17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to this journal, please click here

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

      Determining the perceived acceptability of an intervention designed to improve health literacy around developmentally appropriate play during infancy, with a community advisory group of mothers, in Soweto, South Africa

      research-article

      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

          Children require opportunities to participate in unstructured, unrestricted active play as infants, to encourage positive health, socioemotional and developmental outcomes in life. Certain social and environmental factors in the home setting can limit participation in play, particularly in low resource settings. As caregivers are their infants’ first teachers, they have the important role of providing opportunities and space for children to learn through play. This mixed methods, cross-sectional study aimed to test the acceptability of an intervention developed to improve health literacy around play and development with mothers from Soweto, South Africa. Fifteen mothers with infants aged 0–3 months were included to form a Community Advisory Group (CAG). Two rounds of focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to explore the understanding of, and barriers to play and development, and to determine the acceptability of an intervention prototype. The prototype included developmentally appropriate activities presented in video format, demonstrations of how to make toys, infographics and other educational material which would be delivered to participants as part of the intervention. A further questionnaire was administered to participants one week after the FGD to determine the acceptability of intervention activities which the participants completed at home, with their infants. Participants reported several barriers to play, including limited options for safe outdoor play, overcrowding, insufficient time, limited resources, and conflicting information. Participants suggested that the intervention content be delivered every 1–2 weeks, through a data-free app. Overall, the prototype activities tested at home were deemed acceptable. The reported barriers, together with reduced motivation and self-efficacy observed in the participants, guided the researchers to develop intervention content focused on improving health literacy in play and development, delivered in the form of an interactive mobile app. Future research will develop and test the efficacy of this intervention in a low resource setting in South Africa.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

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

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

          Background It 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. Methods Two 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. Results From 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. Conclusion Despite 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 material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research

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

              Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

              Background Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                plos
                PLOS Global Public Health
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                2767-3375
                29 August 2024
                2024
                : 4
                : 8
                : e0002233
                Affiliations
                [001] SA MRC/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                PLOS: Public Library of Science, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6738-0544
                Article
                PGPH-D-23-01043
                10.1371/journal.pgph.0002233
                11361429
                39208036
                8fc18c6a-1556-401d-a14f-ab53d804f4a7
                © 2024 Bennin et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 1 June 2023
                : 5 August 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 19
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 222007/Z/20/Z
                Award Recipient :
                “This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (using the UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) Funding) and Wellcome [222007/Z/20/Z] under the NIHR-Wellcome Partnership for Global Health Research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Wellcome, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.” The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. AP received funding for this work from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (using the UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) Funding) and Wellcome [222007/Z/20/Z] under the NIHR-Wellcome Partnership for Global Health Research FB received no specific funding for this work HT received no specific funding for this work SAN received no specific funding for this work Dr Alessandra Prioreschi received a salary from the Wellcome Trust from the same fund.
                Categories
                Research Article
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Children
                Infants
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Families
                Children
                Infants
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Children
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Families
                Children
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Education and Awareness
                Engineering and Technology
                Technology Development
                Prototypes
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Families
                Mothers
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Perception
                Sensory Perception
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Perception
                Sensory Perception
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Perception
                Sensory Perception
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Sensory Perception
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Caregivers
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pediatrics
                Child Development
                Custom metadata
                All data can be found in the manuscript and Supporting information files.

                Comments

                Comment on this article