The use of Goal Attainment Scaling in a community health promotion initiative with seniors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evaluating collaborative community health promotion initiatives presents unique challenges, including engaging community members and other stakeholders in the evaluation process, and measuring the attainment of goals at the collective community level. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a versatile, under-utilized evaluation tool adaptable to a wide range of situations. GAS actively involves all partners in the evaluation process and has many benefits when used in community health settings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to describe the use of GAS as a potential means of measuring progress and outcomes in community health promotion and community development projects. GAS methodology was used in a local community of seniors (n = 2500; mean age = 76 ± 8.06 SD; 77% female, 23% male) to a) collaboratively set health promotion and community partnership goals and b) objectively measure the degree of achievement, over- or under-achievement of the established health promotion goals. Goal attainment was measured in a variety of areas including operationalizing a health promotion centre in a local mall, developing a sustainable mechanism for recruiting and training volunteers to operate the health promotion centre, and developing and implementing community health education programs. Goal attainment was evaluated at 3 monthly intervals for one year, then re-evaluated again at year 2.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GAS was found to be a feasible and responsive method of measuring community health promotion and community development progress. All project goals were achieved at one year or sooner. The overall GAS score for the total health promotion project increased from 16.02 at baseline (sum of scale scores = -30, average scale score = -2) to 54.53 at one year (sum of scale scores = +4, average scale score = +0.27) showing project goals were achieved above the expected level. With GAS methodology an amalgamated score of 50 represents the achievement of goals at the expected level.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>GAS provides a "participatory", flexible evaluation approach that involves community members, research partners and other stakeholders in the evaluation process. GAS was found to be "user-friendly" and readily understandable by seniors and other community partners not familiar with program evaluation.</p

Family physician views about primary care reform in Ontario: a postal questionnaire

BACKGROUND: Primary care reform initiatives in Ontario are proceeding with little information about the views of practicing family physicians. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 1200 randomly selected family physicians in Ontario five months after the initial invitation to join the Ontario Family Health Network. It sought information about their practice characteristics, their intention to participate in the Network and their views about the organization and financing of primary care. RESULTS: The response rate was 50.3%. While many family physicians recognize the need for change in the delivery of primary care, the majority (72%) did not expect to join the Ontario Family Health Network by 2004, or by some later date (60%). Nor did they favour capitation or rostering, 2 key elements of the proposed reforms. Physicians who favour capitation were 5.5 times more likely to report that they expected to join the Network by 2004, although these practices comprise 5% of the sample. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey, conducted five months after the initial offering of primary care reform agreements to all Ontario physicians, suggest that an 80% enrollment target is unrealistic

Accuracy of prognosis estimates by four palliative care teams: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Prognosis estimates are used to access services, but are often inaccurate. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of giving a prognosis range. METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS: A prospective cohort study in four multi-professional palliative care teams in England collected data on 275 consecutive cancer referrals who died. Prognosis estimates (minimum – maximum) at referral, patient characteristics, were recorded by staff, and later compared with actual survival. RESULTS: Minimum survival estimates ranged <1 to 364 days, maximum 7 – 686 days. Mean patient survival was 71 days (range 1 – 734). In 42% the estimate was accurate, in 36% it was over optimistic and in 22% over pessimistic. When the minimum estimate was less than 14 days accuracy increased to 70%. Accuracy was related, in multivariate analysis, to palliative care team and (of borderline significance) patient age. CONCLUSIONS: Offering a prognosis range has higher levels of accuracy (about double) than traditional estimates, but is still very often inaccurate, except very close to death. Where possible clinicians should discuss scenarios with patients, rather than giving a prognosis range