ArticleBMC health services research2026
Application of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability in healthcare interventions: a scoping review and proposed reporting checklist.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) assesses how interventions are perceived by those who deliver and receive them. However, there has been no systematic mapping of how the framework is conceptualised, operationalised, and reported in healthcare intervention research.
aimTo examine how the TFA is used to assess acceptability in healthcare intervention research.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using JBI methodology and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Searches were undertaken across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN from 2017 to July 2025. Empirical studies, trial registrations, and published protocols were included if they applied the TFA to assess the acceptability of patient-facing healthcare interventions. Data were extracted and synthesised using descriptive and narrative approaches.
resultsUse of the TFA has increased over time and spans diverse clinical contexts. When findings were aggregated across source types, acceptability was most commonly assessed, or planned to be assessed, using questionnaires and was typically positioned as a post-intervention outcome. Assessments were predominantly conducted with patients or service users at a single time point. Sensitivity analysis restricted to empirical studies showed that assessment was predominantly qualitative and interview-based, while outcome positioning and post-intervention timing remained common. Non-specification of TFA constructs was concentrated among trial registrations. In the overall sample, the TFA most frequently informed data collection, whereas among empirical studies it was most often applied during analysis, reporting and interpretation.
conclusionDespite widespread adoption, application of the TFA remains variable and reporting does not always provide sufficient detail to support appraisal and comparison. This limits the ability to compare acceptability across studies, identify key drivers, or use findings to inform intervention development and implementation. Greater transparency in how acceptability is conceptualised, assessed and reported may enhance the utility of the TFA. A reporting checklist may support more consistent interpretation, clearer appraisal of framework use, and improved comparability across studies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.