Bassett 1999.

Methods	RCT Setting: Private and publicly‐funded physiotherapy clinics, New Zealand Funding: Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust & the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists Scholarship Trust Recruitment (patients): Recruited by the participating physiotherapists Recruitment (healthcare providers): Not reported Inclusion criteria (patients): Starting new course of physiotherapy for limb injury, which required exercise to practise at home Exclusion criteria (patients): No further criteria reported Consideration of people with comorbidities: Not reported
Participants	Patients: 74 participants enrolled. 66 participants completed their course of physiotherapy (48.5% male). Mean age 41 (SD 16). Range 13 to 72. Ethnicity not stated Principle health problems: Musculoskeletal disorders (40.9% upper limb injuries; 59.1% lower limb injuries) Treatment currently receiving: Physiotherapy Description of healthcare providers: 17 physiotherapists (15 in private sector; two in public sector)
Interventions	Study aim: To test the hypothesis that physiotherapy patients who participate in collaborative goal setting will have a higher level of compliance with their home exercise than those who have physiotherapist‐mandated goal and those who have no formally set goals Intervention (Collaborative goal setting): (n = 25) Participant‐physiotherapist collaborative goal setting Long‐term goals established during the initial treatment session, which were broken down into more immediate, achievable short‐term goals. Goals altered at subsequent meeting to meet the changing needs of the participants' conditions. Both the participants and the physiotherapists were involved in setting the goals for those in this condition. Goals were based on daily functional activities the participants wished to achieve, and what the physiotherapist thought was realistic Intervention (mandated goal setting): (n = 24) Physiotherapist‐mandated goal setting. The same treatment was received as for the intervention group, but with only the physiotherapist selecting the goals for treatment, with rewording of these goals into a language that the patient understood Control: (n = 25) Physiotherapy treatment with no goals set Delivery: No restrictions reported on the duration or number of treatment sessions Fidelity: Providers given oral and written instruction in the purpose of the study, plus a written booklet on the study methods, the two types of goal setting, use of exercise diaries, and use of the measuring instruments.  No evaluation of intervention fidelity was reported however Consumer involvement outside of the intervention: None reported
Outcomes	Timing of outcomes: On enrolment in study and on completion of treatment. Mean number of treatment sessions: 12.79 (SD 8.33).  Duration of treatment not reported Completion of home exercises, self‐reported Rate of symptom relief (measured by number of treatments required) Degree of symptom relief, self‐reported Percentage improvement in range of movement Percentage improvement in muscle strength
Goal setting characteristics	Comparison of interest: Collaborative goal setting versus clinician‐prescribed goal setting versus no goal setting Patient involvement in goal setting: The study compared goal set in collaboration with patients versus those set by a healthcare professional for patients (versus no goal setting) Family involvement in goal setting: None reported Name of goal setting approach: No specifically named approach used Development of a plan for goal pursuit: Not reported Written copy of goals provided to patients: Patients were given exercise diaries and goal sheets for the self‐reporting of progress Individual versus group‐based goal discussion: Individual Level of goal difficulty: Achievable, realistic goals were emphasised Goal areas of focus: Activities of daily living Evaluation of patient goal commitment: Not reported Goal reminders used: Therapy involved regular discussion of goals with patients Monitoring of progress towards goals: Goal progress was monitored in therapy and exercises were altered as patients progressed
Notes	Power calculation: None reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	'...participants were randomly allocated to one of the three treatment goal‐setting conditions' (p.132). The random sequence was computer generated (author communication)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation... 'was concealed as the [random sequence] list was kept on a computer and only consulted when a new participant was recruited. The physiotherapists had no idea which group participants would be allocated to before recruitment'
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	The intervention required active involvement of the patient and healthcare professionals, so blinding not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	The healthcare providers and researcher, not blinded to group allocation, were involved in data collection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Of the 77 participants who originally enrolled in the study, eight (10.4%) were withdrawn from the analysis because they did not complete their courses of physiotherapy. Of these eight, two were from the collaborative goal setting group, two were from the mandated goal setting group, and four were from the control group. 'All the participants who withdrew did so because they did not complete their course of physiotherapy and could not be tracked down' (author communication)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to find a protocol for this study published prior to it being conducted, so unable to compare the outcomes reported with those planned to be measured at the outset
Other bias	Unclear risk	As each treating physiotherapist potentially provided all three types of intervention (collaborative goal setting, physiotherapist mandated goal setting, and no goal setting) the potential for cross‐group contamination is high, particularly around the level of patient involvement in goal selection