Healthcare consumers' and professionals' perceived acceptability of evidence-based interventions for rural transitional care.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need for high quality hospital-to-home transitional care in rural communities. Four evidence-based interventions (discharge planning, treatments, warning signs, and physical activity) have the potential to improve rural transitional care. However, there is limited understanding of how the perceptions of healthcare consumers and professionals compare on the acceptability of the interventions. Convergent views on intervention acceptability support implementation, whereas divergent views highlight areas requiring reconciliation prior to implementation. AIMS: This study compared the acceptability of four evidence-based interventions proposed for rural transitional care, as perceived by healthcare consumers and professionals. METHODS: A cross-sectional, comparative design was used. The convenience sample included 36 healthcare consumers (20 patients and 16 family caregivers) who had experienced a hospital-to-home transition in the past month and 30 healthcare professionals (29 registered nurses and one nurse practitioner) who provided transitional care in rural Ontario, Canada. Participants were presented with descriptions of the four interventions and completed an established intervention acceptability measure. Presentation of the four intervention descriptions and respective acceptability measures was randomized to control for possible order effects. The perceived overall acceptability of the interventions and their attributes (i.e., effectiveness, appropriateness, risk, and convenience) were compared using independent samples t-tests. RESULTS: Consumer ratings were consistently higher across all four interventions in terms of overall acceptability as well as effectiveness, appropriateness, and convenience (all p's < .01; effect sizes 0.70-1.13). No significant between-group differences in perceived risk were found. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION Contextual and methodological differences may account for variability in ratings, but further research is needed to explore these propositions. The results support future qualitative inquiry targeting professionals to better understand their perspectives on the effectiveness, appropriateness, and convenience of the four interventions.