ArticlePatient related outcome measures2025
Clinician and Researcher Experiences with Goal Attainment Scaling: A Qualitative Study on Opportunities and Challenges for Personalized Outcome Assessments.
Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a personalized outcome measure that evaluates treatment response based on patient- and caregiver-prioritized goals, offering a structured yet flexible framework for assessing meaningful change. Although GAS is increasingly applied in clinical trials, its implementation remains inconsistent, and the perspectives of clinicians and researchers who use it in practice remain poorly understood. This study explored the experiences of clinicians and researchers with GAS to better understand how it is operationalized, the challenges encountered, and opportunities to improve its consistency and utility in patient-centered care and research. Participants and Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 clinicians and academics from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia who had experience using GAS in clinical or research settings. Data were analyzed thematically using the Framework Method, with coding conducted inductively and supported by NVivo 12. Results: Participants valued GAS for capturing outcomes most meaningful to patients and demonstrating treatment responsiveness in heterogeneous conditions. However, clinician resistance, time demands, limited familiarity, and variability in implementation across settings were identified as key challenges. Education, peer advocacy, and digital tools were suggested as strategies to improve feasibility and consistency. Conclusion: Clinicians and researchers view GAS as a valuable patient-centered outcome measure but highlight variability in implementation as a barrier to broader adoption. Guidelines for GAS implementation, training, and supportive tools may strengthen the use of GAS in both clinical practice and research, ultimately improving the measurement of outcomes that matter most to patients.
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.