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.

No 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.

ObjectiveTo explore women's experiences of symptoms potentially indicative of gynaecological cancer in a community-based sample without imposing a cancer perspective.DesignA qualitative interview study with thematic analysis of transcripts.Participants26 women aged ≥30 years, who had experienced a symptom that might indicate gynaecological cancer in the past 3 months, were recruited using a screening questionnaire distributed online and in community settings.SettingLondon, UK.ResultsWomen attributed gynaecological symptoms to existing illnesses/conditions or considered themselves to be predisposed to them, either through their ‘genes’ or previous personal experience. Normalising symptoms by attributing them to demographic characteristics (eg, age, sex) was common, as was considering them a side effect of hormonal contraception. When women raised cancer as a possible cause, they often dismissed it as unlikely. Responses to symptoms included self-management (eg, self-medicating, making lifestyle changes), adopting a ‘lay system of care’, or consulting a healthcare professional. Triggers to help-seeking included persistent, painful or debilitating symptoms, concern about symptom seriousness, and feeling that help-seeking was legitimised. Barriers to help-seeking included lack of concern, vague symptoms, unusual symptom location, competing time demands, previous negative experiences with the healthcare system, and not wanting to be perceived as a time-waster.ConclusionsAttributions of symptoms potentially indicative of a gynaecological cancer were varied, but most often involved women fitting symptoms into their expectations of what was ‘normal’. Normalising acted as a barrier to seeking help from a healthcare professional, alongside competing time demands and negative attitudes towards help-seeking. These barriers may lead to later diagnosis and poorer cancer survival. Our findings could be used to inform the development of interventions to encourage appropriate help-seeking.