakeholders’ views concerning desired self-management outcomes; the majority of evidence was derived from studies focusing upon the experience of self-management. The views of health care commissioners were absent from the literature. We identified that self-management outcomes embrace a range of indicators, from knowledge, skills, and bio-psychosocial markers of health through to positive social networks.ConclusionsPatients’, families’, health professionals’ and commissioners’ views regarding which outcomes of self-management are important have not been clearly elicited. The extent to which bio-psychosocial indicators relate to successful self-management from the perspectives of all groups of stakeholders is unknown. Further investigation regarding which self-management outcomes are considered important by all stakeholders is necessary to guide the commissioning and design of future self-management services.

Background There has been a dramatic increase in the development of electronic systems to support cancer patients to report and manage side effects of treatment from home. Systems vary in the features they offer to patients, which may affect how patients engage with them and how they improve patient-centered outcomes. Objective This review aimed to (1) describe the features and functions of existing electronic symptom reporting systems (eg, symptom monitoring, tailored self-management advice), and (2) explore which features may be associated with patient engagement and patient-centered outcomes. Methods The review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and followed guidelines from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York, United Kingdom). Primary searches were undertaken of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Health Technology Assessment databases. Secondary searches were undertaken by screening reference lists and citations. Two researchers applied broad inclusion criteria to identify and select relevant records. Data were extracted and summarized using Microsoft Excel. In order to meet the aims, the study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis comprised two stages: (1) identifying and characterizing available systems and (2) summarizing data on patient engagement and patient-centered outcomes. Results We identified 77 publications relating to 41 distinct systems. In Stage 1, all publications were included (N=77). The features identified that supported clinicians and care were facility for health professionals to remotely access and monitor patient-reported data (24/41, 58%) and function to send alerts to health professionals for severe symptoms (17/41, 41%). Features that supported patients were facility for patients to monitor/review their symptom reports over time (eg, graphs) (19/41, 46%), general patient information about cancer treatment and side effects (17/41, 41%), tailored automated patient advice on symptom management (12/41, 29%), feature for patients to communicate with the health care team (6/41, 15%), and a forum for patients to communicate with one another (4/41, 10%). In Stage 2, only publications that included some data on patient engagement or patient-centered outcomes were included (N=29). A lack of consistency between studies in how engagement was defined, measured, or reported, and a wide range of methods chosen to evaluate systems meant that it was not possible to compare across studies or make conclusions on relationships with system features. Conclusions Electronic systems have the potential to help patients manage side effects of cancer treatment, with some evidence to suggest a positive effect on patient-centered outcomes. However, comparison across studies is difficult due to the wide range of assessment tools us...

BackgroundFailure to take medication reduces the effectiveness of treatment leading to increased morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the efficacy of a consultation-based intervention to support objectively-assessed adherence to oral glucose lowering medication (OGLM) compared to usual care among people with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis was a parallel group randomised trial in adult patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol), prescribed at least one OGLM. Participants were allocated to a clinic nurse delivered, innovative consultation-based intervention to strengthen patient motivation to take OGLM regularly and support medicine taking through action-plans, or to usual care. The primary outcome was the percentage of days on which the prescribed dose of medication was taken, measured objectively over 12 weeks with an electronic medication-monitoring device (TrackCap, Aardex, Switzerland). The primary analysis was intention-to-treat.Results211 patients were randomised between July 1, 2006 and November 30, 2008 in 13 British general practices (primary care clinics). Primary outcome data were available for 194 participants (91.9%). Mean (sd) percentage of adherent days was 77.4% (26.3) in the intervention group and 69.0% (30.8) in standard care (mean difference between groups 8.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.2% to 16.7%, p = 0.044). There was no significant adverse impact on functional status or treatment satisfaction.ConclusionsThis well-specified, theory based intervention delivered in a single session of 30 min in primary care increased objectively measured medication adherence, with no adverse effect on treatment satisfaction. These findings justify a definitive trial of this approach to improving medication adherence over a longer period of time, with clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes to inform clinical practice.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN30522359