Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Health Technology As...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Health Technology Assessment
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
DOAJ
Article . 2025
Data sources: DOAJ
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals: the LAVA trial qualitative process evaluation

Authors: Lynsay Matthews; T Justin Clark; Sheriden Bevan; Lee Middleton; Lina Antoun; Paul Smith; Ertan Saridogan; +3 Authors

Feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals: the LAVA trial qualitative process evaluation

Abstract

Background Laparoscopic hysterectomies performed for benign gynaecological conditions are increasing. However, there is a lack of up-to-date evidence on their surgical outcomes when compared with abdominal hysterectomy. The LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy trial aimed to address this gap. A qualitative process evaluation was embedded within the pilot phase of the LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy trial. Objective To explore the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals. Design and methods A qualitative process evaluation using semistructured interviews informed by the Medical Research Council/National Institute for Health and Care Research updated Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. Interviews were thematically analysed to inform the development of a LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy trial programme theory (used to demonstrate how an intervention is expected to lead to its effects, under what conditions and for which stakeholders). Setting and participants Eligible women and healthcare professionals (gynaecologists, research nurses and research midwives) from participating clinical sites in National Health Service England. Main outcome measures Insight on the feasibility,acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy related to the: (1) environment, (2) patient and (3) the healthcare professionals. Results Eleven women and 7 healthcare professionals (6 research nurses and 1 consultant gynaecologist) were interviewed. Four themes were interpreted. Theme 1 identified decision-making processes for LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy participation. Conditional altruism motivated women to participate, alongside the ‘relief’ of being offered a hysterectomy. The decision to decline participation was influenced by surgical preference and beliefs of laparoscopy having a faster recovery rate. Theme 2 highlighted surgical preferences, with women’s preferences being influenced by their previous experiences of surgery or perceived recovery times and family/friends. All healthcare professionals demonstrated community equipoise but did observe that ‘younger surgeons’ may prefer laparoscopic surgery based on their contemporary training. Theme 3 identified attitudes towards the LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy trial, with women and healthcare professionals reporting positively about LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy’s feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness in terms of burden, information and understanding of the study. Theme 4 identified the facilitators and barriers for LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy participation. Facilitators included the key role of the research nurses and women having personal social support during their recovery. Telephone consultations may be a barrier, with face-to-face discussion being preferred by both women and healthcare professionals. These findings informed the refinement of the LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy programme theory, identifying the interplay of factors related to the environment, patient and healthcare professionals. Limitations The majority of insight from women was gathered from one site (72.7%), and the majority of healthcare professionals’ insight was obtained from research nurses (85.7%). Only English-speaking participants were recruited into LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy. Conclusions Overall, LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy was acceptable for women and healthcare professionals. The trial, however, closed early due to the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lack of healthcare professional equipoise (these findings were published previously). The qualitative process evaluation highlighted additional factors to consider for future trials, including influences on women’s decision-making and the challenges of addressing patient and healthcare professional equipoise. Future work Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy outcomes still need to be explored in a large-scale randomised controlled trial. Further qualitative insight is needed from women who decline participation and from healthcare professionals who lack equipoise. Funding This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128991.

Related Organizations
Keywords

qualitative process evaluation, acceptabilty, abdominal, Medical technology, hysterectomy, R855-855.5, laparoscopic, feasibility

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold
Related to Research communities