可接受性理论框架在外科手术中的应用:理论和方法学见解。

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL British Journal of Health Psychology Pub Date : 2023-06-24 DOI:10.1111/bjhp.12677
Camille Paynter, Cassie McDonald, David Story, Jill J. Francis
{"title":"可接受性理论框架在外科手术中的应用:理论和方法学见解。","authors":"Camille Paynter,&nbsp;Cassie McDonald,&nbsp;David Story,&nbsp;Jill J. Francis","doi":"10.1111/bjhp.12677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Methods for assessing acceptability of healthcare interventions have been inconsistent until the development of the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Despite its rapid adoption in healthcare research, the TFA has rarely been used to assess acceptability of surgical interventions. We sought to explore the sufficiency of the TFA in this context and provide methodological guidance to support systematic use of this framework in research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Acceptability was assessed in a consecutive sample of 15 patients at least 3 months post-joint replacement surgery via theory-informed semi-structured interviews. A detailed description of the application of the TFA is reported. This includes: development of the interview guide (including questions to assess theoretical sufficiency), analysis of interview data and interpretation of findings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Interview data were substantially codable into the TFA constructs but required the addition of a construct, labelled ‘perceived safety and risk’, and relabelling and redefining an existing construct (new label: ‘opportunity costs and gains’). Methodological recommendations for theory-informed interview studies include producing interview support material to enhance precision of the intervention description, conducting background conversations with a range of stakeholders in the healthcare setting, and conducting first inductive and then deductive thematic analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The sufficiency of the TFA could be enhanced for use when assessing interventions with an identifiable risk profile, such as surgery, by the inclusion of an additional construct to capture perceptions of risk and safety. We offer these methodological recommendations to guide researchers and facilitate consistency in the application of the TFA in theory-informed interview studies.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48161,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"28 4","pages":"1153-1168"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjhp.12677","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of the theoretical framework of acceptability in a surgical setting: Theoretical and methodological insights\",\"authors\":\"Camille Paynter,&nbsp;Cassie McDonald,&nbsp;David Story,&nbsp;Jill J. Francis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjhp.12677\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>Methods for assessing acceptability of healthcare interventions have been inconsistent until the development of the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Despite its rapid adoption in healthcare research, the TFA has rarely been used to assess acceptability of surgical interventions. We sought to explore the sufficiency of the TFA in this context and provide methodological guidance to support systematic use of this framework in research.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>Acceptability was assessed in a consecutive sample of 15 patients at least 3 months post-joint replacement surgery via theory-informed semi-structured interviews. A detailed description of the application of the TFA is reported. This includes: development of the interview guide (including questions to assess theoretical sufficiency), analysis of interview data and interpretation of findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Interview data were substantially codable into the TFA constructs but required the addition of a construct, labelled ‘perceived safety and risk’, and relabelling and redefining an existing construct (new label: ‘opportunity costs and gains’). Methodological recommendations for theory-informed interview studies include producing interview support material to enhance precision of the intervention description, conducting background conversations with a range of stakeholders in the healthcare setting, and conducting first inductive and then deductive thematic analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The sufficiency of the TFA could be enhanced for use when assessing interventions with an identifiable risk profile, such as surgery, by the inclusion of an additional construct to capture perceptions of risk and safety. We offer these methodological recommendations to guide researchers and facilitate consistency in the application of the TFA in theory-informed interview studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Health Psychology\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"1153-1168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjhp.12677\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Health Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12677\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12677","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:在可接受性理论框架(TFA)发展之前,评估医疗干预可接受性的方法一直不一致。尽管TFA在医疗保健研究中迅速被采用,但它很少被用于评估外科干预的可接受性。我们试图在这种情况下探索TFA的充分性,并提供方法指导,以支持在研究中系统地使用该框架。方法:对15名至少3名患者的连续样本进行可接受性评估 关节置换术后数月,通过理论知情的半结构化访谈。报告了TFA应用的详细说明。这包括:制定面试指南(包括评估理论充分性的问题)、分析面试数据和解释调查结果。结果:访谈数据基本上可以纳入TFA结构,但需要添加一个标记为“感知安全和风险”的结构,并重新标记和重新定义现有结构(新标签:“机会成本和收益”)。基于理论的访谈研究的方法建议包括制作访谈支持材料以提高干预描述的准确性,在医疗保健环境中与一系列利益相关者进行背景对话,以及首先进行归纳然后进行演绎的主题分析。结论:在评估具有可识别风险的干预措施(如手术)时,可以通过纳入额外的结构来捕捉风险和安全性,从而提高TFA的充分性。我们提供这些方法论建议,以指导研究人员,并促进TFA在理论知情访谈研究中应用的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Application of the theoretical framework of acceptability in a surgical setting: Theoretical and methodological insights

Purpose

Methods for assessing acceptability of healthcare interventions have been inconsistent until the development of the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Despite its rapid adoption in healthcare research, the TFA has rarely been used to assess acceptability of surgical interventions. We sought to explore the sufficiency of the TFA in this context and provide methodological guidance to support systematic use of this framework in research.

Method

Acceptability was assessed in a consecutive sample of 15 patients at least 3 months post-joint replacement surgery via theory-informed semi-structured interviews. A detailed description of the application of the TFA is reported. This includes: development of the interview guide (including questions to assess theoretical sufficiency), analysis of interview data and interpretation of findings.

Results

Interview data were substantially codable into the TFA constructs but required the addition of a construct, labelled ‘perceived safety and risk’, and relabelling and redefining an existing construct (new label: ‘opportunity costs and gains’). Methodological recommendations for theory-informed interview studies include producing interview support material to enhance precision of the intervention description, conducting background conversations with a range of stakeholders in the healthcare setting, and conducting first inductive and then deductive thematic analysis.

Conclusion

The sufficiency of the TFA could be enhanced for use when assessing interventions with an identifiable risk profile, such as surgery, by the inclusion of an additional construct to capture perceptions of risk and safety. We offer these methodological recommendations to guide researchers and facilitate consistency in the application of the TFA in theory-informed interview studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Health Psychology
British Journal of Health Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
1.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The focus of the British Journal of Health Psychology is to publish original research on various aspects of psychology that are related to health, health-related behavior, and illness throughout a person's life. The journal specifically seeks articles that are based on health psychology theory or discuss theoretical matters within the field.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Determinants of child body weight categorization in parents and health care professionals: An experimental study. Personalized interventions for behaviour change: A scoping review of just-in-time adaptive interventions. Online support groups for family caregivers: A qualitative exploration of social support and engagement. Self-compassion and psychological distress in chronic illness: A meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1