Cargando…

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

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. DESIGN: Scoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for System...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Logan, Benignus, Jegatheesan, Dev, Viecelli, Andrea, Pascoe, Elaine, Hubbard, Ruth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35868829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063061
_version_ 1784754704637493248
author Logan, Benignus
Jegatheesan, Dev
Viecelli, Andrea
Pascoe, Elaine
Hubbard, Ruth
author_facet Logan, Benignus
Jegatheesan, Dev
Viecelli, Andrea
Pascoe, Elaine
Hubbard, Ruth
author_sort Logan, Benignus
collection PubMed
description 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. DESIGN: Scoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews approach. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched through 28 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English-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 SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers completed data extraction. Data collected underwent descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 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%). CONCLUSIONS: GAS 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 NUMBER: CRD42021237541.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9316030
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93160302022-08-11 Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review Logan, Benignus Jegatheesan, Dev Viecelli, Andrea Pascoe, Elaine Hubbard, Ruth BMJ Open Research Methods 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. DESIGN: Scoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews approach. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched through 28 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English-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 SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers completed data extraction. Data collected underwent descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 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%). CONCLUSIONS: GAS 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 NUMBER: CRD42021237541. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9316030/ /pubmed/35868829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063061 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Methods
Logan, Benignus
Jegatheesan, Dev
Viecelli, Andrea
Pascoe, Elaine
Hubbard, Ruth
Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
title Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
title_full Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
title_fullStr Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
title_short Goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
title_sort goal attainment scaling as an outcome measure for randomised controlled trials: a scoping review
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9316030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35868829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063061
work_keys_str_mv AT loganbenignus goalattainmentscalingasanoutcomemeasureforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview
AT jegatheesandev goalattainmentscalingasanoutcomemeasureforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview
AT viecelliandrea goalattainmentscalingasanoutcomemeasureforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview
AT pascoeelaine goalattainmentscalingasanoutcomemeasureforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview
AT hubbardruth goalattainmentscalingasanoutcomemeasureforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreview