Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35416628›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022

Patient and provider perspectives on using goal attainment scaling in care planning for older adults with complex needs.

Catherine A Clair, Shana F Sandberg, Sarah H Scholle, Jacqueline Willits, Lee A Jennings, Erin R Giovannetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Catherine A ClairJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. cclair1@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8286-566X
Shana F SandbergNORC at the University of Chicago, 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
Sarah H ScholleNational Committee for Quality Assurance, 1100 13th St, NW, Washington, DC, 20005, USA.
Jacqueline WillitsNational Committee for Quality Assurance, 1100 13th St, NW, Washington, DC, 20005, USA.
Lee A JenningsReynolds Section of Geriatric Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 1122 N.E. 13th Street, ORB 1200, Oklahoma City, OK, 73117, USA.
Erin R GiovannettiMedStar Health Economics and Aging Research Institute, MedStar Health Research Institute, 5601 Loch Raven Boulevard, Baltimore, MD, 21239, USA.

Funding

EPA EP-C-15-031john a. hartford foundation 2015-0152scan foundation G15-031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssess the feasibility of using goal attainment scaling (GAS) in care planning for older adults with complex needs. GAS is an individualized approach to goal setting and follow up using a quantified scale. To date, little is known about the feasibility of GAS among this population.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study with a sample of 28 older adults and 23 providers from diverse settings to evaluate the value and challenges of this approach. We conducted semi-structured interviews and iteratively coded and analyzed interview transcripts for themes related to value, challenges, and implementation.

resultsMost older adults and providers reported that the GAS approach added value to the care encounter. GAS supported collaboration and patient accountability for their goals, though it could be demotivating to some patients. Some older adults and providers noted that GAS could be confusing and that it was uncomfortable to talk about negative outcomes (i.e., the - 2 and - 1 boxes of the scale). Factors that facilitated implementation included using visual copies of the GAS forms, having an established patient-provider relationship, practicing the approach, and having previous goal-related clinical training.

conclusionsGAS was feasible to implement across diverse settings, and, despite challenges, both older adults and providers reported that it added value to care planning encounters with the potential to improve delivery of person-centered care. Further efforts to demonstrate the applicability and benefit of this method for older adults are warranted, particularly to address implementation of the approach.

Indexed as

Goal attainment scalingGoal-based carePerson-centered careQualitative

Identifiers

PMID35416628
PMCPMC9008078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.