AbstractPurposeMethods for assessing acceptability of healthcare interventions have been inconsistent until the development of the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Despite its rapid adoption in healthcare research, the TFA has rarely been used to assess acceptability of surgical interventions. We sought to explore the sufficiency of the TFA in this context and provide methodological guidance to support systematic use of this framework in research.MethodAcceptability was assessed in a consecutive sample of 15 patients at least 3 months post‐joint replacement surgery via theory‐informed semi‐structured interviews. A detailed description of the application of the TFA is reported. This includes: development of the interview guide (including questions to assess theoretical sufficiency), analysis of interview data and interpretation of findings.ResultsInterview data were substantially codable into the TFA constructs but required the addition of a construct, labelled ‘perceived safety and risk’, and relabelling and redefining an existing construct (new label: ‘opportunity costs and gains’). Methodological recommendations for theory‐informed interview studies include producing interview support material to enhance precision of the intervention description, conducting background conversations with a range of stakeholders in the healthcare setting, and conducting first inductive and then deductive thematic analysis.ConclusionThe sufficiency of the TFA could be enhanced for use when assessing interventions with an identifiable risk profile, such as surgery, by the inclusion of an additional construct to capture perceptions of risk and safety. We offer these methodological recommendations to guide researchers and facilitate consistency in the application of the TFA in theory‐informed interview studies.