Feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals: the LAVA trial qualitative process evaluation
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 qualitati...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) s. 1 - 21 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
England
NIHR Journals Library
23.07.2025
|
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 2046-4924, 1366-5278, 2046-4924 |
| On-line přístup: | Získat plný text |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | 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.
To explore the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals.
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).
Eligible women and healthcare professionals (gynaecologists, research nurses and research midwives) from participating clinical sites in National Health Service England.
Insight on the feasibility,acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy related to the: (1) environment, (2) patient and (3) the healthcare professionals.
Eleven women and 7 healthcare professionals (6 research nurses and 1 consultant gynaecologist) were interviewed. Four themes were interpreted. Theme 1 identified
for LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy participation.
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
, with women's preferences being influenced by their previous experiences of surgery or perceived recovery times and family/friends. All healthcare professionals demonstrated
but did observe that 'younger surgeons' may prefer laparoscopic surgery based on their contemporary training. Theme 3 identified
, 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128991. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | 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. Plain language summary A hysterectomy (surgery to remove the womb) can be performed in different ways. One way is by opening the abdomen, and one is by keyhole surgery, known as laparoscopy. There is not enough information yet to tell us how one surgery compares to the other. For example, the time it takes to recover or what the frequency of complications may be. The LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy trial aimed to answer these questions. However, trials like this can be difficult because women need to be willing to have either type of surgery. During the trial, we interviewed patients and health professionals to find out what they thought about the trial. Women said that they wanted to take part to help women in the future even if they potentially preferred one type of surgery. They were relieved to be offered a hysterectomy and did not mind which one they got. When women declined to take part, it was usually because they had a strong preference for one type of surgery. Although health professionals said they did not have a preference, they did suggest that ‘younger surgeons’ may prefer keyhole surgery due to taking part in recent training programmes. We only spoke with seven health professionals (one gynaecologist and seven research nurses), so an overall consensus is still uncertain. Unfortunately, the trial closed early. It was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and some health professionals, who chose not to take part in the study, had a preference for one type of surgery. This means that a future trial is still needed to help us compare the two different types of hysterectomy. We also need to understand why some women and health professionals did not want to take part in this trial. This will benefit the care of women in the future. 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. To explore the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals. 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). Eligible women and healthcare professionals (gynaecologists, research nurses and research midwives) from participating clinical sites in National Health Service England. Insight on the feasibility,acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy related to the: (1) environment, (2) patient and (3) the healthcare professionals. Eleven women and 7 healthcare professionals (6 research nurses and 1 consultant gynaecologist) were interviewed. Four themes were interpreted. Theme 1 identified for LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy participation. 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 , with women's preferences being influenced by their previous experiences of surgery or perceived recovery times and family/friends. All healthcare professionals demonstrated but did observe that 'younger surgeons' may prefer laparoscopic surgery based on their contemporary training. Theme 3 identified , 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 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. 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. 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. 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. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128991. A hysterectomy (surgery to remove the womb) can be performed in different ways. One way is by opening the abdomen, and one is by keyhole surgery, known as laparoscopy. There is not enough information yet to tell us how one surgery compares to the other. For example, the time it takes to recover or what the frequency of complications may be. The LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy trial aimed to answer these questions. However, trials like this can be difficult because women need to be willing to have either type of surgery. During the trial, we interviewed patients and health professionals to find out what they thought about the trial. Women said that they wanted to take part to help women in the future even if they potentially preferred one type of surgery. They were relieved to be offered a hysterectomy and did not mind which one they got. When women declined to take part, it was usually because they had a strong preference for one type of surgery. Although health professionals said they did not have a preference, they did suggest that ‘younger surgeons’ may prefer keyhole surgery due to taking part in recent training programmes. We only spoke with seven health professionals (one gynaecologist and seven research nurses), so an overall consensus is still uncertain. Unfortunately, the trial closed early. It was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and some health professionals, who chose not to take part in the study, had a preference for one type of surgery. This means that a future trial is still needed to help us compare the two different types of hysterectomy. We also need to understand why some women and health professionals did not want to take part in this trial. This will benefit the care of women in the future. 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.BackgroundLaparoscopic 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.To explore the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals.ObjectiveTo explore the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals.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).Design and methodsA 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).Eligible women and healthcare professionals (gynaecologists, research nurses and research midwives) from participating clinical sites in National Health Service England.Setting and participantsEligible women and healthcare professionals (gynaecologists, research nurses and research midwives) from participating clinical sites in National Health Service England.Insight on the feasibility,acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy related to the: (1) environment, (2) patient and (3) the healthcare professionals.Main outcome measuresInsight on the feasibility,acceptability and appropriateness of LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy related to the: (1) environment, (2) patient and (3) the healthcare professionals.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.ResultsEleven 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.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.LimitationsThe 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.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.ConclusionsOverall, 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.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.Future workComparison 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.This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128991.FundingThis article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128991. |
| Author | Woolley, Rebecca Antoun, Lina Smith, Paul Saridogan, Ertan Jones, Laura L Clark, T Justin Morgan, Monique Bevan, Sheriden Matthews, Lynsay Middleton, Lee |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Lynsay orcidid: 0000-0002-5760-1080 surname: Matthews fullname: Matthews, Lynsay organization: School of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK – sequence: 2 givenname: T Justin orcidid: 0000-0002-5943-1062 surname: Clark fullname: Clark, T Justin organization: Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK – sequence: 3 givenname: Sheriden orcidid: 0000-0002-0389-4412 surname: Bevan fullname: Bevan, Sheriden organization: Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK – sequence: 4 givenname: Lee orcidid: 0000-0003-4621-1922 surname: Middleton fullname: Middleton, Lee organization: Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK – sequence: 5 givenname: Lina orcidid: 0000-0003-4893-0576 surname: Antoun fullname: Antoun, Lina organization: Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK – sequence: 6 givenname: Paul orcidid: 0000-0002-1430-5732 surname: Smith fullname: Smith, Paul organization: Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK – sequence: 7 givenname: Ertan orcidid: 0000-0001-9736-4107 surname: Saridogan fullname: Saridogan, Ertan organization: Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women’s Health, University College London and University College London Hospital, London, UK – sequence: 8 givenname: Rebecca orcidid: 0000-0001-5119-1431 surname: Woolley fullname: Woolley, Rebecca organization: Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK – sequence: 9 givenname: Monique orcidid: 0009-0008-7172-9604 surname: Morgan fullname: Morgan, Monique organization: University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK – sequence: 10 givenname: Laura L orcidid: 0000-0002-4018-3855 surname: Jones fullname: Jones, Laura L organization: Department of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40717555$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpVkk1v1DAQhiNURD9A4hcgHzmw4I8463BBqxUtRStxWXG1xs6kcZXEqe0s2r_FL8TdbUt7sj1-53lHM3NenIx-xKJ4z-hnIRj9cvVzu2aCy1fFGadltShrXp48u58W5zHeUlqySrI3xWlJl2wppTwr_l4iRGdc79L-EwFrcUpwfBIYGwLTFPwUHCQcMUbiW9LDBMFH6ydnyQ5DnCMB0_jBjdCTbh8TBrTJD3vS-kD--AHHA6tD6FNnISDJ0DbjnM8p8StJHZLN6veKpOzUk7sZcgGQ3O6gtPfGuIN-ziE_vi1etzkL3z2cF8X28vt2_WOx-XV1vV5tFpaXUi5s3UpVs4rDUinAqilBMhRGGSUb1bRCGQGsNqyuuTJLoyprUMhGqFq0iouL4vqIbTzc6tyCAcJee3D6EPDhRkNIzvaoFVAjDafUMCx5y-sKGVYqN6WqmtZUmfXtyJpmM2BjcUwB-hfQlz-j6_SN32nGhawpk5nw8YEQ_N2MMenBRYt9DyP6OWrBRSmorJYqSz88N3tyeRz6f5bNY4wB2ycJo_p-n_TjPol_sBXCkw |
| Cites_doi | 10.1177/1740774520988669 10.1007/s00192-018-3784-2 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.026 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112961 10.1186/1745-6215-14-389 10.1186/1745-6215-11-31 10.1007/s00192-012-1967-9 10.1111/ajo.12802 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.01.006 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 10.17294/2330-0698.1581 10.1186/s12875-022-01898-2 10.1186/s13063-021-05403-5 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496 10.1136/bmj.n2061 10.1186/s12905-020-01065-8 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c33c72 10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.014 10.3389/fonc.2023.1307694 10.1186/s12905-022-01615-2 10.1017/cts.2022.456 10.1002/nop2.1348 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010 10.3109/01443615.2015.1060199 10.1177/1049732315617444 10.1111/1471-0528.15539 10.52054/FVVO.13.4.039 10.1089/152460900318759 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8 10.1177/0272989X07307270 10.1177/1556264620914463 10.52054/FVVO.16.1.003 10.1186/s13063-019-3385-5 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070218 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION NPM 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.3310/GJTC1325 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 2046-4924 |
| EndPage | 21 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_8a0b5b200b1e42f296e1e68abd66dfb6 PMC12359015 40717555 10_3310_GJTC1325 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY AAYXX ADBBV ADDVE AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS BAWUL BCNDV CITATION CZQ DIK EBS EJD F5P GROUPED_DOAJ OK1 P2P P6G TR2 W2D NPM 7X8 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c2455-c9f589162a788ae6d4a51e3b8b85d8df38b3a19b19928b7b86cbe35d3893f823 |
| IEDL.DBID | DOA |
| ISSN | 2046-4924 1366-5278 |
| IngestDate | Fri Oct 03 12:44:10 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:23:44 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 29 18:18:00 EDT 2025 Sat Oct 04 02:10:19 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 07:41:42 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Keywords | ACCEPTABILTY LAPAROSCOPIC ABDOMINAL QUALITATIVE PROCESS EVALUATION FEASIBILITY HYSTERECTOMY |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c2455-c9f589162a788ae6d4a51e3b8b85d8df38b3a19b19928b7b86cbe35d3893f823 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-9736-4107 0000-0002-5943-1062 0000-0002-4018-3855 0000-0002-5760-1080 0000-0002-0389-4412 0000-0003-4893-0576 0000-0002-1430-5732 0000-0003-4621-1922 0009-0008-7172-9604 0000-0001-5119-1431 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/8a0b5b200b1e42f296e1e68abd66dfb6 |
| PMID | 40717555 |
| PQID | 3234305678 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| PageCount | 21 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_8a0b5b200b1e42f296e1e68abd66dfb6 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_12359015 proquest_miscellaneous_3234305678 pubmed_primary_40717555 crossref_primary_10_3310_GJTC1325 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 20250723 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-07-23 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 7 year: 2025 text: 20250723 day: 23 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Health Technol Assess |
| PublicationYear | 2025 |
| Publisher | NIHR Journals Library |
| Publisher_xml | – name: NIHR Journals Library |
| References | Sekhon (key2025072618475200_ref25-bib25) 2017; 17 Olsen (key2025072618475200_ref20-bib20) 2020; 15 McCann (key2025072618475200_ref31-bib31) 2010; 11 Nagendran (key2025072618475200_ref11-bib11) 2013; 2013 Skivington (key2025072618475200_ref24-bib24) 2021; 374 Malterud (key2025072618475200_ref28-bib28) 2016; 26 Meyer (key2025072618475200_ref41-bib41) 2021; 18 Antoun (key2025072618475200_ref30-bib30) 2024; 16 Braun (key2025072618475200_ref29-bib29) 2019; 11 Groff (key2025072618475200_ref13-bib13) 2000; 9 Antoun (key2025072618475200_ref5-bib5) 2021; 13 Adelman (key2025072618475200_ref8-bib8) 2014; 21 Phelps (key2025072618475200_ref19-bib19) 2020; 253 Fletcher (key2025072618475200_ref37-bib37) 2012; 2 Pickett (key2025072618475200_ref7-bib7) 2023; 8 Goudarzi (key2025072618475200_ref14-bib14) 2022; 22 Davies (key2025072618475200_ref36-bib36) 2021; 22 Aarts (key2025072618475200_ref3-bib3) 3677; 2015 Antoun (key2025072618475200_ref23-bib23) 2023; 13 Cranfill (key2025072618475200_ref39-bib39) 2022; 6 Millar (key2025072618475200_ref18-bib18) 2022; 23 Madhvani (key2025072618475200_ref4-bib4) 2019; 126 Politi (key2025072618475200_ref16-bib16) 2007; 27 Wilson (key2025072618475200_ref9-bib9) 2019; 59 American College of Obestrics and Gynaecology (key2025072618475200_ref2-bib2) 2009; 114 Bossick (key2025072618475200_ref12-bib12) 2018; 5 Abraham (key2025072618475200_ref17-bib17) 2006; 139 Donovan (key2025072618475200_ref35-bib35) 2014; 67 Collins (key2025072618475200_ref21-bib21) 2020; 20 Dickson (key2025072618475200_ref22-bib22) 2013; 14 Burden (key2025072618475200_ref10-bib10) 2016; 36 Lie (key2025072618475200_ref32-bib32) 2019; 30 Castro (key2025072618475200_ref38-bib38) 2016; 99 Kalpakidou (key2025072618475200_ref34-bib34) 2019; 20 Chatfield (key2025072618475200_ref40-bib40) 2024 Liu (key2025072618475200_ref6-bib6) 2023; 13 Li (key2025072618475200_ref15-bib15) 2022; 10 Gopinath (key2025072618475200_ref33-bib33) 2013; 24 Braun (key2025072618475200_ref27-bib27) 2013 |
| References_xml | – volume: 18 start-page: 226 year: 2021 ident: key2025072618475200_ref41-bib41 article-title: An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials publication-title: Clin Trials doi: 10.1177/1740774520988669 – volume: 30 start-page: 9 year: 2019 ident: key2025072618475200_ref32-bib32 article-title: Should I stay or should I go? A qualitative study exploring participation in a urology clinical trial publication-title: Int Urogynecol J doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3784-2 – volume: 99 start-page: 1923 year: 2016 ident: key2025072618475200_ref38-bib38 article-title: Patient empowerment, patient participation and patient-centeredness in hospital care: a concept analysis based on a literature review publication-title: Patient Educ Couns doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.026 – volume: 253 start-page: 112961 year: 2020 ident: key2025072618475200_ref19-bib19 article-title: A mixed-methods systematic review of patients’ experience of being invited to participate in surgical randomised controlled trials publication-title: Soc Sci Med doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112961 – volume: 14 start-page: 389 year: 2013 ident: key2025072618475200_ref22-bib22 article-title: Reflecting on the methodological challenges of recruiting to a United Kingdom-wide, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial in gynaecology outpatient settings publication-title: Trials doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-389 – volume: 11 start-page: 31 year: 2010 ident: key2025072618475200_ref31-bib31 article-title: Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self publication-title: Trials doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-31 – volume: 24 start-page: 969 year: 2013 ident: key2025072618475200_ref33-bib33 article-title: Why don’t women participate? A qualitative study on non-participation in a surgical randomised controlled trial publication-title: Int Urogynecol J doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1967-9 – volume: 2013 year: 2013 ident: key2025072618475200_ref11-bib11 article-title: Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 59 start-page: 110 year: 2019 ident: key2025072618475200_ref9-bib9 article-title: Improved laparoscopic skills in gynaecology trainees following a simulation-training program using take-home box trainers publication-title: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol doi: 10.1111/ajo.12802 – volume: 21 start-page: 558 year: 2014 ident: key2025072618475200_ref8-bib8 article-title: Urinary tract injuries in laparoscopic hysterectomy: a systematic review publication-title: J Minim Invasive Gynecol doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.01.006 – volume: 11 start-page: 589 year: 2019 ident: key2025072618475200_ref29-bib29 article-title: Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis publication-title: Qual Res Sport Exerc Health doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 – volume: 5 start-page: 167 year: 2018 ident: key2025072618475200_ref12-bib12 article-title: Identifying what matters to hysterectomy patients: postsurgery perceptions, beliefs, and experiences publication-title: J Patient Cent Res Rev doi: 10.17294/2330-0698.1581 – volume: 23 start-page: 311 year: 2022 ident: key2025072618475200_ref18-bib18 article-title: Clinical trial recruitment in primary care: exploratory factor analysis of a questionnaire to measure barriers and facilitators to primary care providers’ involvement publication-title: BMC Prim Care doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01898-2 – volume: 22 start-page: 678 year: 2021 ident: key2025072618475200_ref36-bib36 article-title: The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography publication-title: Trials doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05403-5 – volume: 2 start-page: e000496 year: 2012 ident: key2025072618475200_ref37-bib37 article-title: Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review publication-title: BMJ Open doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496 – volume: 374 start-page: n2061 year: 2021 ident: key2025072618475200_ref24-bib24 article-title: A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance publication-title: BMJ doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2061 – volume: 20 start-page: 198 year: 2020 ident: key2025072618475200_ref21-bib21 article-title: Bridging different realities – a qualitative study on patients’ experiences of preoperative care for benign hysterectomy and opportunistic salpingectomy in Sweden publication-title: BMC Womens Health doi: 10.1186/s12905-020-01065-8 – volume: 114 start-page: 1156 year: 2009 ident: key2025072618475200_ref2-bib2 article-title: ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease publication-title: Obstet Gynecol doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c33c72 – volume-title: Good Practice Guide: Inclusive Language year: 2024 ident: key2025072618475200_ref40-bib40 – volume: 139 start-page: 469 year: 2006 ident: key2025072618475200_ref17-bib17 article-title: A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials publication-title: Surgery doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.014 – volume: 13 start-page: 1307694 year: 2023 ident: key2025072618475200_ref6-bib6 article-title: Factors influencing same-day discharge after minimally invasive hysterectomy for malignant and non-malignant gynecological diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis publication-title: Front Oncol doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1307694 – volume: 22 start-page: 40 year: 2022 ident: key2025072618475200_ref14-bib14 article-title: Women’s interdependence after hysterectomy: a qualitative study based on Roy adaptation model publication-title: BMC Womens Health doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01615-2 – volume: 8 year: 2023 ident: key2025072618475200_ref7-bib7 article-title: Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 6 start-page: e123 year: 2022 ident: key2025072618475200_ref39-bib39 article-title: Development and evaluation of a novel training program to build study staff skills in equitable and inclusive engagement, recruitment, and retention of clinical research participants publication-title: J Clin Transl Sci doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.456 – volume: 10 start-page: 435 year: 2022 ident: key2025072618475200_ref15-bib15 article-title: The real experience with women’s hysterectomy: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research evidence publication-title: Nursing Open doi: 10.1002/nop2.1348 – volume-title: Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners year: 2013 ident: key2025072618475200_ref27-bib27 – volume: 67 start-page: 912 year: 2014 ident: key2025072618475200_ref35-bib35 article-title: The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials publication-title: J Clin Epidemiol doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010 – volume: 36 start-page: 234 year: 2016 ident: key2025072618475200_ref10-bib10 article-title: Laparoscopic simulation training in gynaecology: current provision and staff attitudes – a cross-sectional survey publication-title: J Obstet Gynaecol doi: 10.3109/01443615.2015.1060199 – volume: 26 start-page: 1753 year: 2016 ident: key2025072618475200_ref28-bib28 article-title: Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power publication-title: Qual Health Res doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444 – volume: 126 start-page: 795 year: 2019 ident: key2025072618475200_ref4-bib4 article-title: Route of hysterectomy: a retrospective, cohort study in English NHS Hospitals from 2011 to 2017 publication-title: BJOG doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15539 – volume: 13 start-page: 377 year: 2021 ident: key2025072618475200_ref5-bib5 article-title: Short stay laparoscopic hysterectomy: an evaluation of feasibility and patient satisfaction publication-title: Facts Views Vis Obgyn doi: 10.52054/FVVO.13.4.039 – volume: 9 start-page: S39 year: 2000 ident: key2025072618475200_ref13-bib13 article-title: Decision making, beliefs, and attitudes toward hysterectomy: a focus group study with medically underserved women in Texas publication-title: J Womens Health Gend Based Med doi: 10.1089/152460900318759 – volume: 17 start-page: 88 year: 2017 ident: key2025072618475200_ref25-bib25 article-title: Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework publication-title: BMC Health Serv Res doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8 – volume: 27 start-page: 681 year: 2007 ident: key2025072618475200_ref16-bib16 article-title: Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions publication-title: Med Decis Making doi: 10.1177/0272989X07307270 – volume: 15 start-page: 443 year: 2020 ident: key2025072618475200_ref20-bib20 article-title: Self-interested and altruistic motivations in volunteering for clinical trials: a more complex relationship publication-title: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics doi: 10.1177/1556264620914463 – volume: 16 start-page: 35 year: 2024 ident: key2025072618475200_ref30-bib30 article-title: Lessons learnt from the multi-centre LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA) randomised controlled trial publication-title: Facts Views Vis Obgyn doi: 10.52054/FVVO.16.1.003 – volume: 20 start-page: 284 year: 2019 ident: key2025072618475200_ref34-bib34 article-title: Barriers to recruitment when conducting a commissioned randomised controlled trial of medication versus psychological therapy for generalised anxiety disorder: some lessons learned publication-title: Trials doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3385-5 – volume: 2015 year: 3677 ident: key2025072618475200_ref3-bib3 article-title: Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev – volume: 13 start-page: e070218 year: 2023 ident: key2025072618475200_ref23-bib23 article-title: LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial publication-title: BMJ Open doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070218 |
| SSID | ssj0041651 |
| Score | 2.4509053 |
| SecondaryResourceType | online_first |
| Snippet | Laparoscopic hysterectomies performed for benign gynaecological conditions are increasing. However, there is a lack of up-to-date evidence on their surgical... A hysterectomy (surgery to remove the womb) can be performed in different ways. One way is by opening the abdomen, and one is by keyhole surgery, known as... Background Laparoscopic hysterectomies performed for benign gynaecological conditions are increasing. However, there is a lack of up-to-date evidence on their... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 1 |
| SubjectTerms | abdominal acceptabilty feasibility hysterectomy laparoscopic qualitative process evaluation |
| Title | Feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of laparoscopic versus abdominal hysterectomy for women and healthcare professionals: the LAVA trial qualitative process evaluation |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40717555 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3234305678 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC12359015 https://doaj.org/article/8a0b5b200b1e42f296e1e68abd66dfb6 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 2046-4924 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0041651 issn: 2046-4924 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrZ1Lj9MwEMctWCHEBfGmPFaDxJFokzh2bG5lxYIQrDhUqLfIr6iVliTatkj9WnxCZuy0tAiJC9c4SpzM2P6PPP4NY6-DqawvtM5CpV1W1d5kNtQmq4JyVR6k5cbGYhP15aWaz_XXg1JflBOW8MDpx50pk1th0Za2CFXZllqGIkhlrJfStzbCtvNa74KpNAejyhBFQs1y1C9nHz7NzjHsEkeLT2T0_01Y_pkfebDgXNxjd0elCNPUw_vsRugesNtfxr3wh-wnqrcxt3X7Boyj_JQE3d6C6TxEWviA_rWO0xn0LVzhykj0yn5YOqB8jM0K8BP7WNgLFgR1pgmw_74F1LIQ6QzxWYt9lhgMByyP1VtA_Qifp9-mEMt_QDqjGWHiMKQzCPAbKP6IzS7ez84_ZmMFhsyVlRCZ0y1VHZSlwUjZBOkrI4rArbJKeOVbrtCWhbaUw6psbZV0NnDhSQW1quSP2UnXd-EpA-FC6XJsax3tPQYtWuGdNIZuxJluwl7tLNMMibPRYHxC1mt21puwd2SyfTuRseMF9Jdm9JfmX_6CL9oZvMGRRNsjpgv9ZtXwkhP_DFfvCXuSHGD_qhj2CoFdUEeucdSX45ZuuYi0bjqMTKLr2f_o_XN2p6QCxHmdlfwFO1lfb8JLdsv9WC9X16fsZj1Xp3Ek_AI_Fxaz |
| linkProvider | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Feasibility%2C+acceptability+and+appropriateness+of+laparoscopic+versus+abdominal+hysterectomy+for+women+and+healthcare+professionals%3A+the+LAVA+trial+qualitative+process+evaluation&rft.jtitle=Health+technology+assessment+%28Winchester%2C+England%29&rft.au=Matthews%2C+Lynsay&rft.au=Clark%2C+T+Justin&rft.au=Bevan%2C+Sheriden&rft.au=Middleton%2C+Lee&rft.date=2025-07-23&rft.eissn=2046-4924&rft.spage=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.3310%2FGJTC1325&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F40717555&rft.externalDocID=40717555 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2046-4924&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2046-4924&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2046-4924&client=summon |