A systematic review of goal attainment scaling implementation practices by caregivers in randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1186/s41687-024-00716-w
Kulpreet Cheema, Taylor Dunn, Chere Chapman, Kenneth Rockwood, Susan E Howlett, Gunes Sevinc
{"title":"A systematic review of goal attainment scaling implementation practices by caregivers in randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Kulpreet Cheema, Taylor Dunn, Chere Chapman, Kenneth Rockwood, Susan E Howlett, Gunes Sevinc","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00716-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Goal attainment scaling (GAS), an established individualized, patient-centred outcome measure, is used to capture the patient's voice. Although first introduced ~60 years ago, there are few published guidelines for implementing GAS, and almost none for its use when caregivers GAS is implemented with caregiver input. We conducted a systematic review of studies that implemented GAS with caregiver input; and examined variations in GAS implementation, analysis, and reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Literature was retrieved from Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases. We included randomized controlled trials (published between 1968 and November 2022) that used GAS as an outcome measure and involved caregiver input during goal setting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2610 studies imported for screening, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies employed GAS as a primary outcome. The majority (76%) had children as study participants. The most common disorders represented were cerebral palsy, developmental disorders, and dementia/Alzheimer's disease. The traditional five-point GAS scale, with levels from -2 to +2, was most often implemented, with -1 level typically being the baseline. However, most studies omitted essential GAS details from their reports including the number of goals set, number of attainment levels and whether any training was given to GAS facilitators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GAS with caregiver input has been used in a limited number of randomized controlled trials, primarily in pediatric patients and adults with dementia. There is a variability in GAS implementation and many crucial details related to the specifics of GAS implementation are omitted from reports, which may limit reproducibility. Here we propose catalog that may be utilized when reporting research results pertaining to GAS with caregivers to enhance the application of this patient-centered outcome measure.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10965877/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00716-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Goal attainment scaling (GAS), an established individualized, patient-centred outcome measure, is used to capture the patient's voice. Although first introduced ~60 years ago, there are few published guidelines for implementing GAS, and almost none for its use when caregivers GAS is implemented with caregiver input. We conducted a systematic review of studies that implemented GAS with caregiver input; and examined variations in GAS implementation, analysis, and reporting.

Methods: Literature was retrieved from Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases. We included randomized controlled trials (published between 1968 and November 2022) that used GAS as an outcome measure and involved caregiver input during goal setting.

Results: Of the 2610 studies imported for screening, 21 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies employed GAS as a primary outcome. The majority (76%) had children as study participants. The most common disorders represented were cerebral palsy, developmental disorders, and dementia/Alzheimer's disease. The traditional five-point GAS scale, with levels from -2 to +2, was most often implemented, with -1 level typically being the baseline. However, most studies omitted essential GAS details from their reports including the number of goals set, number of attainment levels and whether any training was given to GAS facilitators.

Conclusions: GAS with caregiver input has been used in a limited number of randomized controlled trials, primarily in pediatric patients and adults with dementia. There is a variability in GAS implementation and many crucial details related to the specifics of GAS implementation are omitted from reports, which may limit reproducibility. Here we propose catalog that may be utilized when reporting research results pertaining to GAS with caregivers to enhance the application of this patient-centered outcome measure.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在随机对照试验中,对护理人员实现目标的规模化实施方法进行系统回顾。
背景:目标达成量表(GAS)是一种成熟的个性化、以患者为中心的结果测量方法,用于捕捉患者的心声。尽管 GAS 早在 60 年前就已问世,但目前几乎没有关于实施 GAS 的公开指南,也几乎没有关于在护理人员参与下实施 GAS 的指南。我们对有护理人员参与的 GAS 实施研究进行了系统回顾,并检查了 GAS 实施、分析和报告方面的差异:从 Medline、Embase、Cochrane、PsycInfo 和 CINAHL 数据库中检索文献。我们纳入了使用 GAS 作为结果测量指标并在目标设定过程中涉及护理人员意见的随机对照试验(发表于 1968 年至 2022 年 11 月):结果:在筛选的 2610 项研究中,有 21 项符合纳入标准。大多数研究将 GAS 作为主要结果。大多数研究(76%)的参与者为儿童。最常见的疾病是脑瘫、发育障碍和痴呆/阿尔茨海默病。最常采用的是传统的五点 GAS 量表,等级从-2 到 +2,其中-1 级通常是基线。然而,大多数研究在报告中都忽略了 GAS 的基本细节,包括设定目标的数量、达到目标的等级数量以及是否对 GAS 促进者进行了培训:结论:在有限的随机对照试验中,主要在儿科患者和成人痴呆症患者中使用了有护理人员参与的 GAS。GAS 的实施存在差异,而且报告中遗漏了许多与 GAS 实施细节相关的重要细节,这可能会限制可重复性。在此,我们提出了在报告与护理人员的 GAS 相关的研究结果时可以使用的目录,以加强这种以患者为中心的结果测量方法的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Nepali version of Sexual Interest and Satisfaction Scale (SIS): a cross-sectional study. Anthropometric estimates can predict satisfaction with breast in a population of asymptomatic women. How to interpret patient-reported outcomes? - Stratified adjusted minimal important changes for the EQ-5D-3L in hip and knee replacement patients. Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on outpatient psychiatric population well-being and symptomology utilizing COVID-19 Events Checklist (CEC) and Measurement Based Care. International study to develop a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate outcomes of gender-affirming care - the GENDER-Q.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1