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
. 2022 Mar 1;22(1):279.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07577-3.

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

Affiliations

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

Mandeep Sekhon et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

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.

Keywords: Acceptability; Healthcare intervention; Pre-validation methods; Questionnaire development; Theoretical framework.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by BMC, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Adapted 5 step PRO methodology Flowchart applied to test content validity of the theoretical framework and to develop the patient and HCP acceptability questionnaires

References

    1. Haynes B. Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it?: the testing of healthcare interventions is evolving. BMJ. Br Med J. 1999;319:652. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7211.652. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Say RE, Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions—challenges for doctors. Bmj. 2003;327:542–545. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.542. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sidani SaB CJ. Testing the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Design, evaluation, and translation of nursing interventions. West Sussex: Wiley; 2011.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Bmj. 2008;337:a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. Bmj. 2015;350:h1258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances