{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]],"date-time":"2026-08-27T11:19:02Z","timestamp":1787829542831,"version":"build-2784847793"},"update-to":[{"DOI":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.13700.1","type":"new_version","label":"New version","source":"publisher","updated":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]],"date-time":"2026-08-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1787788800000}},{"DOI":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.13700.2","type":"new_version","label":"New version","source":"publisher","updated":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]],"date-time":"2026-08-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1787788800000}}],"reference-count":43,"publisher":"F1000 Research Ltd","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]],"date-time":"2026-08-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1787788800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"name":"National Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation","award":["R22626"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["R22626"]}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["hrbopenresearch.org"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["HRB Open Res"],"abstract":"<ns3:p>Background Research has emphasised the value of a person-centred, interdisciplinary team (IDT) approach to structured goal setting in rehabilitation; yet these approaches are not consistently implemented in clinical practice, limiting the effect that goal setting can have on rehabilitation. The introduction of a new IDT, person-centred goal-setting process to Ireland\u2019s National Rehabilitation Hospital (NRH) offers an opportunity to gain insight into barriers to implementing and normalising IDT goal setting in complex, specialist rehabilitation services. This process was developed prior to, and independently of, the current evaluation by the hospital\u2019s quality improvement (QI) team; this protocol concerns the evaluation of its pilot implementation. Method The study was co-designed by embedded academic researchers and knowledge stakeholders, including the QI team responsible for introducing the new process and two former patients. A mixed-methods approach will capture patient and staff experiences and perspectives of the new process and, secondarily, pilot the feasibility of quantitative outcome measures ahead of a possible future hospital-wide evaluation. Data will be collected by embedded researchers using self-report measures and qualitative interviews with staff and patients. Measures include the Client-Centredness of Goal Setting scale (C-COGS), CollaboRATE, the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS-9B), and the Normalization Measure Development questionnaire (NoMAD), capturing person-centredness of goals, shared decision-making, interprofessional socialisation and process normalisation. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive and, where appropriate, inferential statistics; qualitative interview data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Discussion &amp; Conclusion The study aims to provide a holistic view of patient and staff experiences of the goal-setting process and to identify challenges and potential solutions to implementation within this context. Findings will inform further implementation within the hospital and contribute to rehabilitation practice around implementing IDT goal setting, adding an Irish perspective to the existing rehabilitation goal-setting literature.<\/ns3:p>","DOI":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.13700.3","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]],"date-time":"2026-08-27T10:29:08Z","timestamp":1787826548000},"page":"28","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/hrbopenres.crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Pilot of a person-centred, interdisciplinary approach to goal setting in Ireland\u2019s National Rehabilitation Hospital: a study protocol"],"prefix":"10.12688","volume":"6","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-0756-1663","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Lauren","family":"Christophers","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"School of Medicine Dublin University College Dublin"},{"name":"Dublin National Rehabilitation Hospital"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-0213-8615","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Zsofia","family":"Torok","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"School of Medicine Dublin University College Dublin"},{"name":"Dublin National Rehabilitation Hospital"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Catherine","family":"Cornall","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Dublin National Rehabilitation Hospital"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4383-8650","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Aine","family":"Carroll","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"School of Medicine Dublin University College Dublin"},{"name":"Dublin National Rehabilitation Hospital"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"2560","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4368-4378","DOI":"10.1080\/09638288.2021.1906957","article-title":"An exploration of goal-setting practices in Queensland rehabilitation services.","volume":"44","author":"A Baker","year":"2022a","journal-title":"Disabil Rehabil."},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"811","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-022-08047-6","article-title":"Developing tailored theoretically informed goal-setting interventions for rehabilitation services: a co-design approach.","volume":"22","author":"A Baker","year":"2022b","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res."},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e2","DOI":"10.2196\/jmir.3085","article-title":"The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process.","volume":"16","author":"P Barr","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Med Internet Res."},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"77-101","DOI":"10.1191\/1478088706qp063oa","article-title":"Using thematic analysis in psychology.","volume":"3","author":"V Braun","year":"2006","journal-title":"Qual Res Psychol."},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"328-352","DOI":"10.1080\/14780887.2020.1769238","article-title":"One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?","volume":"18","author":"V Braun","year":"2021","journal-title":"Qual Res Psychol."},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"637-650","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x","article-title":"Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.","volume":"17","author":"J Brett","year":"2014","journal-title":"Health Expect."},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"827-840","DOI":"10.1177\/0269215517752488","article-title":"A qualitative investigation into the patient-centered goal-setting practices of allied health clinicians working in rehabilitation.","volume":"32","author":"L Cameron","year":"2018","journal-title":"Clin Rehabil."},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"595-609","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-030-69262-9_35","author":"A Carroll","year":"2021","journal-title":"Handbook Integrated Care."},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"373-380","DOI":"10.1111\/jep.13100","article-title":"The time has come: Embedded implementation research for health care improvement.","volume":"25","author":"K Churruca","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Eval Clin Pract."},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S35-S39","DOI":"10.1016\/S0003-9993(99)90101-6","article-title":"Factors affecting functional outcome after stroke: a critical review of rehabilitation interventions.","volume":"80","author":"D Cifu","year":"1999","journal-title":"Arch Phys Med Rehabil."},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"587-592","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010","article-title":"Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance.","volume":"50","author":"P Craig","year":"2013","journal-title":"Int J Nurs Stud."},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"20-31","DOI":"10.12968\/ijtr.2016.23.1.20","article-title":"Engaging patients with moderate to severe acquired brain injury in goal setting.","volume":"23","author":"K D\u2019Cruz","year":"2016","journal-title":"Int J Therapy Rehabil."},{"key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"165-173","DOI":"10.1177\/0269215511405230","article-title":"Patient inclusion in goal setting during early inpatient rehabilitation after acquired brain injury.","volume":"26","author":"C Dalton","year":"2012","journal-title":"Clin Rehabil."},{"key":"ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"559-568","DOI":"10.5014\/ajot.63.5.559","article-title":"Qualitative exploration of a client-centered, goal-directed approach to community-based occupational therapy for adults with traumatic brain injury.","volume":"63","author":"E Doig","year":"2009","journal-title":"Am J Occup Ther."},{"key":"ref15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"302-310","DOI":"10.3109\/11038128.2015.1017530","article-title":"Development and construct validation of the Client-Centredness of Goal Setting (C-COGS) scale.","volume":"22","author":"E Doig","year":"2015","journal-title":"Scand J Occup Ther."},{"key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"673-683","DOI":"10.1080\/09638288.2022.2040612","article-title":"Normalising interdisciplinary role-based goal setting in inpatient brain injury rehabilitation: reflections and recommendations of clinicians.","volume":"45","author":"E Doig","year":"2023","journal-title":"Disabil Rehabil."},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"498-505","DOI":"10.1093\/ageing\/afz021","article-title":"Understanding and improving multidisciplinary team working in geriatric medicine.","volume":"48","author":"G Ellis","year":"2019","journal-title":"Age Ageing."},{"key":"ref18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"135","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-018-0591-x","article-title":"Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT).","volume":"18","author":"T Finch","year":"2018","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol."},{"key":"ref19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"170","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-018-2973-5","article-title":"Using normalisation process theory to evaluate the implementation of a complex intervention to embed the surgical safety checklist.","volume":"18","author":"B Gillespie","year":"2018","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res."},{"key":"ref20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"971-979","DOI":"10.23736\/S1973-9087.18.05502-8","article-title":"Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine professional practice for Adults with Acquired Brain Injury. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section).","volume":"54","author":"K Grabljevec","year":"2018","journal-title":"Eur J Phys Rehabil Med."},{"key":"ref21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3-11","DOI":"10.1016\/j.pec.2018.08.029","article-title":"\u201cSame same or different?\u201d A review of reviews of person-centered and patient-centered care.","volume":"102","author":"J H\u00e5kansson Eklund","year":"2019","journal-title":"Patient Educ Couns."},{"key":"ref22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"114523","DOI":"10.1016\/j.socscimed.2021.114523","article-title":"Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests.","volume":"292","author":"M Hennink","year":"2022","journal-title":"Soc Sci Med."},{"key":"ref23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"g1687","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.g1687 (Published 7 March 2014)","article-title":"Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.","volume":"348","author":"T Hoffmann","year":"2014","journal-title":"BMJ."},{"key":"ref24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"989","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-018-3801-7","article-title":"Using co-design to develop interventions to address health literacy needs in a hospitalised population.","volume":"18","author":"R Jessup","year":"2018","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res."},{"key":"ref25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"655-669","DOI":"10.3233\/NRE-141080","article-title":"Team models in neurorehabilitation: structure, function, and culture change.","volume":"34","author":"R Karol","year":"2014","journal-title":"NeuroRehabilitation."},{"key":"ref26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"171-177","DOI":"10.1097\/CEH.0000000000000082","article-title":"Refinement of the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS-21) and Development of 9-Item Equivalent Versions.","volume":"36","author":"G King","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Contin Educ Health Prof."},{"key":"ref27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"175","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-022-01655-0","article-title":"The implementation and validation of the NoMAD during a complex primary care intervention.","volume":"22","author":"L Lamarche","year":"2022","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol."},{"key":"ref28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD009727.pub2","article-title":"Goal setting and strategies to enhance goal pursuit for adults with acquired disability participating in rehabilitation.","volume":"2015","author":"W Levack","year":"2015","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev."},{"key":"ref29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3-13","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2753.2008.01104.x","article-title":"An interactive education session and follow-up support as a strategy to improve clinicians' goal-writing skills: a randomized controlled trial.","volume":"16","author":"E Marsland","year":"2010","journal-title":"J Eval Clin Pract."},{"key":"ref30","article-title":"The implementation of a model of person-centred practice in older person settings.","author":"B McCormack","year":"2010","journal-title":"Final report."},{"key":"ref32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2402-2448","DOI":"10.1161\/STR.0b013e3181e7512b","article-title":"Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.","volume":"41","author":"E Miller","year":"2010","journal-title":"Stroke."},{"key":"ref33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"242-254","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1369-7625.2011.00661.x","article-title":"Collaboration and co-ownership in research: dynamics and dialogues between patient research partners and professional researchers in a research team.","volume":"15","author":"C Nierse","year":"2012","journal-title":"Health Expect."},{"key":"ref34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"81-88","DOI":"10.2340\/16501977-0124","article-title":"Comparison of individual, group and combined intervention formats in a randomized controlled trial for facilitating goal attainment and improving psychosocial function following acquired brain injury.","volume":"40","author":"T Ownsworth","year":"2008","journal-title":"J Rehabil Med."},{"key":"ref35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"51","DOI":"10.1186\/1478-4505-12-51","article-title":"The application of systems thinking in health: why use systems thinking?","volume":"12","author":"D Peters","year":"2014","journal-title":"Health Res Policy Syst."},{"key":"ref36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"263-272","DOI":"10.1177\/0269215517719485","article-title":"A multicentre study of how goal-setting is practised during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.","volume":"32","author":"S Plant","year":"2018","journal-title":"Clin Rehabil."},{"key":"ref37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"226-239","DOI":"10.1017\/BrImp.2019.6","article-title":"Goal statements in brain injury rehabilitation: A cohort study of client-centredness and relationship with goal outcome.","volume":"20","author":"S Prescott","year":"2019","journal-title":"Brain Impair."},{"key":"ref38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"65-75","DOI":"10.1016\/j.pec.2016.07.030","article-title":"Shared decision making within goal setting in rehabilitation settings: A systematic review.","volume":"100","author":"A Rose","year":"2017","journal-title":"Patient Educ Couns."},{"key":"ref39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"564-574","DOI":"10.1177\/0269215518815251","article-title":"Shared decision-making within goal-setting in rehabilitation: a mixed-methods study.","volume":"33","author":"A Rose","year":"2019","journal-title":"Clin Rehabil."},{"key":"ref40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"468-482","DOI":"10.1177\/0269215510389198","article-title":"Goal setting and action planning in the rehabilitation setting: development of a theoretically informed practice framework.","volume":"25","author":"L Scobbie","year":"2011","journal-title":"Clin Rehabil."},{"key":"ref41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1291-1298","DOI":"10.3109\/09638288.2014.961652","article-title":"Goal setting practice in services delivering community-based stroke rehabilitation: a United Kingdom (UK) wide survey.","volume":"37","author":"L Scobbie","year":"2015","journal-title":"Disabil Rehabil."},{"key":"ref42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"791","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-020-05651-2","article-title":"Facilitators and \u201cdeal breakers\u201d: a mixed methods study investigating implementation of the Goal setting and action planning (G-AP) framework in community rehabilitation teams.","volume":"20","author":"L Scobbie","year":"2020","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res."},{"key":"ref44","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"210-216","DOI":"10.12968\/ijtr.2015.22.5.210","article-title":"Patient engagement and satisfaction with goal planning: Impact on outcome from rehabilitation.","volume":"22","author":"L Turner-Stokes","year":"2015","journal-title":"Int J Ther Rehabil."},{"key":"ref45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1419-1427","DOI":"10.3109\/09638280903574345","article-title":"Goal setting in neurological rehabilitation: staff perspectives.","volume":"32","author":"R Van De Weyer","year":"2010","journal-title":"Disabil Rehabil."}],"container-title":["HRB Open Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v3\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v3\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v3\/iparadigms","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]],"date-time":"2026-08-27T10:29:10Z","timestamp":1787826550000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v3"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]]},"references-count":43,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/hrbopenres.13700.3","relation":{"has-version":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.13700.2","asserted-by":"subject"},{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.13700.1","asserted-by":"subject"}]},"ISSN":["2515-4826"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2515-4826","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,27]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Not Approved, Approved, Approved with reservations","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v3#article-reports","order":0,"name":"referee-status","label":"Referee status","group":{"name":"current-referee-status","label":"Current Referee Status"}},{"value":"10.21956\/hrbopenres.14985.r43547, Lesley Scobbie, Glasgow Caledonian university, Glasgow, 26 Dec 2024, version 1, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v1#referee-response-43547","order":0,"name":"referee-response-43547","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>&Aacute;ine Carroll<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 06 Jul 2026<\/i>; \n<b>General points<\/b> \n<i><b>Abbreviations:<\/b> <\/i>We have reviewed the manuscript throughout and expanded abbreviations at first use that had not previously been defined (notably HCA and HSCP), while retaining abbreviations that are standard and necessary for readability (e.g. NRH, IDT, EPR) once defined.  \n<b><i>Multiple concepts requiring individual definition:<\/i><\/b> We agree that interdisciplinary teamwork, shared decision-making, person-centred care, goal setting and implementation\/normalisation are distinct constructs. We have added or sharpened definitions for each on first use in the Introduction, and have clarified, where each construct is operationalised, which specific measure or interview topic captures it (see Methods).  \n<b><i>Staff training omission:<\/i> <\/b>This was a significant gap, and we thank the reviewer for identifying it. We have added a new subsection describing staff training delivered prior to implementation, covering the documentation, the underlying principles of person-centred and shared decision-making practice, and use of the pre-admission information booklet, delivered via team-based workshops facilitated by the IDT Quality Care Team.  \n<b>Abstract<\/b> We have spelled out \u201cinterdisciplinary team (IDT)\u201d in full at first mention in the Abstract.  \n<b>Introduction<\/b> We have written \u201cmultidisciplinary team (MDT)\u201d in full at first mention (paragraph 1) and added a short comparative definition distinguishing MDT and IDT working, so that the abbreviation used later in paragraph 2 is already defined.  \n<b>Methods<\/b> \n<i>Eligibility criteria \/ inclusivity for patients with cognitive or communication impairments: <\/i>We have added a statement describing supports that will be offered to patients with mild-to-moderate cognitive or communication difficulties who do not meet exclusion criteria, including additional time, Easy-Read materials, communication aids, and involvement of a family member or carer to support participation.  \n<i>Sampling method: <\/i>We have added a short statement specifying that a convenience sampling approach will be used for both staff and patients, given the relatively small potential participant pool across the three pilot units.  \n<i>Development of the new goal process \/ justification relative to existing frameworks: <\/i>We have added a paragraph to the \u201cIntervention\u201d section acknowledging the existing frameworks the reviewer notes (G-AP, the keyworker-led model, the role-based IDT approach) and explaining that, consistent with evidence that complex interventions are best tailored to local context (Craig et al., 2013, already cited), the NRH team elected to co-design a context-specific process informed by, but not a direct replication of, these frameworks, reflecting NRH\u2019s mixed case-mix and its concurrent transition to an electronic patient record.  \n<i>Figure 1 clarifications:<\/i> We have added explanatory text addressing each point raised: - The pre-admission information booklet: a core version is used hospital-wide, with programme-specific inserts for each speciality (stroke, ABI, SCSC, POLAR, paediatric). - Readiness to lead own goals: we clarify that a staff member may take a more directive lead where a patient\u2019s readiness or capacity is limited, with the explicit aim of increasing patient control as capacity develops. - Recognised tools and accessible supports: we now specify examples (Easy-Read materials, communication charts\/boards, interpreter or speech and language therapy input) selected according to individual need. - Patient involvement in support planning: we clarify that patients and families are invited to contribute to decisions about the tasks\/activities\/timetable required to support progress towards their goals. - Family feedback on goal outcomes: we clarify that patients and families are involved together in this feedback at the pre-discharge meeting.  \n<i>TIDieR checklist<\/i>: We agree this is a useful reference point for intervention reporting and have added a note in the Intervention section that the description follows relevant elements of the TIDieR checklist (Hoffmann et al., 2014) to support replicability, while retaining our narrative + figure format so as not to substantially restructure the protocol.  \n<i>Data collection<\/i>, \n<i>meeting terminology<\/i>. We have clarified that the \u201cinitial goal setting meeting\u201d referred to in the measures section corresponds to the goal, action and care planning (goal setting conference) meeting shown in Figure 1.  \n<i>Support for patients completing self-report measures: <\/i>We have added a statement that the embedded researcher will offer support (reading items aloud, additional time, or recording responses on the patient\u2019s behalf) without altering item content or interpretation, for patients who require it.  \n<i>Combining\/joining qualitative and quantitative data<\/i>: We have added a statement to the Data analysis section describing that the two strands will be integrated at the interpretation stage using a mixed-methods triangulation approach, with joint displays used where relevant to explore convergence or divergence between self-report measures and interview themes.  \n<i>Public and Patient Involvement:<\/i> We have expanded this section to give brief, anonymised background on the two patient co-researchers\u2019 prior admissions and have added an explicit acknowledgement that PPI in this phase was limited to two individuals with lived experience and did not include family carers, with a commitment to broadening patient and carer involvement in the subsequent hospital-wide implementation study.  We thank the reviewer for their thorough and helpful engagement with this protocol, which we believe has considerably improved the clarity and rigour of the study design.","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v3#referee-comment-3934","order":1,"name":"referee-comment-3934","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.21956\/hrbopenres.15995.r56724, Yuho Okita, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, 29 Jul 2026, version 2, 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v2#referee-response-56724","order":2,"name":"referee-response-56724","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.21956\/hrbopenres.15995.r57016, Yvonne Codd, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, 10 Aug 2026, version 2, 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v2#referee-response-57016","order":3,"name":"referee-response-57016","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>&Aacute;ine Carroll<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 18 Aug 2026<\/i>; \n<b>Response to Reviewer<\/b> We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive review and for recognising the clinical relevance of the study, the clarity of its rationale and the appropriateness of the study design. We particularly appreciated the observation that some methodological information became apparent only later in the manuscript. In response, we have strengthened methodological signposting, provided additional detail on recruitment and consent, clarified the qualitative interview domains and the role of the embedded researchers, made reflexivity more explicit, and clarified the abstract. We have also reviewed the manuscript for consistency in the use of abbreviations.  \n<b>Abstract<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The abstract provides a clear rationale and overview, but further methodological detail would strengthen it, particularly the names of the measures used and the qualitative analytic approach.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> Thank you. We have revised the Methods section of the abstract to name the four quantitative measures used in the study: the Client-Centredness of Goal Setting scale (C-COGS), CollaboRATE, the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS-9B), and the Normalization Measure Development questionnaire (NoMAD). We have also made explicit that qualitative interview data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.  The revised abstract now states: \n<i>Self-report measures include the Client-Centredness of Goal Setting scale (C-COGS), CollaboRATE, the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS-9B), and the Normalization Measure Development questionnaire (NoMAD), capturing person-centredness of goals, shared decision-making, interprofessional socialisation and process normalisation. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive and, where appropriate, inferential statistics; qualitative interview data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.<\/i> The original abstract already identified the constructs and reflexive thematic analysis; the revision makes the instruments themselves explicit.  \n<b>Introduction<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer suggested making the patient's unique perspective on rehabilitation goals and priorities more explicit, including how this may influence engagement and participation.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> Thank you. We agree that the particular contribution of the patient's own priorities could be made more explicit. We have therefore added a sentence to the discussion of person-centred goal setting emphasising that meaningful rehabilitation goals should be oriented towards participation and outcomes that matter to the individual rather than being determined solely by professional priorities.  The following sentence has been added: \n<i>In rehabilitation, this perspective is particularly important because goals that reflect what the person considers meaningful in their own life can orient rehabilitation towards participation and outcomes that matter to them, rather than towards professionally determined impairments or activities alone.<\/i> We have retained the focus on meaningful goals, participation and engagement rather than introducing quality of life as a separate construct, as quality of life is not an outcome being evaluated in this protocol. The existing Introduction already links person-centred goals with motivation, engagement and goal attainment.  \n<b>Methods: qualitative methods and interview guides<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer requested greater detail on the qualitative methods, including the topics explored in the interviews, development and testing of the interview guides, and the planned qualitative analysis. Inclusion of the semi-structured interview guides was also suggested.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> Thank you. We have expanded the qualitative data collection section to describe more explicitly the areas explored in both patient and staff interviews. For patients, the revised text clarifies that open-ended questions explore goal setting, participation in decision-making, relationships with the rehabilitation team, information and communication, and perceived facilitators and challenges across the rehabilitation admission. For staff, the revised text clarifies that interviews address interdisciplinary teamwork and interprofessional collaboration, person-centred care, shared decision-making, experiences of the new goal-setting process, and perceived barriers and enablers to implementation and normalisation.  We have also clarified that the interview guides were developed by the researchers and reviewed and refined through the co-design process, including specific review by former patients and staff representatives. They were not subjected to a separate formal pilot test, and we have not retrospectively described this process as pilot testing. The patient and staff semi-structured interview guides have also been included as supplementary material. The existing manuscript already specifies the constructionist orientation, reflexive thematic analysis and Braun and Clarke's iterative analytic process; we have strengthened signposting to make this information easier to locate.  \n<b>Methods: embedded researchers, consistency and reflexivity<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer asked for clarification regarding the roles of the two embedded researchers in qualitative and quantitative data collection, and for further detail on consistency of interviewing, potential bias and reflexivity.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> Thank you. We have clarified the role of the embedded research team and added explicit consideration of reflexivity. The revised manuscript states that the embedded researchers contribute to data collection across the study as required. Common study procedures and semi-structured topic guides support consistency in data collection while retaining the flexibility appropriate to qualitative interviewing.  We have also clarified that embedded researchers conducting patient interviews are not members of participants\u2019 treating teams. Given their embedded position within the implementation team, we have added explicit consideration of how prior relationships, organisational knowledge and researcher assumptions may shape data generation and interpretation.  We have deliberately framed this issue in terms of reflexivity rather than attempting to suggest that researcher subjectivity can be eliminated, consistent with the constructionist orientation and reflexive thematic analysis adopted in the protocol. The later conduct of the patient study confirms the distinction between researchers' embedded implementation role and the participants' treating teams, although the protocol itself retains the personnel and roles prospectively specified at the outset.  \n<b>Methods: protocol registration<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer queried the statement that changes to the study design would be \u201cregistered with the protocol\u201d and asked whether the protocol was registered elsewhere.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> Thank you for identifying this ambiguity. The wording did not refer to a separate trial or protocol registration.  We have replaced the sentence with: \n<i>Any substantive changes to the study design will be documented in subsequent versions of this protocol and reported transparently in publications arising from the study.<\/i> This more accurately reflects the intended meaning and removes any implication of a separate registration. The original wording appeared in the Study Design section.  \n<b>Recruitment and informed consent<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer requested additional detail regarding provision of study information, voluntary informed consent, time to consider participation, potential perceptions of coercion associated with the embedded researcher role, and recruitment of patients with cognitive or communication impairments.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> Thank you. We agree that this aspect of the protocol would benefit from greater procedural detail. We have therefore added a dedicated Recruitment and Consent subsection. The revised section describes provision of written study information, subsequent explanation of the study by a researcher, the opportunity to ask questions and consider participation before consent is obtained, and the voluntary nature of participation. It also makes clear that participation or non-participation will not affect clinical care or staff employment\/professional relationships. A prescribed formal cooling-off period was not a feature of the approved protocol and we have therefore not retrospectively introduced one. Instead, we have clarified that potential participants have an opportunity to consider the information and ask questions before deciding whether to participate. The consent procedures described are consistent with the study as subsequently conducted, in which potential patient participants received study information before researcher contact and were allowed time for consideration prior to consent.  \n<b>Recruitment of patients with cognitive or communication impairment<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer asked for clearer consideration of how cognitive and communication impairments would be managed during recruitment and data collection.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> Thank you. The protocol already included provisions for supported participation, but we agree that these should be more prominent within the recruitment and consent process. We have therefore strengthened the cross-referencing between the Eligibility Criteria and Recruitment and Consent sections. The manuscript clarifies that the presence of a cognitive or communication impairment does not in itself result in exclusion. Existing hospital-approved communication supports, including communication passports, augmentative and alternative communication aids and family\/carer-supported participation, may be used where appropriate. Exclusion occurs only where available supports are insufficient to enable valid consent and meaningful participation and to elicit the patient's own view.  \n<b>Organisation and sequencing of the Methods<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer observed that some questions arising during the initial reading were answered later in the manuscript and suggested that some resequencing might improve flow.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> We agree and thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. Rather than substantially restructuring the Methods section, which broadly follows the sequence of the study, we have improved signposting and placed recruitment and consent information in a dedicated subsection adjacent to the eligibility criteria. We have also added clearer cross-referencing from Study Design to the subsequent Qualitative Data and Data Analysis sections so that readers are directed to the relevant methodological detail when each component is first introduced. This addresses the reviewer\u2019s concern while avoiding unnecessary duplication of methodological information already provided later in the manuscript. The reviewer similarly noted that several initial queries were answered as the manuscript progressed.  \n<b>Abbreviations<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer recommended consistent use of abbreviations such as MDT, IDT and NRH after the terms have first been defined.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> Thank you. We have reviewed the manuscript and standardised the use of abbreviations throughout following their first definition.  \n<b>Availability of datasets<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer assessment:<\/b> Datasets were rated as only partly presented in a usable and accessible format.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> We note that this article reports a study protocol rather than study findings. Consequently, no study dataset is associated with the protocol article. The Data Availability statement therefore remains: No data are associated with this article. The protocol currently states this explicitly.  \n<b>Overall comments<\/b> \n<b>Reviewer comment:<\/b> The reviewer considered the study clinically relevant and well-motivated and suggested that additional methodological detail would strengthen the protocol.  \n<b>Response:<\/b> We thank the reviewer for these constructive comments. We believe that the revisions have improved the clarity and transparency of the protocol while preserving its prospective nature. The protocol was developed and published before data collection commenced; accordingly, the revisions clarify the originally planned study rather than retrospectively altering the protocol to reflect subsequent implementation changes. The later study manuscript explicitly records that the protocol preceded data collection.  We thank the reviewer again for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the suggestions, which have improved both the methodological clarity and navigability of the protocol.","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/6-28\/v3#referee-comment-3959","order":4,"name":"referee-comment-3959","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"The current study is part of a larger project (INSPIRE-NRH) which is funded by the National Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation (NRH Foundation, Project Code R22626). This grant is assigned to principal investigator of the project, Prof Aine Carroll. The funders have had no influence in the development of the review question and methodological approach reported in this protocol. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.","order":5,"name":"grant-information","label":"Grant Information"},{"value":"This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.","order":0,"name":"copyright-info","label":"Copyright"}]}}