Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      BackgroundIt is increasingly acknowledged that ‘acceptability’ should be considered when designing, evaluating and implementing healthcare interventions. However, the published literature offers little guidance on how to define or assess acceptability. The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-construct theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions that can be applied to assess prospective (i.e. anticipated) and retrospective (i.e. experienced) acceptability from the perspective of intervention delivers and recipients.MethodsTwo methods were used to select the component constructs of acceptability. 1) An overview of reviews was conducted to identify systematic reviews that claim to define, theorise or measure acceptability of healthcare interventions. 2) Principles of inductive and deductive reasoning were applied to theorise the concept of acceptability and develop a theoretical framework. Steps included (1) defining acceptability; (2) describing its properties and scope and (3) identifying component constructs and empirical indicators.ResultsFrom the 43 reviews included in the overview, none explicitly theorised or defined acceptability. Measures used to assess acceptability focused on behaviour (e.g. dropout rates) (23 reviews), affect (i.e. feelings) (5 reviews), cognition (i.e. perceptions) (7 reviews) or a combination of these (8 reviews).From the methods described above we propose a definition: Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) consists of seven component constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy.ConclusionDespite frequent claims that healthcare interventions have assessed acceptability, it is evident that acceptability research could be more robust. The proposed definition of acceptability and the TFA can inform assessment tools and evaluations of the acceptability of new or existing interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 61

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Using thematic analysis in psychology

        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: not found
        • Article: not found

        The theory of planned behavior

         Icek Ajzen (1991)
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

           A Bandura (1977)
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8497, GRID grid.28577.3f, , City, University of London, ; Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0JB UK
            Contributors
            ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5109-9536, +0044 0207 040 0890 , Mandeep.sekhon.1@city.ac.uk
            Martin.cartwright.1@city.ac.uk
            Jill.francis.1@city.ac.uk
            Journal
            BMC Health Serv Res
            BMC Health Serv Res
            BMC Health Services Research
            BioMed Central (London )
            1472-6963
            26 January 2017
            26 January 2017
            2017
            : 17
            28126032
            5267473
            2031
            10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8
            © The Author(s). 2017

            Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

            Categories
            Research Article
            Custom metadata
            © The Author(s) 2017

            Comments

            Comment on this article