Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions

154Citations
Citations of this article
553Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) was developed in response to recommendations that acceptability should be assessed in the design, evaluation and implementation phases of healthcare interventions. The TFA consists of seven component constructs (affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy) that can help to identify characteristics of interventions that may be improved. The aim of this study was to develop a generic TFA questionnaire that can be adapted to assess acceptability of any healthcare intervention. Methods: Two intervention-specific acceptability questionnaires based on the TFA were developed using a 5-step pre-validation method for developing patient-reported outcome instruments: 1) item generation; 2) item de-duplication; 3) item reduction and creation; 4) assessment of discriminant content validity against a pre-specified framework (TFA); 5) feedback from key stakeholders. Next, a generic TFA-based questionnaire was developed and applied to assess prospective and retrospective acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine. A think-aloud method was employed with two samples: 10 participants who self-reported intention to have the COVID-19 vaccine, and 10 participants who self-reported receiving a first dose of the vaccine. Results: 1) The item pool contained 138 items, identified from primary papers included in an overview of reviews. 2) There were no duplicate items. 3) 107 items were discarded; 35 new items were created to maximise coverage of the seven TFA constructs. 4) 33 items met criteria for discriminant content validity and were reduced to two intervention-specific acceptability questionnaires, each with eight items. 5) Feedback from key stakeholders resulted in refinement of item wording, which was then adapted to develop a generic TFA-based questionnaire. For prospective and retrospective versions of the questionnaire, no participants identified problems with understanding and answering items reflecting four TFA constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, opportunity costs. Some participants encountered problems with items reflecting three constructs: ethicality, intervention coherence, self-efficacy. Conclusions: A generic questionnaire for assessing intervention acceptability from the perspectives of intervention recipients was developed using methods for creating participant-reported outcome measures, informed by theory, previous research, and stakeholder input. The questionnaire provides researchers with an adaptable tool to measure acceptability across a range of healthcare interventions.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Acceptability Assessment in HIV Prevention and Treatment Intervention and Service Delivery Research: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Analysis

23Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Acceptability of Pediatric Telerehabilitation Interventions Provided by Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists—A Scoping Review

15Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Role of Digital Transformation, Corporate Culture, and Leadership in Enhancing Corporate Sustainable Performance in the Manufacturing Sector of China

14Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M., & Francis, J. J. (2022). Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07577-3

Readers over time

‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25060120180240

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 153

55%

Researcher 69

25%

Lecturer / Post doc 28

10%

Professor / Associate Prof. 26

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 79

35%

Nursing and Health Professions 66

30%

Psychology 50

22%

Social Sciences 28

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0