为痴呆症患者及其家庭照顾者设定个性化目标:目标设定结果测量及其心理测量特性的系统性回顾。

Dementia (London, England) Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-17 DOI:10.1177/14713012231222309
Jessica Budgett, Andrew Sommerlad, Nuriye Kupeli, Sedigheh Zabihi, Anna Olsen, Claudia Cooper
{"title":"为痴呆症患者及其家庭照顾者设定个性化目标:目标设定结果测量及其心理测量特性的系统性回顾。","authors":"Jessica Budgett, Andrew Sommerlad, Nuriye Kupeli, Sedigheh Zabihi, Anna Olsen, Claudia Cooper","doi":"10.1177/14713012231222309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individualised goal-setting outcome measures can be a useful way of reflecting people living with dementia and family carers' differing priorities regarding quality-of-life domains in the highly heterogeneous symptomatology of the disease. Evaluating goal-setting measures is challenging, and there is limited evidence for their psychometric properties.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>(1) To describe what goal-setting outcomes have been used in this population; (2) To evaluate their validity, reliability, and feasibility in RCTs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We systematically reviewed studies that utilised goal-setting outcome measures for people living dementia or their family carers. We adapted a risk of bias and quality rating system based on the COSMIN guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties of outcomes when used within RCTs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies meeting inclusion criteria used four different goal-setting outcome measures: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), Bangor Goal Setting Interview (BGSI), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Individually Prioritized Problems Assessment (IPPA); other papers have reported study-specific goal-setting attainment systems. Only GAS has been used as an outcome over periods greater than 9 months (up to a year). Within RCTs there was moderate quality evidence for sufficient content validity and construct validity for GAS, COPM and the BGSI. Reliability was only assessed in one RCT (using BGSI); in which two raters reviewed interview transcripts to rate goals with excellent inter-rater reliability. Feasibility was reported as good across the measures with a low level of missing data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found moderate quality evidence for good content and construct validity and feasibility of GAS, BGSI and COPM. While more evidence of reliability of these measures is needed, we recommend that future trials consider using individualised goal setting measures, to report the effect of interventions on outcomes that are most meaningful to people living with dementia and their families.</p>","PeriodicalId":72778,"journal":{"name":"Dementia (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":"312-340"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10807246/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Setting individualised goals for people living with dementia and their family carers: A systematic review of goal-setting outcome measures and their psychometric properties.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Budgett, Andrew Sommerlad, Nuriye Kupeli, Sedigheh Zabihi, Anna Olsen, Claudia Cooper\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14713012231222309\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individualised goal-setting outcome measures can be a useful way of reflecting people living with dementia and family carers' differing priorities regarding quality-of-life domains in the highly heterogeneous symptomatology of the disease. Evaluating goal-setting measures is challenging, and there is limited evidence for their psychometric properties.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>(1) To describe what goal-setting outcomes have been used in this population; (2) To evaluate their validity, reliability, and feasibility in RCTs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We systematically reviewed studies that utilised goal-setting outcome measures for people living dementia or their family carers. We adapted a risk of bias and quality rating system based on the COSMIN guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties of outcomes when used within RCTs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies meeting inclusion criteria used four different goal-setting outcome measures: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), Bangor Goal Setting Interview (BGSI), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Individually Prioritized Problems Assessment (IPPA); other papers have reported study-specific goal-setting attainment systems. Only GAS has been used as an outcome over periods greater than 9 months (up to a year). Within RCTs there was moderate quality evidence for sufficient content validity and construct validity for GAS, COPM and the BGSI. Reliability was only assessed in one RCT (using BGSI); in which two raters reviewed interview transcripts to rate goals with excellent inter-rater reliability. Feasibility was reported as good across the measures with a low level of missing data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found moderate quality evidence for good content and construct validity and feasibility of GAS, BGSI and COPM. While more evidence of reliability of these measures is needed, we recommend that future trials consider using individualised goal setting measures, to report the effect of interventions on outcomes that are most meaningful to people living with dementia and their families.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72778,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dementia (London, England)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"312-340\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10807246/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dementia (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14713012231222309\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14713012231222309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:个性化的目标设定结果测量方法可以有效反映痴呆症患者和家庭照顾者在高度异质性的疾病症状中对生活质量领域的不同优先考虑。目的:(1)描述哪些目标设定结果被用于该人群;(2)评估其有效性、可靠性以及在 RCT 中的可行性:我们系统回顾了针对痴呆症患者或其家庭照顾者使用目标设定结果测量的研究。我们根据 COSMIN 指南调整了偏倚风险和质量评级系统,以评估 RCT 中使用的结果测量特性:符合纳入标准的 30 项研究使用了四种不同的目标设定结果测量方法:目标达成量表 (GAS)、班戈目标设定访谈 (BGSI)、加拿大职业表现测量 (COPM) 和个体优先问题评估 (IPPA);其他论文报告了针对特定研究的目标设定达成系统。只有 GAS 被用作超过 9 个月(最长一年)的结果。在 RCT 中,有中等质量的证据表明 GAS、COPM 和 BGSI 具有足够的内容效度和结构效度。可靠性仅在一项 RCT(使用 BGSI)中进行了评估;在这项 RCT 中,两名评分者审查了访谈记录,对目标进行评分,评分者之间的可靠性极佳。据报告,所有测量方法的可行性都很好,数据缺失率较低:我们发现中等质量的证据表明,GAS、BGSI 和 COPM 具有良好的内容和结构效度及可行性。虽然还需要更多证据来证明这些测量方法的可靠性,但我们建议未来的试验考虑使用个性化目标设定测量方法,以报告干预措施对痴呆症患者及其家人最有意义的结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Setting individualised goals for people living with dementia and their family carers: A systematic review of goal-setting outcome measures and their psychometric properties.

Background: Individualised goal-setting outcome measures can be a useful way of reflecting people living with dementia and family carers' differing priorities regarding quality-of-life domains in the highly heterogeneous symptomatology of the disease. Evaluating goal-setting measures is challenging, and there is limited evidence for their psychometric properties.

Aim: (1) To describe what goal-setting outcomes have been used in this population; (2) To evaluate their validity, reliability, and feasibility in RCTs.

Method: We systematically reviewed studies that utilised goal-setting outcome measures for people living dementia or their family carers. We adapted a risk of bias and quality rating system based on the COSMIN guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties of outcomes when used within RCTs.

Results: Thirty studies meeting inclusion criteria used four different goal-setting outcome measures: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), Bangor Goal Setting Interview (BGSI), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Individually Prioritized Problems Assessment (IPPA); other papers have reported study-specific goal-setting attainment systems. Only GAS has been used as an outcome over periods greater than 9 months (up to a year). Within RCTs there was moderate quality evidence for sufficient content validity and construct validity for GAS, COPM and the BGSI. Reliability was only assessed in one RCT (using BGSI); in which two raters reviewed interview transcripts to rate goals with excellent inter-rater reliability. Feasibility was reported as good across the measures with a low level of missing data.

Conclusion: We found moderate quality evidence for good content and construct validity and feasibility of GAS, BGSI and COPM. While more evidence of reliability of these measures is needed, we recommend that future trials consider using individualised goal setting measures, to report the effect of interventions on outcomes that are most meaningful to people living with dementia and their families.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信