Suitability of Goal Attainment Scaling in Older Adult Populations with Neurodegenerative Disease Experiencing Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Rent via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing of this article Organize, annotate and mark up articles Printing and downloading restrictions apply

Start free trial

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details Abstract

Introduction: Identifying responsive outcome measures for assessing functional change related to cognition, communication, and quality of life for individuals with neurodegenerative disease is important for intervention design and clinical care. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) has been used as an outcome measure to formally develop and systematically measure incremental progress towards functional, patient-centered goals in clinical settings. Evidence suggests that GAS is reliable and feasible for use in older adult populations and in adult populations with cognitive impairment, but no review has assessed the suitability of GAS in older adults with neurodegenerative disease experiencing dementia or cognitive impairment, based on responsiveness. This study conducted a systematic review to evaluate the suitability of GAS as an outcome measure for older adult populations with neurodegenerative disease experiencing dementia or cognitive impairment, based on responsiveness. Methods: The review was registered with PROSPERO and performed by searching ten electronic scientific databases (PubMed, Medline OVID, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PsychINFO, Scopus, OTSeeker, RehabDATA) and four registries (Clinicaltrials.gov, Grey Literature Report, Mednar, Open Grey). A summary measure of responsiveness (post-intervention minus pre-intervention mean GAS T-score) was compared across eligible studies using a random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group. Results: 882 eligible articles were identified and screened by two independent reviewers. Ten studies met inclusion criteria for the final analysis. Of the ten included reports, 3 focus on all-cause dementia, 3 on Multiple Sclerosis, 1 on Parkinson’s Disease, 1 on Mild Cognitive Impairment, 1 on Alzheimer’s Disease, and 1 on Primary Progressive Aphasia. Responsiveness analyses showed pre- and post-intervention GAS goals were significantly different from zero (Z=7.48, p

S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details

Comments (0)

No login
gif