A multi-site study of the feasibility and clinical utility of Goal Attainment Scaling in geriatric day hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is an individualized goal-setting and measurement approach that is useful for patients with multiple, individualized health problems, such as those served by geriatric day hospitals (GDHs) and other specialized geriatric programmes. PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and utility of GAS in a multi-site study of six GDH affiliated with the Regional Geriatric Programmes of Ontario. METHOD: Individualized GAS guides were developed for 15 consecutively admitted patients at each site [total n = 90; mean age: 76.2 SD 8.3; 58.9% female; mean attendances: 24.0 SD 10.3]. Staff members (n = 39) were surveyed on their experience with GAS. RESULTS: Mean goals/patient ranged across sites from 2.1 to 4.3. Mean GAS discharge score was 52.3 SD 8.7, close to the theoretically expected values of 50 SD 10. Common goals included mobility, community reintegration, basic and instrumental activities of daily living, medical issues, cognition/communication, and home safety. Estimated mean time to develop a GAS guide ranged across sites from 15.3 to 43.8 min. CONCLUSION: Clients were often involved in goal setting; family involvement was less frequent. The staff survey identified challenges and benefits regarding the use of GAS. Study results are being used to inform a more consistent approach to the clinical and research use of GAS in GDH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".