Building consensus in defining and conceptualizing acceptability of healthcare: A Delphi study

Abstract

Background:The concept of healthcare acceptability is important for nursing staff spending most of their time with patients. Nevertheless, acceptability remains confusing without a collective definition in existing literature.Objective: This study aimed to create a consensus among experts on definition and conceptual framework of healthcare acceptability. Methods:We conducted two rounds of Delphi surveys to collect opinions from experts on definition and conceptual framework of healthcare acceptability proposed following thematic content analysis. We calculated the consensus among experts using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and followed the guidance on conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES) best practices.Results: A total of 34 experts completed two rounds of Delphi survey. The definition was validated through consensus as: "a multi-construct concept describing the nonlinear cumulative combination in parts or in whole of experienced or anticipated specific healthcare from the relevant patients/participants, communities, providers/researchers or healthcare systems' managers and policy makers' perspectives in a given context." The overall quality rating was 92.6% and 95.1% for the proposed definition and conceptual framework respectively. Conclusion:Opinions collected from experts provided significant insights to build a consensus on healthcare acceptability advancing public health nursing.

A tool to define and measure maternal healthcare acceptability at a selected health sub-district in South Africa

“…Thereafter, we proceeded by conducting a Delhi study in attempt to build a consensus on both proposed definition and conceptual framework of healthcare acceptability concept [ 25 ]. We prepared open-ended and rating scale questions for experts to provide their input by modifying the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and a score of 80% was set to indicate the consensus [ 25 ]. The questionnaire was piloted and refined before it was sent to the participants [ 25 ].…”

“…We prepared open-ended and rating scale questions for experts to provide their input by modifying the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and a score of 80% was set to indicate the consensus [ 25 ]. The questionnaire was piloted and refined before it was sent to the participants [ 25 ]. We recruited a sample size of five to ten participants from each of four groups of experts namely: (1) patients; (2) healthcare providers; (3) healthcare researchers; and (4) healthcare managers/policy makers in line with sample size recommendation for Delhi studies [ 26 ].…”

“…We recruited a sample size of five to ten participants from each of four groups of experts namely: (1) patients; (2) healthcare providers; (3) healthcare researchers; and (4) healthcare managers/policy makers in line with sample size recommendation for Delhi studies [ 26 ]. Expert was defined as a person holding a master’s or higher degree or who had knowledge, skills, experience or had published on this topic [ 25 ]. Despite our effort to recruit the participants globally, we obtained 34 who completed two rounds of the Delphi study.…”

“…Despite our effort to recruit the participants globally, we obtained 34 who completed two rounds of the Delphi study. Out of those 34 experts, 28 came from South Africa, two from the United Kingdom and one from Canada, Lesotho, Rwanda and Zambia respectively [ 25 ].…”

“…The data collection was semi-anonymous with only the principal investigator (PI) aware of the identity of participants [ 25 ]. We conducted the Delphi process in two rounds with the outcomes from the first round informing the second round [ 25 ].…”