4.4 Article

Categorisation of goals set using Goal Attainment Scaling for treatment of leg spasticity: a multicentre analysis

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 41, 期 16, 页码 1925-1930

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1451927

关键词

Goal setting; categorisation; activities; lower limb; muscle spasticity; standardising goals

资金

  1. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) [CAT CL-2012-03-010]
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK
  3. NIHR CLAHRC Northwest London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Goal-classification of person-centred goals, using Goal Attainment Scaling for leg spasticity treatment. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases: phase I, a retrospective review to evaluate categories of goal set in routine clinical practice. Findings were used to design a goal classification system. Phase II, a multi-centre study to confirm the goal categories. Goals set (n = 270) were analysed from data collected at three centres in the UK (one centre for phase I). Goal categories were mapped onto the domains of the World Health Organisation, International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health. Results: One hundred and twenty seven participants were recruited in two cohorts: phase I: 63; phase II: 64. Goal categories using both cohorts were assigned to two domains, each subdivided into three key goal categories: Domain 1: body structure impairment 121 (44%): (a) pain/discomfort 34 (12%), (b) involuntary movements 20 (7%), and (c) range of movement/contracture prevention 67 (25%). Domain 2: activity function 149 (56%): (a) passive function (ease of caring for the affected limb) n = 89 (33%), (b) active function (transfers) 26 (10%), and (c) active function (mobility) 27 (10%), other n = 7 (3%). Conclusions: Patients individual leg spasticity goals can be grouped into six categories and two domains, which will assist clinicians, patients and cares in setting and evaluating goals in practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据