ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Goal attainment scaling for patients with chronic low back pain receiving physical therapist care: a feasibility and reliability study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain is a widespread health concern in the United States. Traditional measures used for low back pain may lack meaningfulness to patients and be unable to capture patient's individual experience. This study aimed to examine the feasibility of a goal attainment scaling application for chronic low back pain patients (GAS-Back) and the nature of goals identified by patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) receiving physical therapist (PT) care.
methodsThis feasibility study consists of a single-group, longitudinal, preliminary study with variation in baseline, intervention, and follow-up for each participant. It was conducted at the University of South Florida Health Physical Therapy Center (USF PT Center) in Tampa, FL. Convenience sampling was used to recruit potential participants. Thirty-three participants (n = 33) with cLBP, ranging from 21 to 64 years old, were enrolled in this study and completed GAS-Back in PT care. The primary outcomes of this study were GAS-Back training time (hours), GAS-Back implementation time (minutes and seconds), PT adherence (percent adherence to protocol), interrater reliability, and patient satisfaction and engagement. Secondary outcomes were the domain and subdomain for the nature of goals identified (percentages) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) categorization.
resultsGAS-Back clinician training time (7 h) and the average GAS-Back implementation time (9 min 9 s) were both considered to be efficient. Clinician adherence (89%) was considered feasible. High interrater reliability was observed for both GAS-Back goal comparison (95%) and GAS T-Score comparison (0.782). The majority of patient's (93%) noted "Very Good" or "Excellent" satisfaction and PTs (63%) observed mostly "Very Good" or "Excellent" patient engagement with GAS-Back. Participants set an average of 3 goals to which majority of participants (88%) identified at least one goal pertaining to activity limitations.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the feasibility and fidelity of using GAS-Back for patients with cLBP receiving PT care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.