James Sophie, Lister Jennie, Adamson Joy, Hewitt Catherine, Yakimova Antonina, Mott Andrew, Fulbright Helen, McDaid Catriona
York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 3;20(6):e0323738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323738. eCollection 2025.
Acceptability, in the context of healthcare interventions is a frequently used term, including in evaluations of surgical interventions. This reflects the importance of the concept to all stakeholders and significance to designing, implementing and evaluating interventions. Despite this, definitions and measurement of acceptability are not standardised, and acceptability is often poorly conceptualised. The aim of this scoping review was to identify how studies define, measure and report the acceptability of a surgical intervention.
A scoping review was conducted adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE; Embase:APA PsycInfo; EBHealth-KSR Evidence; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; International HTA database; ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was conducted for the period January 2000 to November 2023. No language limits were applied.
Sixty-seven studies from 25 countries were included. The majority of studies (n = 60; 90%) did not provide a definition of acceptability. Various methods were used to collect data on acceptability, most frequently a questionnaire (n = 36; 54%), followed by qualitative interviews (n = 16; 24%). Thirty-three studies (49%) reported acceptability of the surgical intervention received to patients, nine (13%) reported hypothetical acceptability of the surgical intervention to patients, four (6%) reported acceptability to both patients and surgeons, and four studies (6%) the acceptability to surgeons alone.
Studies assessing acceptability of a surgical intervention tended not to provide a definition of acceptability and demonstrated a lack of clarity in the use of acceptability in the context of surgical interventions. There was substantial variability in how and when acceptability was measured and from which perspective. Further research is required to explore the most appropriate approaches to address variability and promote a more consistent conceptualisation and accurate measurement of acceptability in evaluations of surgical interventions.
在医疗保健干预的背景下，可接受性是一个经常使用的术语，包括在手术干预评估中。这反映了该概念对所有利益相关者的重要性以及对设计、实施和评估干预措施的重要意义。尽管如此，可接受性的定义和衡量方法并未标准化，而且可接受性的概念往往很模糊。本范围综述的目的是确定研究如何定义、衡量和报告手术干预的可接受性。
按照乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的指南进行了范围综述，并根据系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目扩展版对范围综述的报告要求进行报告。对2000年1月至2023年11月期间的MEDLINE、Embase、APA PsycInfo、EBHealth-KSR证据、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、国际卫生技术评估数据库、ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台进行了全面检索。不设语言限制。
纳入了来自25个国家的67项研究。大多数研究（n = 60；90%）没有给出可接受性的定义。采用了各种方法来收集关于可接受性的数据，最常用的是问卷调查（n = 36；54%），其次是定性访谈（n = 16；24%）。33项研究（49%）报告了患者接受手术干预的可接受性，9项（13%）报告了患者对手术干预的假设可接受性，4项（6%）报告了患者和外科医生双方的可接受性，4项研究（6%）仅报告了外科医生的可接受性。
评估手术干预可接受性的研究往往没有给出可接受性的定义，并且在手术干预背景下对可接受性的使用缺乏明确性。在衡量可接受性的方式、时间以及从哪个角度衡量方面存在很大差异。需要进一步研究以探索最合适的方法来解决这些差异，并在手术干预评估中促进对可接受性进行更一致的概念化和准确的衡量。
