Background
Attempts to define acceptability
Theorising acceptability
Aims and objectives
Methods
Study 1: Overview of reviews
Search strategy
Screening of citations
Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
---|---|
All systematic reviews (including critical synthesis reviews) of a healthcare intervention A systematic review was defined as “a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review” (Moher et al., 2009, p.1) [64] Participant samples included all recipients and deliverers of healthcare interventions | Non-English systematic reviews Systematic reviews which only made reference to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves |
Full text review and data extraction
Assessment of quality
Definitions of acceptability: consensus group exercises
Key term | Definition |
---|---|
Conceptual definition | Defines a construct in abstract or theoretical terms |
Operational definition | Defines a construct by specifying the procedures used to measure that construct |
Concept | Mental representation of a kind or category of items or ideas (APA, 2017) [65] |
Construct | The building block for theorising (Glanz et al., 2008) [66] |
Conceptualisation | Involves concept formation, which establishes the meaning of a construct by elaborating the nomological network and defining important subdomains of its meaning (p. 4 Hox 1997 [33]) |
Operationalization | Involves the translation of a theoretical construct into observable variables by specifying empirical indicators for the concept and its subdomains (p. 4 Hox, 1997 [33]) |
Synthesis
Study 2: Development of a theoretical framework of acceptability
Step 1: Concept for measurement
Step 2: Defining the concept
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.
Step 3: Describing the properties and scope of the concept
Step 4: Identifying the empirical indicators for the concept’s constructs
Results
Study 1: Overview of reviews
Characteristics of included reviews
Assessment of quality
Assessment of acceptability
Use of theory
Definitions of acceptability: consensus group exercise
Study 2: Theoretical framework of acceptability
Discussion
Overview of reviews
Theoretical framework of acceptability
Limitations
Implications: The use of the TFA
Development phase | Pilot and feasibility phase (before going to full scale trial) | Evaluation phase (trial context) | Implementation phase (scalability) |
---|---|---|---|
Qualitative | Qualitative | Qualitative | Qualitative |
E.g. Semi-structured interviews or focus groups based on the TFA constructs with stakeholders to help guide decisions about the form, content and delivery mode of the proposed intervention components. | E.g. Semi-structured interviews or focus groups based on the TFA constructs with potential intervention recipients and deliverers. These should focus on the anticipated acceptability of content and mode of delivery of the intervention. Analysis may reveal aspects of intervention to modify. | E.g. Semi-structured interviews or focus groups on the TFA constructs with intervention recipients and deliverers about anticipated and/ or experienced acceptability. For a longitudinal analysis acceptability semi-structured interviews or focus groups should be conducted pre-intervention, during the intervention delivery period (concurrent) and post- intervention. E.g. Reflective diary entries, applying the TFA construct labels for experienced acceptability to guide participant diary entries. | E.g. Semi-structured interviews or focus groups based on the TFA constructs to assess experienced acceptability of the intervention/ service for recipients and deliverers. E.g. Reflective diary entries, applying the TFA construct labels for experienced acceptability to guide participant diary entries |
Quantitative | Quantitative | Quantitative | Quantitative |
E.g. Questionnaires or visual analogue rating scales based on the TFA constructs to assess anticipated acceptability amongst potential intervention deliverers or recipients. | E.g. Questionnaires or visual analogue rating scales based on the TFA constructs to assess anticipated acceptability amongst potential intervention deliverers or recipients. These measures should focus on the anticipated acceptability of content and mode of delivery of the intervention. Analysis may reveal aspects of intervention to modify. | E.g. Questionnaires or visual analogue rating scales based on the TFA constructs to assess experienced and/ or anticipated acceptability for intervention recipients and deliverers. For a longitudinal analysis acceptability measures should be administered pre-intervention, during the intervention delivery period (concurrent) and post- intervention. | E.g. Questionnaires or visual analogue rating scales on the TFA constructs to assess the experienced acceptability of the intervention/ service for recipients and deliverers. |