Two researchers independently reviewed items extracted in Step 1 and removed items:

If items were specific to an intervention and non-generalisable (e.g., do you follow a special diabetes diet?);

If reasons for discontinuation and descriptions of user perspectives and evaluations of an intervention could not be reworded as a question (e.g., “loss to follow up, other reasons”).

To maximise coverage of the TFA constructs, one author drafted new items based on the definitions of the seven TFA constructs (Table 1) for the healthcare professional questionnaire and the patient questionnaire. The new items were specific to each intervention, and the temporal perspective was also represented in item wording. For example, in the BEB/HFS questionnaire, not all TFA constructs were appropriate for assessing the acceptability of the standard service (control condition). Participants receiving standard care did not perform a behaviour (i.e., book their own appointment) because the next appointment was scheduled by their treating healthcare professional [26 (link)]. Thus, the constructs of burden and self-efficacy were not relevant. The response options of the new items also reflected the TFA constructs (Table 1).

Generic form of TFA acceptability questionnaire

Free full text: Click here