↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#47 of 8,775)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
160 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1769 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2427 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mandeep Sekhon, Martin Cartwright, Jill J. Francis

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 160 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,427 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 2425 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 351 14%
Researcher 345 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 326 13%
Student > Bachelor 145 6%
Other 108 4%
Other 391 16%
Unknown 761 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 407 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 356 15%
Psychology 275 11%
Social Sciences 171 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 2%
Other 301 12%
Unknown 878 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 131. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2024.
All research outputs
#323,391
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#47
of 8,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,948
of 428,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#2
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.