Building consensus in defining and conceptualizing acceptability of healthcare: A Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept of healthcare acceptability is important for nursing staff spending most of their time with patients. Nevertheless, acceptability remains confusing without a collective definition in existing literature. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create a consensus among experts on definition and conceptual framework of healthcare acceptability. METHODS: We conducted two rounds of Delphi surveys to collect opinions from experts on definition and conceptual framework of healthcare acceptability proposed following thematic content analysis. We calculated the consensus among experts using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and followed the guidance on conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES) best practices. RESULTS: A total of 34 experts completed two rounds of Delphi survey. The definition was validated through consensus as: "a multi-construct concept describing the nonlinear cumulative combination in parts or in whole of experienced or anticipated specific healthcare from the relevant patients/participants, communities, providers/researchers or healthcare systems' managers and policy makers' perspectives in a given context." The overall quality rating was 92.6% and 95.1% for the proposed definition and conceptual framework respectively. CONCLUSION: Opinions collected from experts provided significant insights to build a consensus on healthcare acceptability advancing public health nursing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".