BACKGROUND: Since evidence-based interventions are the standard, there is an urgent need for more information concerning individual ways of measuring clinically relevant outcomes of interventions in cognitive disorders such as dementia. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) seems to offer a meaningful outcome measure. AIM: To examine the applicability of GAS in psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on the available literature on the clinimetric aspects and the feasibility of GAS when used as an outcome measure for psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. Eight databases were screened. Two authors independently reviewed all the data. Ten studies were included. RESULTS: Mixed results were found for responsiveness, content validity, inter-rater reliability and construct/convergent validity. The involvement of patient and/or caregiver in the goal-setting procedure is possible and multiple domains can be implemented. The possibility to set at least 3 realistic goals per patient in less than 30 min is unclear and the need for involvement of a blinded assessor is not well established. CONCLUSION: GAS proved to be useful on important aspects of an outcome measure for psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. Since other relevant aspects showed mixed results and the number of studies investigating the use of GAS in psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders is small, the evidence is not strong enough yet to state that GAS is an applicable outcome measure in this population. Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: Since evidence-based interventions are the standard, there is an urgent need for more information concerning individual ways of measuring clinically relevant outcomes of interventions in cognitive disorders such as dementia. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) seems to offer a meaningful outcome measure. AIM: To examine the applicability of GAS in psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on the available literature on the clinimetric aspects and the feasibility of GAS when used as an outcome measure for psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. Eight databases were screened. Two authors independently reviewed all the data. Ten studies were included. RESULTS: Mixed results were found for responsiveness, content validity, inter-rater reliability and construct/convergent validity. The involvement of patient and/or caregiver in the goal-setting procedure is possible and multiple domains can be implemented. The possibility to set at least 3 realistic goals per patient in less than 30 min is unclear and the need for involvement of a blinded assessor is not well established. CONCLUSION: GAS proved to be useful on important aspects of an outcome measure for psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. Since other relevant aspects showed mixed results and the number of studies investigating the use of GAS in psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders is small, the evidence is not strong enough yet to state that GAS is an applicable outcome measure in this population. Copyright 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Charlotte M W Gaasterland; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Stephanie S Weinreich; Johanna H van der Lee Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Annemarie J B M de Vos; Kirsten J E Asmus-Szepesi; Ton J E M Bakker; Paul L de Vreede; Jeroen D H van Wijngaarden; Ewout W Steyerberg; Johan P Mackenbach; Anna P Nieboer Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Lizzy Mm Boots; Marjolein E de Vugt; Claudia Mj Smeets; Gertrudis Ijm Kempen; Frans Rj Verhey Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Christian A Brünahl; Susanne G R Klotz; Christoph Dybowski; Björn Riegel; Sonja Gregorzik; Dean A Tripp; Gesche Ketels; Bernd Löwe Journal: Trials Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: S Urach; Cmw Gaasterland; M Posch; B Jilma; K Roes; G Rosenkranz; J H Van der Lee; R Ristl Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Taylor Dunn; Susan E Howlett; Sanja Stanojevic; Aaqib Shehzad; Justin Stanley; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 5.428