Does refining an intervention based on participant feedback increase acceptability? An experimental approach.
Acceptability
Experimental
Intervention design
Mixed methods
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 08 2023
22 08 2023
Historique:
received:
23
01
2023
accepted:
19
07
2023
medline:
24
8
2023
pubmed:
23
8
2023
entrez:
23
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Participant feedback is an important consideration for increasing intervention acceptability, yet whether incorporating such feedback actually improves acceptability is rarely tested. The present study describes a theory-based approach to assessing whether refining an intervention based on participant feedback increases acceptability. Three hundred and ninety-three UK adults who had previously self-harmed were exposed to the same intervention at baseline and, six months later, were randomly allocated to receive either: (a) the same version of the intervention (control group), or (b) a version of the intervention that had been refined following participant feedback (experimental group). The main outcome measure was acceptability ratings for each of the seven domains specified in the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Mixed ANOVAs, with control versus experimental group as the between-participants factor and time (baseline versus follow-up) as the within participants factor showed no significant changes in acceptability. The null effects reported here imply that participants found both the original and modified versions of the intervention equally acceptable, and that our process of refining an intervention based on participant feedback did not impact on acceptability. Nevertheless, we have operationalised a robust approach for examining whether participant feedback impacts on the acceptability of an intervention. Further research is required to understand better how participant feedback should be incorporated into the development of healthcare interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Participant feedback is an important consideration for increasing intervention acceptability, yet whether incorporating such feedback actually improves acceptability is rarely tested.
PURPOSE
The present study describes a theory-based approach to assessing whether refining an intervention based on participant feedback increases acceptability.
METHODS
Three hundred and ninety-three UK adults who had previously self-harmed were exposed to the same intervention at baseline and, six months later, were randomly allocated to receive either: (a) the same version of the intervention (control group), or (b) a version of the intervention that had been refined following participant feedback (experimental group). The main outcome measure was acceptability ratings for each of the seven domains specified in the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).
RESULTS
Mixed ANOVAs, with control versus experimental group as the between-participants factor and time (baseline versus follow-up) as the within participants factor showed no significant changes in acceptability.
CONCLUSIONS
The null effects reported here imply that participants found both the original and modified versions of the intervention equally acceptable, and that our process of refining an intervention based on participant feedback did not impact on acceptability. Nevertheless, we have operationalised a robust approach for examining whether participant feedback impacts on the acceptability of an intervention. Further research is required to understand better how participant feedback should be incorporated into the development of healthcare interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37608317
doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16344-w
pii: 10.1186/s12889-023-16344-w
pmc: PMC10463387
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1598Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PSTRC-2016-003
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
O’Cathain A et al. Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare 2019. 9(8): p. e029954.
Skivington K et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance 2021. 374: p. n2061.
Moore GF, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ: Br Med J. 2015;350:h1258.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258
Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):88.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8
pubmed: 28126032
pmcid: 5267473
Diepeveen S, et al. Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:756.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-756
pubmed: 23947336
pmcid: 3765153
Hommel KA, et al. Telehealth behavioral treatment for medication nonadherence: a pilot and feasibility study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;25(4):469–73.
doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32835c2a1b
pubmed: 23325274
pmcid: 3703848
INVOLVE N. Guidance on co-producing a research project. INVOLVE Southampton; 2018.
Brook J, et al. Co-production of an intervention to increase retention of early career nurses: acceptability and feasibility. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;47:102861.
doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102861
pubmed: 32858300
pmcid: 7428677
Madden M et al. Producing co-production: reflections on the development of a complex intervention. 2020. 23(3): p. 659–69.
Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):279.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07577-3
pubmed: 35232455
pmcid: 8887649
Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis J. Application of a theoretical framework to assess intervention acceptability: a semi–structured interview study. EHPS/DHP; 2016.
Gollwitzer PM. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol. 1999;54(7):493–503.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a Meta-analysis of Effects and processes, in advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press; 2006. pp. 69–119.
Armitage CJ, et al. An exploratory randomised trial of a simple, brief psychological intervention to reduce subsequent suicidal ideation and behaviour in patients admitted to hospital for self-harm. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;208(5):470–6.
doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.162495
pubmed: 26743808
Keyworth C, et al. Acceptability of a brief online theory-based intervention to prevent and reduce self-harm: a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of Medical Internet Research; 2021.
Keyworth C, et al. Exploring the acceptability of a brief online theory-based intervention to prevent and reduce self-harm: a theoretically framed qualitative study. BJPsych Open. 2022;8(6):e184.
doi: 10.1192/bjo.2022.568
pubmed: 36221254
pmcid: 9634605
Statistics. U.O.f.N. 2020.
Fleiss JL. Design and analysis of clinical experiments. Volume 73. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
McManus S, et al. Prevalence of non-suicidal self-harm and service contact in England, 2000-14: repeated cross-sectional surveys of the general population. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(7):573–81.
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30188-9
pubmed: 31175059
pmcid: 7646286
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307.
doi: 10.1007/BF01593882
pubmed: 7550178
Faul F, et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.
doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
pubmed: 17695343
Martinsson C, et al. What incentives influence employers to engage in workplace health interventions? BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):854.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3534-7
pubmed: 27552912
pmcid: 4995638
Wong E, Mavondo F, Fisher J. Patient feedback to improve quality of patient-centred care in public hospitals: a systematic review of the evidence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):530.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05383-3
pubmed: 32527314
pmcid: 7291559
DAVISON WP. The third-person effect in communication. Pub Opin Q. 1983;47(1):1–15.
doi: 10.1086/268763
Murphy AL, Gardner DM. Pharmacists’ acceptability of a men’s mental health promotion program using the theoretical Framework of Acceptability. AIMS public health. 2019;6(2):195–208.
doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.2.195
pubmed: 31297404
pmcid: 6606526
Pavlova N, Teychenne M, Olander EK. The concurrent acceptability of a postnatal walking group: a qualitative study using the theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5027.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145027
pubmed: 32668772
pmcid: 7400687
Renko E, et al. Acceptability, reach and implementation of a training to enhance teachers’ skills in physical activity promotion. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1568.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09653-x
pubmed: 33076881
pmcid: 7574409