Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review

Author:

Logan BenignusORCID,Jegatheesan DevORCID,Viecelli AndreaORCID,Pascoe ElaineORCID,Hubbard RuthORCID

Abstract

Objectives(1) Identify the healthcare settings in which goal attainment scaling (GAS) has been used as an outcome measure in randomised controlled trials. (2) Describe how GAS has been implemented by researchers in those trials.DesignScoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews approach.Data sourcesPubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched through 28 February 2022.Eligibility criteriaEnglish-language publications reporting on research where adults in healthcare settings were recruited to a randomised controlled trial where GAS was an outcome measure.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers completed data extraction. Data collected underwent descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 1,838 articles screened, 38 studies were included. These studies were most frequently conducted in rehabilitation (58%) and geriatric medicine (24%) disciplines/populations. Sample sizes ranged from 8 to 468, with a median of 51 participants (IQR: 30–96). A number of studies did not report on implementation aspects such as the personnel involved (26%), the training provided (79%) and the calibration and review mechanisms (87%). Not all trials used the same scale, with 24% varying from the traditional five-point scale. Outcome attainment was scored in various manners (self-report: 21%; observed: 26%; both self-report and observed: 8%; and not reported: 45%), and the calculation of GAS scores differed between trials (raw score: 21%; T score: 47%; other: 21%; and not reported: 66%).ConclusionsGAS has been used as an outcome measure across a wide range of disciplines and trial settings. However, there are inadequacies and inconsistencies in how it has been applied and implemented. Developing a cross-disciplinary practical guide to support a degree of standardisation in its implementation may be beneficial in increasing the reliability and comparability of trial results.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237541.

Funder

Redcliffe Hospital

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3