Evaluating the Feasibility of a Personalized Endpoint in Down Syndrome‐associated Alzheimer’s Disease: Inventory‐facilitated Goal Attainment Scaling

-д хадгалсан:
Номзүйн дэлгэрэнгүй
-д хэвлэсэн:Alzheimer's & Dementia vol. 21 (Dec 1, 2025)
Үндсэн зохиолч: Sevinc, Gunes
Бусад зохиолчид: George, Michelle, Crespo, Katie, Kelly, Lois, Hillerstrom, Hampus, Hendrix, James, Chapman, Chere, Rockwood, Kenneth
Хэвлэсэн:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Нөхцлүүд:
Онлайн хандалт:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Шошгууд: Шошго нэмэх
Шошго байхгүй, Энэхүү баримтыг шошголох эхний хүн болох!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3285988204
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 1552-5260 
022 |a 1552-5279 
024 7 |a 10.1002/alz70861_108133  |2 doi 
035 |a 3285988204 
045 0 |b d20251201 
100 1 |a Sevinc, Gunes  |u Ardea Outcomes, Halifax, NS, Canada 
245 1 |a Evaluating the Feasibility of a Personalized Endpoint in Down Syndrome‐associated Alzheimer’s Disease: Inventory‐facilitated Goal Attainment Scaling 
260 |b John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  |c Dec 1, 2025 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a Background Evaluating health outcomes in Down syndrome‐associated Alzheimer’s disease (DS‐AD) is challenging due to variability in baseline function and cognition. Personalized outcome assessments, like Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), can address this gap and capture treatment responses across varying baseline states and symptom manifestations. However, implementation must be standardized through tools such as goal inventories. Here, we assessed the content validity of the DS‐AD goal inventory (Knox et al., 2020, 2021) and investigated the feasibility and acceptability of inventory‐facilitated GAS as a patient‐centric tool to evaluate treatment response. Method We conducted a prospective, 16‐month, non‐interventional study using the DS‐AD goal inventory to facilitate GAS with caregivers of individuals with Down syndrome. The inventory included 58 goal areas distributed across behavior, cognition, daily function, executive function, and physical manifestation domains. The content validity of the goal inventory was assessed through a qualitative analysis of goal scales and alignment with the existing inventory. Goal count, goal scale completeness, and interview durations were used as feasibility indicators. An end‐of‐study survey evaluated acceptability. Result Forty‐six caregivers set 3 goals with 5‐levels each and assessed goal attainment at the 3 (n =45) and 16‐month follow‐ups (n =43). Mean interview times were 38.6 (±10.4) minutes for goal‐setting and 17.9 (±9.5) and 14.5 (±4.7) minutes for 3‐ and 16‐month follow‐ups. Out of 138 goals, 117 were initially selected from the inventory. The qualitative analysis indicated that the majority of the goals were from the Daily Function (n =65) and Behavior (n =26) domains (Figures 1&2), and that the inventory covered 125 (91%) goals. A qualitative analysis of the remaining goals (n =13) revealed diet and physical activity as additional goal areas. Survey results (n =33) indicated that caregivers had positive experiences with GAS (n =31), found their goals meaningful (n =31), valued improved clinician communication (n =30), and gained new perspectives and knowledge (n =10). Conclusion Our findings indicate GAS is feasible and acceptable to caregivers, and the DS‐AD goal inventory comprehensively reflects patient priorities. Additional gaps identified led to inventory enhancements, resulting in a more comprehensive resource to standardize GAS implementation in DS‐AD studies. 
653 |a Physical fitness 
653 |a Qualitative research 
653 |a Measures 
653 |a Patient-centered care 
653 |a Caregivers 
653 |a Alzheimer's disease 
653 |a Objectives 
653 |a Function 
653 |a Cognition 
653 |a Politics 
653 |a Health status 
653 |a Attainment 
653 |a Acceptability 
653 |a Polls & surveys 
653 |a Feasibility 
653 |a Executive function 
653 |a Interviews 
653 |a Disease 
653 |a Down syndrome 
653 |a Diet 
653 |a Physical activity 
653 |a Medical treatment 
653 |a Patients 
653 |a Responses 
653 |a Implementation 
653 |a Customization 
700 1 |a George, Michelle  |u Ardea Outcomes, Halifax, NS, Canada 
700 1 |a Crespo, Katie  |u Ardea Outcomes, Halifax, NS, Canada 
700 1 |a Kelly, Lois  |u LuMind IDSC Foundation, Woburn, MA, USA 
700 1 |a Hillerstrom, Hampus  |u LuMind IDSC Foundation, Woburn, MA, USA 
700 1 |a Hendrix, James  |u Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA 
700 1 |a Chapman, Chere  |u Ardea Outcomes, Halifax, NS, Canada 
700 1 |a Rockwood, Kenneth  |u Ardea Outcomes, Halifax, NS, Canada 
773 0 |t Alzheimer's & Dementia  |g vol. 21 (Dec 1, 2025) 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Consumer Health Database 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3285988204/abstract/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3285988204/fulltext/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3285988204/fulltextPDF/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch