Skip to main content

Table 4 SYMPERHEART intervention acceptability based on reported acceptability by the participants

From: Feasibility, acceptability, and outcome responsiveness of the SYMPERHEART intervention to support symptom perception in persons with heart failure and their informal caregivers: a feasibility quasi-experimental study

Acceptability component

Item extract

Persons with HF (n = 15–17)

Mean ± SD

Informal caregivers

(n = 4–6)

Mean ± SD

Nurses (n = 5)

Mean ± SD

Affective attitude

How an individual feels about the intervention

Appropriated in the current situation

3.8 ± 1.0

4.2 ± 0.4

4.0 ± 0.7

Feeling at ease

4.5 ± 0.5

4.4 ± 0.5

4.2 ± 0.4

Satisfied

4.1 ± 1.0

4.2 ± 0.4

3.8 ± 0.4

Burden

The perceived amount of effort that is required to participate in the intervention

Participate again

3.8 ± 1.1

4.0 ± 0.7

4.6 ± 0.5

Low burden to participate

4.2 ± 0.9

4.4 ± 0.5

3.8 ± 0.4

Ethically

The extent to which the intervention has good fit with an individual’s value system

Corresponding to what is important, to values

3.7 ± 1.2

4.6 ± 0.5

4.8 ± 0.4

Intervention coherence

The extent to which the participant understands the intervention and how it works

Coherent to monitor, recognize, and interpret symptoms

3.5 ± 0.8

4.0 ± 0.0

4.4 ± 0.5

Opportunity costs

The extent to which benefits, profits or values must be given up to engage in the intervention

No opportunity costs

4.3 ± 0.8

4.5 ± 0.5

4.8 ± 0.4

Perceived effectiveness

The extent to which the intervention is perceived as likely to achieve its purpose

Beneficial to live daily with the disease

3.7 ± 1.1

4.4 ± 0.5

4.0 ± 1.0

Self-efficacy

The participant’s confidence that they can perform the behaviour(s) required to participate in the intervention

Confident to monitor condition routinely

3.6 ± 0.7

4.1 ± 0.9

3.4 ± 0.5

Confident to recognize changes in health if they occur

3.7 ± 0.9

4.3 ± 0.5

3.4 ± 0.5

  1. Sekhon et al. 2017, p.8 (adapted). Responses: 1 = completely disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = completely agree. Responses for self-efficacy based on SCHFI 7.2: 1 = not confident; 3 = somewhat confident; 5 = extremely confident. The scores should be rescaled from 0 to 4 if the results are compared with the original TAP [42]