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

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 toward 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, PsycINFO, Scopus, OTSeeker, REHABDATA) and four registries (Clinicaltrials.gov, Grey Literature Report, Mednar, OpenGrey). 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 < 0.001), with post-intervention GAS scores being higher than pre-intervention GAS scores. Three included studies showed a high risk of bias, 3 showed a moderate risk of bias, and 4 showed a low risk of bias. Overall risk of bias of included studies was rated as moderate.

CONCLUSION

GAS showed an improvement in goal attainment across different dementia patient populations and intervention types. The overall moderate risk of bias suggests that while bias is present across included studies (e.g., small sample size, unblinded assessors), the observed effect likely represents the true effect. This suggests that GAS is responsive to functional change and may be suitable for use in older adult populations with neurodegenerative disease experiencing dementia or cognitive impairment.