4.2 Review

Review of Goal Attainment Scaling as a Useful Outcome Measure in Psychogeriatric Patients with Cognitive Disorders

期刊

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 528-540

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000178757

关键词

Individualized approach; Clinimetrics; Feasibility; Ecological validity; Everyday functioning; Daily life activities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据