ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
A Survey of Australian Healthcare Practitioners' Perspectives on Goal Setting in Occupational Rehabilitation.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNearly half a million Australians experience workplace injury or illness each year, and return-to-work rates have declined, particularly for psychological conditions. Practitioners use goal setting to structure return-to-work planning and are directed by national guidance to set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) goals. How practitioners apply these criteria across different injuries and illnesses is not well understood. This study examined practitioners' perspectives on goal setting in workers' compensation rehabilitation in Australia, with a focus on SMART goals.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey of Australian healthcare practitioners who treated physical conditions, psychological conditions, or both, was conducted. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests, and open-text responses were analysed using content analysis.
results154 practitioners across 12 professions completed the survey. Goal setting was considered highly or extremely important (71.4%) and used with most clients (74.0%), although nearly a third of practitioners (36.6%) did not name the client amongst those who set the goals. The majority of participants were familiar with SMART goals (87.5%), used them confidently (88.7%), and considered them best practice (75.7%), with open-text responses indicating participants valued their structure and clarity. Over a quarter of responses exploring challenges with SMART goals identified concerns when using SMART for clients with psychological injuries, describing rigid timeframes and measurability elements as counterproductive. Respondents also identified the need for clinical flexibility in complex cases, whilst noting that documentation and stakeholder expectations reinforced the use of SMART goals. Perspectives were largely consistent across professions and injury types.
conclusionPractitioners generally endorsed SMART goals but raised concerns about their applicability for clients with psychological injuries, the group with the lowest return-to-work rates in Australia. Further work is needed to determine how goal setting in workers' compensation rehabilitation can accommodate these clinical needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42728490What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.