Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34182988›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Understanding acceptability in the context of text messages to encourage medication adherence in people with type 2 diabetes.

Y Kiera Bartlett, Cassandra Kenning, Jack Crosland, Nikki Newhouse, Lisa M Miles, Veronika Williams, Jenny McSharry, Louise Locock, Andrew J Farmer, David P French

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Co-design of an intervention to improve patient participation in discharge medication communication.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Y Kiera BartlettManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland 1 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. kiera.bartlett@manchester.ac.uk.
Cassandra KenningDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jack CroslandManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland 1 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Nikki NewhouseNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lisa M MilesManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland 1 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Veronika WilliamsSchool of Nursing, Nipissing University, North Bay, Canada.
Jenny McSharryHealth Behaviour Change Research Group, School of Psychology, NUI Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland.
Louise LocockHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Andrew J FarmerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David P FrenchManchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland 1 Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcceptability is recognised as a key concept in the development of health interventions, but there has been a lack of consensus about how acceptability should be conceptualised. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) provides a potential tool for understanding acceptability. It has been proposed that acceptability measured before use of an intervention (anticipated acceptability) may differ from measures taken during and after use (experienced acceptability), but thus far this distinction has not been tested for a specific intervention. This paper 1) directly compares ratings of anticipated and experienced acceptability of a text message-based intervention, 2) explores the applicability of the TFA in a technology-based intervention, and 3) uses these findings to inform suggestions for measuring acceptability over the lifespan of technology-based health interventions.

methodsData were obtained from a quantitative online survey assessing anticipated acceptability of the proposed text messages (n = 59) and a 12-week proof-of-concept mixed methods study assessing experienced acceptability while receiving the text messages (n = 48). Both quantitative ratings by return text message, and qualitative data from participant interviews were collected during the proof-of-concept study.

resultsThe quantitative analysis showed anticipated and experienced acceptability were significantly positively correlated (r

conclusionsThe high correlation between anticipated and experienced acceptability was a surprising finding and could indicate that, in some cases, acceptability of an intervention can be gauged adequately from an anticipated acceptability study, prior to an expensive pilot or feasibility study. Directly exploring perceptions of appropriateness and understanding whether the acceptability described by participants is related to the intervention or the research - and is for themselves or others - is important in interpreting the results and using them to further develop interventions and predict future use.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Text MessagingFeasibility StudiesHumansMedication AdherenceSurveys and QuestionnairesAcceptabilitymHealthText messagingType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID34182988
PMCPMC8240254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.