Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8.

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

Affiliations

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

Mandeep Sekhon et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Acceptability; Complex intervention; Defining constructs; Healthcare intervention; Theory development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The theoretical framework of acceptability (v1). Note: In bold font are the labels we assigned to represent the examples of the variables applied to operationalise and assess acceptability based on the results from the overview (italic font). Note* Addition of the two control constructs emerging deductively from existing theoretical models
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
PRISMA diagram of included papers for searches completed in February 2014 and 2016
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The theoretical framework of acceptability (v2) comprising seven component constructs. Note: The seven component constructs are presented alphabetically with their anticipated definitions. The extent to which they may cluster or influence each of the temporal assessments of acceptability is an empirical question

Comment in

References

    1. MRC U. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2008.
    1. Say RE, Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions—challenges for doctors. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):542–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.542. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Torgerson D, Ryan M, Donaldson C. Effective Health Care bulletins: are they efficient? Qual Health Care. 1995;4(1):48. doi: 10.1136/qshc.4.1.48. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Diepeveen S, Ling T, Suhrcke M, Roland M, Marteau TM. Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):756. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-756. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stok FM, de Ridder DT, de Vet E, Nureeva L, Luszczynska A, Wardle J, Gaspar T, de Wit JB. Hungry for an intervention? Adolescents’ ratings of acceptability of eating-related intervention strategies. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources