Skip to main content

Table 4 Factors that influence the acceptability of IBIs

From: Acceptability of Internet-based interventions for problem gambling: a qualitative study of focus groups with clients and clinicians

Component construct

Description of the domain (D) and example quotes from client groups (C1) and clinician groups (C2)

Affective attitude

D: How an individual feels about the intervention

C1.1: ā€œIā€™d be very comfortable with it.ā€ C1.2: ā€œIā€™d be interested in a trial.ā€

C2: ā€œIā€™d be fearful of suicide ideation, how do you deal with that when that takes place? You donā€™t know who they are, where they are, and how to send help.ā€

Burden

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

C1: ā€œIf I thought it would be simple for me to do or somebody could do it for me, then yeah I could access it that way.ā€

C2: ā€œDefinitely a lot of supervision or training on suicidal and homicidal thoughts. I feel like thatā€™s really huge.ā€

Ethicality

D: The extent to which the intervention has good fit with an individualā€™s value system

C1.1: ā€œAccessibility, itā€™s everything. And something like this [could] maybe make a difference, right.ā€ C1.2: ā€œI want it to be confidential and private.ā€

C2.1: ā€œWhen I think about this, I donā€™t think about the physical barriers of distance or employment. I think about people who just wouldnā€™t be comfortable coming in to a treatment agency ā€¦ And maybe who arenā€™t quite ready to actually walk in and take that ownership and do that face-to-face. We can give them something less threatening.ā€

C2.2: ā€œThe success of our work is based on the relationship, and so if you take out components of that, then youā€™re increasing risk in the probabilities of success.ā€

Intervention coherence

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

C1: ā€œIā€™d love to see that group, either a separate group online, but a closed group, not people stop by whenever they want like a Gamblersā€™ Anonymous... Maybe 10 if itā€™s online, and itā€™s the same people every day every certain time, but itā€™s online.ā€

C2: ā€œThere are certain clients that maybe this can benefit or maybe it wonā€™t benefit. So there can be some limitations in terms of what types of issues will be addressed.ā€

Opportunity costs

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

C1: ā€œI wouldnā€™t want to share so much information. I would say just a limited amount of information. Just enough to get the help I need.ā€

C2: ā€œYou lose that human connection.ā€

Perceived effectiveness

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

C1: ā€œA lot of people in remote areas would be able to access CAMH. For the moment, those of us in Toronto with access to Toronto benefit, so people with mobility issues would be able to take part. So I think it would be excellent.ā€

C2: ā€œIf the general population comes in but then thereā€™s people who have barriers, we want to increase access to those people and this is how we do it, that seems to make sense to me.ā€

Self-efficacy

D: The participantā€™s confidence that they can perform the behaviour(s) required to participate in the intervention

C1: ā€œIā€™m sure I can learn. I donā€™t think it would be difficult.ā€

C2: ā€œI think for me, to start with, because Iā€™ve never done it before, I want to kind of start from bottom-up. Like, narrow it and then widen it as I improve whatever that I need to do.ā€

  1. Note: Component constructs were adopted from the theoretical framework of acceptability developed by Sekhon and colleagues [12]. The quotes above are a small sample of the transcript data and do not represent an exhaustive list of quotes