Assessing the Feasibility of Using an Electronic Platform for Personalized Outcome Assessment: GoalNav for Goal Attainment Scaling
Author(s)
Gunes Sevinc, BSc, MSc, PhD1, Aaqib Shehzad, MSc2, Sue Nesto, MA2, Katie Crespo, BPharm2, Chere Chapman, MBA, MPH2, Kenneth Rockwood, MD3, Susan E Howlett, PhD3;
1Ardea Outcomes, Director of Patient-Centered Outcomes, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2Ardea Outcomes, Halifax, NS, Canada, 3Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
1Ardea Outcomes, Director of Patient-Centered Outcomes, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2Ardea Outcomes, Halifax, NS, Canada, 3Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
OBJECTIVES: Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is a clinician-facilitated clinical outcome assessment that quantifies the impact of interventions on individualized goals. While it offers a systematic approach to measuring meaningful change, a lack of standardization in its implementation can undermine its reliability and hinder its regulatory acceptance. To address this, we standardized GAS implementation using an electronic clinical outcome assessment platform (GoalNav®) and evaluated its feasibility and acceptability by clinicians.
METHODS: Four clinicians utilized GoalNav® to conduct GAS assessments with 26 patient/caregiver dyads (mean age 78.1±7.9 years, range 51-92) across 3 ambulatory geriatric clinics. Goal attainment was assessed after three months through remote follow-up interviews. Platform acceptability was evaluated using surveys (eight multiple-choice and six open-ended questions) and semi-structured interviews. An acceptability score was calculated, with higher scores representing greater acceptability. Interviews were analyzed thematically to identify key insights.
RESULTS: Seventy-one goals [range 1-4] were set across executive function, behavior, cognition, daily function, and physical manifestation domains. Follow-up interviews were completed by 25 participants, resulting in an attrition rate of 4%. Clinicians reported an 80% acceptability rate (mean score 1.06± 0.39) for GoalNav®. While open-ended responses highlighted its utility in providing a structured framework for goal setting and scaling, semi-structured interviews underscored the platform’s feasibility, user-friendliness, and ease of use. Key benefits included having an embedded goal inventory for goal setting, built-in checks and validation, customizable free-text boxes, and platform compatibility. Potential risks associated with inadequate training and logistical concerns, such as internet connectivity, were also mentioned.
CONCLUSIONS: Using GoalNav® to standardize GAS implementation is feasible and acceptable for clinicians. Assessing logistical needs in the study start-up phase and providing comprehensive training—i.e., one-on-one simulation in a sandbox environment and personalized real-time feedback through in-study goal reviews—may help mitigate the abovementioned risks and increase its adoption as a tool for personalized outcome assessment.
METHODS: Four clinicians utilized GoalNav® to conduct GAS assessments with 26 patient/caregiver dyads (mean age 78.1±7.9 years, range 51-92) across 3 ambulatory geriatric clinics. Goal attainment was assessed after three months through remote follow-up interviews. Platform acceptability was evaluated using surveys (eight multiple-choice and six open-ended questions) and semi-structured interviews. An acceptability score was calculated, with higher scores representing greater acceptability. Interviews were analyzed thematically to identify key insights.
RESULTS: Seventy-one goals [range 1-4] were set across executive function, behavior, cognition, daily function, and physical manifestation domains. Follow-up interviews were completed by 25 participants, resulting in an attrition rate of 4%. Clinicians reported an 80% acceptability rate (mean score 1.06± 0.39) for GoalNav®. While open-ended responses highlighted its utility in providing a structured framework for goal setting and scaling, semi-structured interviews underscored the platform’s feasibility, user-friendliness, and ease of use. Key benefits included having an embedded goal inventory for goal setting, built-in checks and validation, customizable free-text boxes, and platform compatibility. Potential risks associated with inadequate training and logistical concerns, such as internet connectivity, were also mentioned.
CONCLUSIONS: Using GoalNav® to standardize GAS implementation is feasible and acceptable for clinicians. Assessing logistical needs in the study start-up phase and providing comprehensive training—i.e., one-on-one simulation in a sandbox environment and personalized real-time feedback through in-study goal reviews—may help mitigate the abovementioned risks and increase its adoption as a tool for personalized outcome assessment.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
PCR67
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
SDC: Geriatrics