IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0275576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability to assess a telephone-facilitated health coaching intervention for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes

Author

Listed:
  • Linda Timm
  • Kristi Sidney Annerstedt
  • Jhon Álvarez Ahlgren
  • Pilvikki Absetz
  • Helle Mølsted Alvesson
  • Birger C Forsberg
  • Meena Daivadanam

Abstract

Background: Lifestyle interventions focusing on diet and physical activity for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes have been found effective. Acceptance of the intervention is crucial. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) developed by Sekhon et al. (2017) describes the multiple facets of acceptance: Affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs and self-efficacy. The aims of this study were to develop and assess the psychometric properties of a measurement scale for acceptance of a telephone-facilitated health coaching intervention, based on the TFA; and to determine the acceptability of the intervention among participants living with diabetes or having a high risk of diabetes in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in Stockholm. Methods: This study was nested in the implementation trial SMART2D (Self-management approach and reciprocal learning for type 2 diabetes). The intervention consisted of nine telephone-facilitated health coaching sessions delivered individually over a 6-month period. The acceptability of the intervention was assessed using a questionnaire consisting of 19 Likert scale questions developed using Sekhon’s TFA. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. Results: Ratings from 49 participants (19 with type 2 diabetes and 30 at high risk of developing diabetes) in ages 38–65 were analyzed. The EFA on the acceptability scale revealed three factors with acceptable reliabilities: affective attitude (alpha 0.90), coherence and understanding (alpha 0.77), perceived burden (alpha 0.85), explaining 82% of the variance. Positive affect and coherence had high median scores and small variance. Median score for perceived burden was low, but with significant variance due to younger individuals and those at high risk reporting higher burden. Conclusions: The telephone-facilitated health coaching intervention was perceived as acceptable by the study population using a questionnaire based on Sekhon’s TFA, with a wider variation in perceived burden seen among high risk and younger participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Timm & Kristi Sidney Annerstedt & Jhon Álvarez Ahlgren & Pilvikki Absetz & Helle Mølsted Alvesson & Birger C Forsberg & Meena Daivadanam, 2022. "Application of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability to assess a telephone-facilitated health coaching intervention for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0275576
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275576
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275576&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0275576?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juliet Aweko & Jeroen De Man & Pilvikki Absetz & Claes-Göran Östenson & Stefan Swartling Peterson & Helle Mölsted Alvesson & Meena Daivadanam, 2018. "Patient and Provider Dilemmas of Type 2 Diabetes Self-Management: A Qualitative Study in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Communities in Stockholm," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0275576. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.