Healthcare providers’ perceived acceptability of a warning signs intervention for rural hospital-to-home transitional care: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

Introduction There is a pressing need for transitional care that prepares rural dwelling medical patients to identify and respond to the signs of worsening health conditions. An evidence-based warning signs intervention has the potential to address this need. While the intervention is predominantly delivered by nurses, other healthcare providers may be required to deliver it in rural communities where human health resources are typically limited. Understanding the perspectives of other healthcare providers likely to be involved in delivering the intervention is a necessary first step to avert consequences of low acceptability, such as poor intervention implementation, uptake, and effectiveness. This study examined and compared nurses’ and other healthcare providers’ perceived acceptability of an evidence-based warning signs intervention proposed for rural transitional care. Methods A cross-sectional design was used. The convenience sample included 45 nurses and 32 other healthcare providers (e.g., physical and occupational therapists, physicians) who self-identified as delivering transitional care to patients in rural Ontario, Canada. In an online survey, participants were presented with a description of the warning signs intervention and completed established measures of intervention acceptability. The measures captured 10 intervention acceptability attributes (effectiveness, appropriateness, risk, convenience, relevance, applicability, usefulness, frequency of current use, likelihood of future use, and confidence in ability to deliver the intervention). Ratings ≥ 2 indicated acceptability. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, independent samples t-tests, as well as effect sizes to quantify the magnitude of any differences in acceptability ratings between nurses and other healthcare providers. Results Nurses and other healthcare providers rated all intervention attributes > 2, except the attributes of convenience and frequency of current use. Differences between the two groups were found for only three attributes: nurses’ ratings were significantly higher than other healthcare providers on perceived applicability, frequency of current use, and the likelihood of future use of the intervention (all p’s < .007; effect sizes .58 - .68, respectively). Discussion The results indicate that both participant groups had positive perspectives of the intervention on most of the attributes and suggest that initiatives to enhance the convenience of the intervention’s implementation are warranted to support its widespread adoption in rural transitional care. However, the results also suggest that other healthcare providers may be less receptive to the intervention in practice. Future research is needed to explore and mitigate the possible reasons for low ratings on perceived convenience and frequency of current use of the intervention, as well as the between group differences on perceived applicability, frequency of current use, and the likelihood of future use of the intervention. Conclusions The intervention represents a tenable option for rural transitional care in Ontario, Canada, and possibly other jurisdictions emphasizing transitional care.