How we design feasibility studies
Open accessAbstract
Public health is moving toward the goal of implementing evidence-based interventions. To accomplish this, there is a need to select, adapt, and evaluate intervention studies. Such selection relies, in part, on making judgments about the feasibility of possible interventions and determining whether comprehensive and multilevel evaluations are justified. There exist few published standards and guides to aid these judgments. This article describes the diverse types of feasibility studies conducted in the field of cancer prevention, using a group of recently funded grants from the National Cancer Institute. The grants were submitted in response to a request for applications proposing research to identify feasible interventions for increasing the utilization of the Cancer Information Service among underserved populations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 1 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Interpretationnone given
Deriving an effect-size estimate for the treatment is a major feasibility issue before a full evaluation trial is mounted.
“A major feasibility issue that precedes the mounting of a full evaluation trial is the need to derive an effect-size estimate for the treatment.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
A cohort feasibility study, relative to a case-control design, can establish the timing and direction of effects.
“The advantage of the cohort design, compared to the case-control design, is that it establishes the timing and directionality of effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Phase-I/II feasibility trials usually use an RCT because it provides the greatest internal validity and maximizes confidence that outcome changes are causally attributable to treatment.
“Usually the design is an RCT because that study design affords the greatest internal validity (i.e., it maximizes confidence that changes in outcomes can be attributed causally to the treatment).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Compared with an RCT, a cohort study's main weakness is that treatment is not randomly assigned, so outcome differences may reflect pre-existing differences in participants or circumstances rather than the intervention.
“Compared to an RCT, the cohort study’s main disadvantage is that participants are not assigned randomly to treatment. Thus, their outcomes may differ not because of the intervention but because the participants or their circumstances were inherently different from the outset.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The tight control of efficacy research makes causal inference more feasible from the designs used, which are often randomized trials.
“The highly controlled nature of efficacy research is good in that it is likely more possible to draw causal inferences from the designs used (often randomized trials).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Interpretationreasoning
Earlier-phase trials contribute to estimating the effect size, statistical power, and sample size needed for a full Phase-III trial.
“Earlier-phase trials are used, in part, to estimate effect size, power, and sample size for a full Phase-III trial.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
- May combine two claims. 2
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningSmall-scale experiments can efficiently test safety, optimal dose, and treatment sequencing before a full-scale clinical trial begins.
“Questions about safety; optimal dose (treatment intensity, frequency, duration); and the sequencing of treatment all can be tested efficiently in experiments before the launching of a full-scale clinical trial.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationGreen and Glasgow noted a mismatch between growing demands for evidence-based practice and the fact that most evidence-based recommendations for behavioral interventions come from tightly controlled efficacy trials.
“Green and Glasgow9 have pointed out the incongruity between increasing demands for evidence-based practice and the fact that most evidence-based recommendations for behavioral interventions are derived from highly controlled efficacy trials.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Green and Glasgow9
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationnone givenExperiments offer a time- and cost-effective method for testing whether an intervention could work.
“Second, experiments afford a very time- and cost-effective means of testing whether an intervention could work.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningAn emphasis on internal validity in efficacy research can lower external relevance and generalizability, which can restrict dissemination.
“But this focus on internal validity can reduce external relevance, and generalizability can decrease, limiting dissemination.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenResource limits mean that not every intervention can be evaluated for both efficacy and effectiveness.
“Clearly, because of resource constraints, not all interventions can be tested for both efficacy and effectiveness.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningCohort studies require follow-up and therefore take longer to finish.
“The disadvantage is that the need for follow-up means that cohort studies take longer to complete.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenFeasibility questions about new treatment-delivery channels are typically first addressed with qualitative interviews and surveys, then experimentation.
“Usually, these feasibility questions and others will be addressed initially through qualitative interviewing and surveys, followed by experimentation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenExperimental feasibility studies have comparatively limited external validity.
“The drawback of experimental feasibility studies is that they have relatively limited external validity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenPhase-I/II trials generally have smaller samples than full Phase-III efficacy/effectiveness trials.
“Typically, the Phase-I or -II trial entails a smaller sample size than a full Phase-III efficacy/effectiveness trial.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningExperiments allow random or unbiased assignment to intervention conditions, so a comparison with an unbiased control from the same population is possible.
“First, experiments permit random or unbiased assignment to intervention conditions. Therefore, some comparison to an unbiased control from the same population is available.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
Published standards and guides for judging feasibility and for designing and evaluating feasibility studies are lacking.
“There exist few published standards and guides to aid these judgments.”
“The published literature does not propose standards to guide the design and evaluation of feasibility studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Feasibility studies are expected to yield findings that inform decisions about recommending an intervention for efficacy testing.
“Feasibility studies are relied on to produce a set of findings that help determine whether an intervention should be recommended for efficacy testing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Feasibility studies help decide if an intervention merits further testing and if the underlying ideas and results can be made relevant and sustainable.
“Feasibility studies are used to determine whether an intervention is appropriate for further testing; in other words, they enable researchers to assess whether or not the ideas and findings can be shaped to be relevant and sustainable.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Which design is best varies with the chosen focus, both in feasibility work and in other research.
“The choice of an optimal research design depends upon the selected area of focus. This premise holds equally for feasibility studies and for other kinds of research.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Non-hybrid pilot implementation studies typically occur when the effectiveness of a clinical or public health intervention is well established, but robust strategies to promote its broader uptake and integration into clinical or public health services remain untested.
“Non-hybrid pilot implementation studies are undertaken in the absence of a broader effectiveness trial. Such studies typically occur when the effectiveness of a clinical or public health intervention is well established, but robust strategies to promote its broader uptake and integration into clinical or public health services remain untested [15].”
From Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
The “Will It Work?” section (page unavailable) says that, ideally, an intervention has shown efficacy and effectiveness before broad implementation, when feasibility questions about dissemination and integration arise. The “Appropriate Areas of Focus” section (page unavailable) also identifies implementation and integration as subjects of feasibility research. The paper does not establish that non-hybrid pilot implementation studies typically occur at this stage or that robust uptake strategies remain untested. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe field of implementation science has identified the need for nuanced guidance because of differences between implementation trials and conventional clinical or public health efficacy trials.
“However, given the differences between implementation trials and conventional clinical or public health efficacy trials, the field of implementation science has identified the need for nuanced guidance [14–16, 19, 20].”
From Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
The Introduction says guidance and standards for feasibility studies are needed, and “Relating to the Real World” contrasts highly controlled efficacy trials with research suited to practice settings. The paper does not specifically identify a need for guidance on implementation trials as distinct from conventional efficacy trials. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn implementation research, feasibility and pilot studies focus on developing or refining implementation strategies, refining research methods for an implementation intervention trial, or undertaking preliminary testing of implementation strategies.
“In implementation research, feasibility and pilot studies perform the same functions as those for intervention trials, however with a focus on developing or refining implementation strategies, refining research methods for an implementation intervention trial, or undertake preliminary testing of implementation strategies [14, 15].”
From Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
The Employing Feasibility Studies section says these studies can refine research methods and protocols, and Does It Work? describes small-scale testing before a full intervention trial. Will It Work? discusses feasibility questions during implementation, but the paper does not specifically describe developing or preliminarily testing implementation strategies for an implementation intervention trial. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredImplementation trials are more pragmatic than conventional clinical or public health efficacy trials.
“In addition, where conventional clinical or public health efficacy trials are typically conducted under controlled conditions and directed mostly by researchers, implementation trials are more pragmatic [15].”
From Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
“Relating to the Real World” describes efficacy trials as highly controlled and calls for studies that test interventions under community constraints. “Will It Work?” discusses implementation in diverse practice systems. The paper does not explicitly compare implementation trials with efficacy trials or say that efficacy trials are directed mostly by researchers. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAlthough guidance for implementation trials has recently been standardised, information on conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation interventions remains limited, potentially contributing to a lack of exploratory work and a limited evidence base for effective implementation intervention design and conduct.
“Although there have been many recent developments in the standardisation of guidance for implementation trials, information on the conduct of feasibility and pilot studies for implementation interventions remains limited, potentially contributing to a lack of exploratory work in this area and a limited evidence base to inform effective implementation intervention design and conduct [15].”
From Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Implementation trials often require partnerships with end-users and at times prioritisation of end-user needs over methods that seek to maximise internal validity.
“As is the case for well conducted effectiveness trials, implementation trials often require partnerships with end-users and at times, the prioritisation of end-user needs over methods (e.g. random assignment) that seek to maximise internal validity [15, 22].”
From Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
In “Relating to the Real World” (page not available), the paper calls for meaningful involvement of practitioners and community members and for studies that prioritize community constraints over optimal research conditions. It also says an emphasis on internal validity can limit real-world relevance. These points support the general trade-off, but the paper discusses feasibility studies, not implementation trials, and does not say that end-user needs should take priority over random assignment in such trials. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPilot studies have relatively limited external validity.
“Pilot studies have relatively limited external validity [4]”
From Can CBT-E be delivered in an online group format? A pilot study of the Body Image module in a child and adolescent eating disorder service (2023) · cites this paper as [4]
The “Can It Work?” section says that experimental feasibility studies have relatively limited external validity. The claim extends that assessment to pilot studies generally, whereas the paper makes it about a particular experimental design. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFour of the eight general foci of feasibility studies proposed by Bowen et al. (2009) guided the assessment of feasibility in the current study (demand, implementation, practicality and acceptability).
“they propose eight general foci of feasibility studies, four of which guided the assessment of feasibility in the current study (demand, implementation, practicality and acceptability).”
From e-TC: Development and pilot testing of a web-based intervention to reduce anxiety and depression in survivors of testicular cancer (2017) · cites this paper as Bowen et al. (2009)
The feasibility and acceptability of e-TC was evaluated in a manner consistent with that recommended by Bowen et al. (2009).
“The feasibility and acceptability of e-TC was evaluated in a manner consistent with that recommended by Bowen et al. (2009).”
From e-TC: Development and pilot testing of a web-based intervention to reduce anxiety and depression in survivors of testicular cancer (2017) · cites this paper as Bowen et al. (2009)
The study used a mixed-methods design following Bowen et al. feasibility indicators, with simultaneous collection of quantitative and qualitative data integrated into analyses.
“A mixed-methods study was conducted to investigate the feasibility of the intervention in the CAPS-ad following the indicators of acceptability, demand, implementation, adaptation, integration, and limited efficacy testing as described by Bowen et al. (24), with simultaneous collection of quantitative and qualitative data that was integrated into the analyses.”
From A mindfulness-based intervention for Substance Use Disorder in a Brazilian vulnerable population: a feasibility mixed method study (2024) · cites this paper as [24]
Feasibility studies are needed when there are very few prior studies using a specific intervention approach and when extant research suggests that the target population needs unique consideration.
“According to Bowen and colleagues [43], feasibility studies are needed when there are very few prior studies using a specific intervention approach and when extant research suggests that the target population needs unique consideration.”
The purpose of conducting feasibility studies is to decide whether an intervention is appropriate for further testing.
“The purpose of conducting feasibility studies is to decide whether an intervention is appropriate for further testing, therefore enabling researchers to determine whether the intervention can be relevant and sustainable, by identifying if the methods and protocols employed need modification but also by elucidating the process of change [29].”
Some guidance suggested adapting intervention content to a new setting.
“Some guidance suggested that changes could be made within exploratory studies to refine the intervention and underlying theory [15, 29, 31] and adapt intervention content to a new setting [39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Sources of guidance endorsed exploratory studies having formative purposes (refining the intervention and addressing uncertainties related to intervention implementation).
“Sources of guidance endorsed exploratory studies having formative purposes (i.e. refining the intervention and addressing uncertainties related to intervention implementation [13, 15, 29, 31, 39]) as well as summative goals (i.e. assessing the potential impact of an intervention or its promise [6, 13, 39]).”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Sources of guidance endorsed exploratory studies having summative goals (assessing the potential impact of an intervention or its promise).
“Sources of guidance endorsed exploratory studies having formative purposes (i.e. refining the intervention and addressing uncertainties related to intervention implementation [13, 15, 29, 31, 39]) as well as summative goals (i.e. assessing the potential impact of an intervention or its promise [6, 13, 39]).”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Several sources emphasised the importance of testing implementation in a range of contexts.
“Furthermore, several sources emphasised the importance of testing implementation in a range of contexts [15, 29, 39, 41]—especially in less socioeconomically advantaged groups, to examine the risk of widening health inequalities [29, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Implementation, feasibility, fidelity and 'practicality' explored the likelihood of being able to deliver in practice what was intended.
“Implementation, feasibility, fidelity and ‘practicality’ explored the likelihood of being able to deliver in practice what was intended [25–27, 30, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Acceptability was considered in terms of recipients' reactions.
“Acceptability was considered in terms of recipients’ reactions [7, 8, 29, 32, 39] while others were also attentive to feasibility from the perspective of intervention providers, deliverers and health professionals [6, 9, 29, 30, 34, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Others were attentive to feasibility from the perspective of intervention providers, deliverers and health professionals.
“Acceptability was considered in terms of recipients’ reactions [7, 8, 29, 32, 39] while others were also attentive to feasibility from the perspective of intervention providers, deliverers and health professionals [6, 9, 29, 30, 34, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Several sources of guidance discussed the need to understand the impact of the intervention, including harms, benefits or unintended consequences.
“Several sources of guidance discussed the need to understand the impact of the intervention, including harms, benefits or unintended consequences [6, 7, 15, 29, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Several sources emphasised testing implementation especially in less socioeconomically advantaged groups to examine the risk of widening health inequalities.
“Furthermore, several sources emphasised the importance of testing implementation in a range of contexts [15, 29, 39, 41]—especially in less socioeconomically advantaged groups, to examine the risk of widening health inequalities [29, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Estimating sample sizes from effect size estimates in an exploratory study was argued by some to be useful if there was scant literature and the exploratory study used the same design and outcome as the future evaluation.
“Estimating sample sizes from effect size estimates in an exploratory study was nevertheless argued by some to be useful if there was scant literature and the exploratory study used the same design and outcome as the future evaluation [30, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Guidance implied randomisation as a design feature of exploratory studies when estimating an effect size estimate of the intervention because it maximised the likelihood that observed differences are due to intervention.
“Randomisation was implied as a design feature of exploratory studies when estimating an effect size estimate of the intervention as it maximised the likelihood that observed differences are due to intervention [9, 39]”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Some guidance focused on the relevant uncertainties of feasibility for progression criteria.
“Some focussed on the relevant uncertainties of feasibility [32, 39]”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Several sources recommended a range of stakeholders (e.g. intervention providers, intervention recipients, public representatives, practitioners who might use the evidence) be involved in the planning and running of the exploratory study to ensure exploratory studies reflect the realities of intervention setting.
“Several sources recommended a range of stakeholders (e.g. intervention providers, intervention recipients, public representatives as well as practitioners who might use the evidence produced by the full trial) be involved in the planning and running of the exploratory study to ensure exploratory studies reflect the realities of intervention setting [15, 28, 31, 32, 39, 40].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Community-based participatory approaches were recommended.
“In particular, community-based participatory approaches were recommended [15, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Where guidance indicated the estimation of an effect size appropriate to inform the sample size for a future evaluation, a randomised design was deemed necessary.
“Where guidance indicated the estimation of an effect size appropriate to inform the sample size for a future evaluation, a randomised design was deemed necessary [9, 39].”
From Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance (2018) · cites this paper as [39]
Qualitative research was identified as useful for issues concerning acceptability, implementation, practicality and expansion (in terms of understanding use of a known intervention in a different sub-group).
“Qualitative research was identified as useful for issues concerning acceptability, implementation, practicality and expansion (in terms of understanding use of a known intervention in a different sub-group).”
From Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: guidance for researchers (2015) · cites this paper as [19]
Behavior change interventions have multiple criteria for success for real-world use, including being effective, usable, desirable to the target group, and safe.
“To complicate things further, behavior change interventions have multiple criteria for success for real-world use such as being effective, usable, desirable to the target group, and safe [5, 10].”
From Agile science: creating useful products for behavior change in the real world (2016) · cites this paper as [10]
Feasibility studies play an important role in identifying potentially efficacious interventions and ensuring they are prioritized for comprehensive evaluation.
“Feasibility studies play an important role in identifying potentially efficacious interventions and ensuring they are prioritized for comprehensive evaluation [25].”
From Feasibility of "CopeSmart": A Telemental Health App for Adolescents (2015) · cites this paper as [25]
A small sample size is often used in preliminary feasibility studies.
“While a small sample size is often used in preliminary feasibility studies [25]”
From Feasibility of "CopeSmart": A Telemental Health App for Adolescents (2015) · cites this paper as [25]
The study did not address demand (intent to use) and acceptability (intent to continue use and satisfaction) by people with arthritis.
“we did not address demand (ie, intent to use) and acceptability (ie, intent to continue use and satisfaction) by people with arthritis [31].”
From A Community-Based Physical Activity Counselling Program for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of the Track-OA Study (2017) · cites this paper as [31]
The purpose and benefit of feasibility studies is to assess how an intervention or strategy is implemented in uncontrolled, real-world settings, to inform future effectiveness trials, implementation, and scale-up.
“However, the purpose and benefit of feasibility studies is to assess how an intervention or strategy is implemented in uncontrolled, real-world settings, to inform future effectiveness trials, implementation, and scale-up [32,35,42].”
Feasibility conceptualization was guided by Bowen et al, exploring acceptability, demand, and limited efficacy testing.
“Feasibility conceptualization was guided by Bowen et al [44] exploring (1) acceptability (to what extent is the EPIO program judged as suitable, satisfying, or attractive to program recipients); (2) demand (to what extent is EPIO likely to be used, ie, exploration of the actual use of the program); and (3) limited efficacy testing (does the EPIO program show promise of being successful with the”
From Digital Self-Management in Support of Patients Living With Chronic Pain: Feasibility Pilot Study (2020) · cites this paper as [44]
Cites
(2005) · Cited by 3,748 · see citing works
(2002) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 2,351 · see citing works
Planning health promotion programs an intervention mapping approach
Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., & Gottlieb, N. (2006) · Cited by 2,038 · see citing works
(1999) · PubMed · Cited by 1,155 · see citing works
Health Education Planning: A diagnostic approach
(1986) · Journal of Nutrition Education · doi:10.1016/s0022-3182(86)80109-1 · Cited by 950 · see citing works
Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E. (2006) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278705284445 · Cited by 922 · see citing works
Glasgow, R. E. (2006) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyl081 · Cited by 565 · see citing works
Green, L. W. (2006) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.066035 · Cited by 497 · see citing works
Lessons Learned from Community-Based Participatory Research in Indian Country
Burhansstipano, L., Christopher, S. E., & Schumacher, A. (2005) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/1073274805012004s10 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
The Scientific Approach to Cancer Control
Greenwald, P., & Cullen, J. W. (1984) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.34.6.328 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Gustafson, D. H., Mctavish, F. M., Stengle, W., Ballard, D., Jones, E., Julèsberg, K., McDowell, H., Landucci, G., & Hawkins, R. P. (2005) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730500263281 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
An Introduction to Community-Based Participatory Research
Hergenrather, K. C., Geishecker, S., McGuire-Kuletz, M., Gitlin, D. J., & Rhodes, S. D. (2010) · Rehabilitation Research Policy and Education · doi:10.1891/2168-6653.24.4.225 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Green, 1994, Study of participatory research in health promotion: review and recommendations for the development of participatory research in health promotion in Canada
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
Weiner, B. J., Lewis, C. C., Stanick, C., Powell, B. J., Dorsey, C. N., Clary, A. S., Boynton, M. H., & Halko, H. (2017) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3 · Cited by 2,819 · see citing works
“We selected these implementation outcomes because (a) they are often used in formative research or pilot studies as “leading indicators” of implementation success [1, 5] and (b) they are conceptually distinct but likely to be empirically inter-related in complex ways [1].”
MethodMindfulness-based interventions in schools—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S., & Walach, H. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00603 · Cited by 999 · see citing works
Evaluating Digital Health Interventions
Murray, E., Hekler, E. B., Andersson, G., Collins, L. M., Doherty, A., Hollis, C., Rivera, D. E., West, R., & Wyatt, J. C. (2016) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.008 · Cited by 847 · see citing works
Guidelines for designing and evaluating feasibility pilot studies
Teresi, J. A., Yu, X., Stewart, A. L., & Hays, R. D. (2022) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000001664 · Cited by 734 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence-Based Chatbots for Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: Systematic Review.
Aggarwal, A., Tam, C. C., Wu, D., Li, X., & Qiao, S. (2023) · Journal of medical Internet research · doi:10.2196/40789 · Cited by 683 · see citing works
“Feasibility was defined as the demand of the intervention, that is, the actual use of the intervention and whether the intervention is doable in a certain setting [16].”
The Distinctive Features of a Feasibility Study
Orsmond, G., & Cohn, E. (2015) · OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health · doi:10.1177/1539449215578649 · Cited by 616 · see citing works
“An important distinction between feasibility and pilot studies, especially for novel interventions, is that feasibility studies are iterative, formative, and adaptive (Bowen et al., 2009).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGuidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials
Pearson, N., Naylor, P.-J., Ashe, M. C., Fernandez, M., Yoong, S. L., & Wolfenden, L. (2020) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00634-w · Cited by 475 · see citing works
Self-citationO’Cathain, A., Hoddinott, P., Lewin, S., Thomas, K. J., Young, B., Adamson, J., Jansen, Y. J., Mills, N., Moore, G., & Donovan, J. L. (2015) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-015-0026-y · Cited by 458 · see citing works
“For example, a description of feasibility studies for cancer prevention in the USA identified a typology of the questions addressed and some of the methodologies used [19].”
BackgroundHuberty, J., Green, J., Glissmann, C., Larkey, L., Puzia, M., & Lee, C. (2019) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/14273 · Cited by 488 · see citing works
“The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy [53] of an 8-week mindfulness meditation intervention delivered via a consumer-based mobile app (ie, Calm) as compared to a wait-list control group on stress in college students with elevated stress (≥14 on the Perceived Stress Scale [PSS]).”
Klaic, M., Kapp, S., Hudson, P., Chapman, W. W., Denehy, L., Story, D., & Francis, J. (2022) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01171-7 · Cited by 411 · see citing works
“Five reviews referred to a feasibility framework (Table 4) with the most commonly used being Bowen et al’s publication on designing feasibility studies [76].”
MethodDorado, J. S., Martinez, M., McArthur, L. E., & Leibovitz, T. (2016) · School Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s12310-016-9177-0 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
“However, our program evaluation can provide preliminary evidence for feasibility of HEARTS, and we believe this makes HEARTS appropriate for further study (Bowen et al., 2009).”
MethodCan digital technology enhance social connectedness among older adults? A feasibility study
Barbosa Neves, B., Franz, R., Judges, R., Beermann, C., & Baecker, R. (2019) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/0733464817741369 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
“The study considered two feasibility components: acceptability and efficacy (Bowen et al., 2009).”
BackgroundTelehealth Interventions Delivering Home-based Support Group Videoconferencing: Systematic Review
Banbury, A., Nancarrow, S., Dart, J., Gray, L., & Parkinson, L. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8090 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
“Implementation is the extent the intervention can be successfully and reliably delivered to participants as it is intended [38,51,53].”
Lee, J.-A., Choi, M., Lee, S. A., & Jiang, N. (2018) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-018-0591-0 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
“Operational definitions of the terms used in this review Studies on feasibility assess whether or not an intervention is appropriate for further testing, whereas studies on acceptability (which is a component of feasibility) determine how recipients react to that intervention [20].”
MethodEffectiveness of animal-assisted therapy: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Kamioka, H., Okada, S., Tsutani, K., Park, H., Okuizumi, H., Handa, S., Oshio, T., Park, S.-J., Kitayuguchi, J., Abe, T., et al. (2014) · Complementary Therapies in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2013.12.016 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Guo, C., Ashrafian, H., Ghafur, S., Fontana, G., Gardner, C., & Prime, M. S. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-00314-2 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
“…– post design involves: pre-phase, which provides control data; “ washout ” period 55 (i.e., with no interventions implemented with a time gap up to several months), to allow familiarization and to limit bias related to implementation 39,56 ; post-phase to collect data on solution effectiveness.”
MethodFrailty for Perioperative Clinicians: A Narrative Review
McIsaac, D. I., Macdonald, D. B., & Aucoin, S. D. (2020) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000004602 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
Frailty as a Predictor of Death or New Disability After Surgery
McIsaac, D. I., Taljaard, M., Bryson, G. L., Beaulé, P. E., Gagné, S., Hamilton, G. M., Hladkowicz, E., Huang, A. R., Joanisse, J. A., Lavallée, L. T., et al. (2018) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002967 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
“Feasibility was assessed in the domain of practicality (presence and frequency of missing items and time of administration).(24)”
MethodHallingberg, B., Turley, R., Segrott, J., Wight, D., Craig, P., Moore, L., Murphy, S., Robling, M., Simpson, S. A., & Moore, G. (2018) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-018-0290-8 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
“Several sources of guidance discussed the need to understand the impact of the intervention, including harms, benefits or unintended consequences [6, 7, 15, 29, 39].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGames for Health for Children—Current Status and Needed Research
Baranowski, T., Blumberg, F. C., Buday, R., DeSmet, A., Fiellin, L. E., Green, C. S., Kato, P. M., Lu, A. S., Maloney, A. E., Mellecker, R. R., et al. (2015) · Games for Health Journal · doi:10.1089/g4h.2015.0026 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Walton, H., Spector, A. E., Tombor, I., & Michie, S. (2017) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12260 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
the Victorian ASELCC Team, Vivanti, G., Paynter, J. M., Duncan, E., Fothergill, H., Dissanayake, C., & Rogers, S. J. (2014) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2168-9 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
“Feasibility was operationalized based on the guidelines outlined in Bowen et al. (2009),”
MethodAgile science: creating useful products for behavior change in the real world
Hekler, E. B., Klasnja, P., Riley, W. T., Buman, M. P., Huberty, J., Rivera, D. E., & Martin, C. A. (2016) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13142-016-0395-7 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
“To complicate things further, behavior change interventions have multiple criteria for success for real-world use such as being effective, usable, desirable to the target group, and safe [5, 10].”
BackgroundMethodAustralian Journal of Music Therapy
Baker, F. A. (2009) · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Overdijkink, S. B., Velu, A. V., Rosman, A. N., van Beukering, M. D. M., Kok, M., & Steegers‐Theunissen, R. P. M. (2018) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.8834 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
“These definitions were based on the study by Bowen et al in 2010 and adjusted for our research on apps [12].”
MethodAutism spectrum disorder in sub‐saharan africa: A comprehensive scoping review
Franz, L., Chambers, N., von Isenburg, M., & de Vries, P. J. (2017) · Autism Research · doi:10.1002/aur.1766 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
“The very low baselines in clinical services, knowledge, and pathways to care may present unique opportunities to develop clinical care, training programmes and integrated health/education systems “from the ground up” using community-based participation and high-quality implementation science approaches [Bird et al., 2…”
BackgroundSurvivorship Care Plans in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Care Plan Outcomes
Hill, R., Wakefield, C. E., Cohn, R. J., Fardell, J. E., Brierley, M., Kothe, E. J., Jacobsen, P. B., Hetherington, K., & Mercieca‐Bebber, R. (2019) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0184 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
“[21], feasibility outcomes included (A) acceptability (i.”
Applying mixed methods to pilot feasibility studies to inform intervention trials
Aschbrenner, K. A., Kruse, G. R., Gallo, J. J., & Clark, V. L. P. (2022) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-022-01178-x · Cited by 188 · see citing works
“Topic areas commonly addressed by pilot feasibility studies include acceptability, usability, appropriateness, practicality, adaptation, and implementation barriers and facilitators [10].”
BackgroundKamioka, H., Mutoh, Y., Tsutani, K., Yamada, M., Park, H., Okuizumi, H., Tsuruoka, K., Honda, T., Okada, S., Park, S., et al. (2014) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s61340 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
“18 Bowen et al 38 suggested that public health is moving toward the goal of implementing evidence-based intervention.”
Buckingham, S. A., Williams, A. J., Morrissey, K., Price, L., & Harrison, J. (2019) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/2055207619839883 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
“It is important to assess feasibility in addition to effectiveness of complex interventions such as mHealth.(77,78) Many studies included measures of engagement with the intervention, and the vast majority showed a decline in engagement over time.”
BackgroundHoughton, C., Dowling, M., Meskell, P., Hunter, A., Gardner, H., Conway, A., Treweek, S. P., Sutcliffe, K., Noyes, J., Devane, D., et al. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000045.pub2 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasibility study of a telepresence robot
Moyle, W., Jones, C., Cooke, M. L., O’Dwyer, S., Sung, B., & Drummond, S. (2014) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-7 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
“This study aimed to explore the use of a Giraff telepresence robot as a means of positively influencing communication and relationships between residents with dementia living in a long-term care facility and their family, and to examine the feasibility (according to the Bowen Feasibility Framework [17] as outlined p.…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBridging the gap: translating research into policy and practice
Brownson, R. C., & Jones, E. (2009) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.06.008 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
“Feasibility research can help to inform the adaptation and expansion of research to practice (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Naslund, J. A., Aschbrenner, K. A., Barre, L. K., & Bartels, S. J. (2015) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2014.0105 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
“Our assessment of feasibility consisted of (1) frequency of use over time and (2) the extent to which participants judged the technology to be satisfying, appropriate, and something they would continue using.(16) Our overall aim was to inform future research on the effectiveness of m-health interventions for obesity i…”
BackgroundMehta, A., Niles, A. N., Vargas, J. H., Marafon, T., Couto, D. D., & Gross, J. J. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/26771 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
“Although highly controlled feasibility pilot trials allow determination of causal inference, these studies may not be generalizable to real-world settings and may fail to address issues of external relevance and dissemination [59].”
Tutorial for Using Control Systems Engineering to Optimize Adaptive Mobile Health Interventions
Hekler, E. B., Rivera, D. E., Martín, C. A., Phatak, S. S., Freigoun, M. T., Korinek, E. V., Klasnja, P., Adams, M. A., & Buman, M. P. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8622 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
“If these optional tasks are conducted, current best practices for human-centered design and feasibility testing should occur [37,103,106,118,119].”
BackgroundImplementation of the Early Start Denver Model in an Italian community
Colombi, C., Narzisi, A., Ruta, L., Cigala, V., Gagliano, A., Pioggia, G., Siracusano, R., Rogers, S. J., Muratori, F., & Prima Pietra Team (2016) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361316665792 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
“Additionally, efficacy studies usually require randomization of participants into experimental and control conditions as well as blind evaluation of treatment outcomes (Bowen et al., 2009).”
BackgroundTotton, N., Lin, J., Julious, S. A., Chowdhury, M., & Brand, A. (2023) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-023-01416-w · Cited by 148 · see citing works
“Key aspects to evaluate include: assessing which interventions have the best potential to be successful [3], identifying any potential issues with the study design [4] and gathering information to inform the sample size calculation of the future definitive RCT [5].”
BackgroundLebares, C. C., Hershberger, A. O., Guvva, E. V., Desai, A., Mitchell, J., Shen, W., Reilly, L. M., Delucchi, K. L., O’Sullivan, P. S., Ascher, N. L., et al. (2018) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2734 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Incorporating feasibility protocols in intervention research
Gadke, D. L., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gettinger, M. (2020) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2020.11.004 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Houghton, C., Dowling, M., Meskell, P., Hunter, A., Gardner, H., Conway, A., Treweek, S. P., Sutcliffe, K., Noyes, J., Devane, D., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000045 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
“Feasibility studies help to determine whether the study can be done on a larger scale (Bowen 2009).”
BackgroundInfluentialHidalgo-Mazzei, D., Mateu, A., Reinares, M., Murru, A., del Mar Bonnín, C., Varo, C., Valentí, M., Undurraga, J., Strejilevich, S., Sánchez-Moreno, J., et al. (2016) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.04.042 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Effectiveness of horticultural therapy: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Kamioka, H., Tsutani, K., Yamada, M., Park, H., Okuizumi, H., Honda, T., Okada, S., Park, S., Kitayuguchi, J., Abe, T., et al. (2014) · Complementary Therapies in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2014.08.009 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Anderson, J. E., Ross, A. J., Back, J., Duncan, M. D., Snell, P., Walsh, K., & Jaye, P. (2016) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-016-0103-x · Cited by 128 · see citing works
“The study is concerned with whether RE can be practically implemented in two clinical settings and with providing intermediate evidence of its efficacy prior to potential full-scale testing [43].”
BackgroundLevati, S., Campbell, P., Frost, R., Dougall, N., Wells, M., Donaldson, C., & Hagen, S. (2016) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-016-0058-y · Cited by 101 · see citing works
“Thus, for the purpose of this paper, the term areas of focus was used to identify the different objectives and more generally the areas addressed by each optimisation process included [21].”
MethodMindfulness interventions in schools: Integrity and feasibility of implementation
Emerson, L.-M., de Diaz, N. N., Sherwood, A., Waters, A., & Farrell, L. (2020) · International Journal of Behavioral Development · doi:10.1177/0165025419866906 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
“This review will draw upon relevant guidelines to assess the integrity of MBIs (Crane, Kuyken, Hastings, Rothwell, & Williams, 2010; Crane et al., 2012; Crane et al., 2017) and evaluate feasibility (Bowen et al., 2009) of implementing the school-based MBIs identified.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGonzález-García, M., Álvarez, J. C., Pérez, E. Z., Fernandez-Carriba, S., & López, J. G. (2021) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-021-01632-6 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Phillips, S. M., Summerbell, C. D., Hobbs, M., Hesketh, K. R., Saxena, S. K., Muir, C., & Hillier-Brown, F. C. (2021) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-021-01132-9 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Willcox, J. C., Wilkinson, S. A., Lappas, M., Ball, K., Crawford, D. A., McCarthy, E. A., Fjeldsoe, B. S., Whittaker, R., Maddison, R., & Campbell, K. J. (2017) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14552 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Al-Ghunaim, T., Johnson, J., Biyani, C., Alshahrani, K. M., Dunning, A., & O’Connor, D. B. (2021) · American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.12.027 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Hoppe, K. K., Williams, M., Thomas, N., Zella, J. B., Drewry, A., Kim, K., Havighurst, T. C., & Johnson, H. M. (2018) · Pregnancy Hypertension · doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2018.12.007 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Internet-Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Anxiety Treatment: Systematic Review.
Kelson, J., Rollin, A., Ridout, B., & Campbell, A. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12530 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
“This included pilot studies as they can cost-effectively determine the feasibility of new interventions and research pursuits before expending greater resources on developing complex interventions, or testing advanced research designs [34].”
Hurley, D. A., Murphy, L. C., Hayes, D., Hall, A. M., Toomey, E., McDonough, S. M., Lonsdale, C., Walsh, N. E., Guerin, S., & Matthews, J. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0418-2 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
“The trial aims to assess the acceptability and demand of the SOLAS intervention to patients and physiotherapists compared to usual treatment [70], the feasibility of trial procedures and the most efficient and effective study design for a definitive trial.”
BackgroundBrooke‐Sumner, C., Petersen, I., Asher, L., Mall, S., Egbe, C. O., & Lund, C. (2015) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0400-6 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
“In addition it incorporates acceptability, or how the recipients of (or those delivering) the intervention perceive and react to it [14].”
BackgroundHeynsbergh, N., Heckel, L., Botti, M., & Livingston, P. M. (2018) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4160-9 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
“In developing a technology-based intervention, it is important to determine if the content of the intervention is useful and acceptable for end users, if the intervention can be used to sustain their wellbeing and if technology itself does not create any barrier to access [22].”
BackgroundAnderson, J., Ford, T. J., Soneson, E., Coon, J. T., Humphrey, A., Rogers, M., Moore, D. A., Jones, P. B., Clarke, E., & Howarth, E. (2018) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291718002490 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
“Commissioners and practitioners call for more interventions to be tested real-life settings, since the focus on internal validity and creating optimal conditions can significantly limit external relevance and impede dissemination (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Neves, B. B., Franz, R. L., Munteanu, C., & Baecker, R. (2017) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2017.1348534 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
“We studied the feasibility of our app to enhance perceived social connectedness by assessing its ‘acceptability’ and ‘efficacy’ (Bowen et al., 2009).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialTravers, J., Romero‐Ortuño, R., Langan, J., et al. (2023) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afad012 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
“We applied the Bowen feasibility model [33], testing: acceptability; demand; implementation; practicality; adaptation; integration; expansion and limited-efficacy.”
MethodFraser, J. H., Fahlman, D., Arscott, J., & Guillot, I. (2018) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3326 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Mental Health, Drug, and Violence Interventions for Sexual/Gender Minorities: A Systematic Review
Coulter, R. W. S., Egan, J. E., Kinsky, S. M., Friedman, M. R., Eckstrand, K., Frankeberger, J., Folb, B. L., Mair, C., Marković, N., Silvestre, A. J., et al. (2019) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2018-3367 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Ferreira, J. J., Godinho, C., Santos, A. T., Domingos, J., Abreu, D., Lobo, R., Gonçalves, N., Barra, M., Larsen, F., Fagerbakke, Ø., et al. (2015) · BMC Neurology · doi:10.1186/s12883-015-0343-z · Cited by 96 · see citing works
“recorded data confidently, compliance in terms of the number of completed test sessions and their timeliness with every other day assessments, compliance/adherence to system measures, success of data transfer and decryption, ease of use and program satisfaction [16, 17].”
BackgroundQuintiliani, L. M., Mann, D. M., Puputti, M., Quinn, E. K., & Bowen, D. J. (2016) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/cancer.5305 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
“The feasibility data served to help the research team decide if this intervention approach is suitable for further testing and refinement in future studies [15].”
Self-citationSoneson, E., Howarth, E., Ford, T. J., Humphrey, A., Jones, P. B., Coon, J. T., Rogers, M., & Anderson, J. (2020) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-020-01095-6 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Korinek, E. V., Phatak, S. S., Martín, C. A., Freigoun, M. T., Rivera, D. E., Adams, M. A., Klasnja, P., Buman, M. P., & Hekler, E. B. (2017) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-017-9878-3 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Feasibility of "CopeSmart": A Telemental Health App for Adolescents
Kenny, R., Dooley, B., & Fitzgerald, A. (2015) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/mental.4370 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
“While a small sample size is often used in preliminary feasibility studies [25], future research should aim to evaluate these types of technologies in larger samples of adolescents using standardized quality assessment scales such as the recently developed Mobile Application Rating Scale [48].”
Feasibility of smart wristbands for continuous monitoring during pregnancy and one month after birth
Grym, K., Niela‐Vilén, H., Ekholm, E. M. K., Hamari, L., Azimi, I., Rahmani, A. M., Liljeberg, P., Löyttyniemi, E., & Axelin, A. (2019) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-019-2187-9 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
de Sousa, V. E. C., & Lopez, K. D. (2017) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.4338/aci-2016-10-r-0170 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
“At the same time that respondent burden is a problem, short questionnaires that are too brief (like the ASQ) can lead to insufficient coverage of the attributes intended to be measured [129].”
BackgroundShepherd, H. L., Barratt, A. L., Jones, A., Bateson, D. J., Carey, K. T., Trevena, L. J., McGeechan, K., Mar, C. D., Butow, P. N., Epstein, R. M., et al. (2015) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12409 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Ledel Solem, I. K., Varsi, C., Eide, H., Kristjansdottir, O. B., Børøsund, E., Schreurs, K. M. G., Waxenberg, L. B., Weiss, K. E., Morrison, E. J., Haaland-Øverby, M., et al. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/15889 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“The ultimate goal was to develop an evidence-based intervention that was acceptable to users (ie, well received, suitable, user friendly, attractive, and meeting needs) [51] and had the potential to produce changes in quality of life for people with chronic pain.”
BackgroundCreaser, A. V., Clemes, S. A., Costa, S., Hall, J., Ridgers, N. D., Barber, S., & Bingham, D. D. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18126211 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Bridge: Person-Centered Collaborative Care for Patients with Serious Mental Illness and Cancer
Irwin, K. E., Park, E. R., Fields, L. E., Corveleyn, A. E., Greer, J. A., Perez, G. K., Callaway, C. A., Jacobs, J. M., Nierenberg, A. A., Temel, J. S., et al. (2019) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0488 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
“Feasibility criteria were met if at least (a) 30 patients with SMI and a new cancer diagnosis were enrolled over 12 months, (b) 50% of identified patients enrolled, (c) 75% of participants completed the diagnostic assessment, and (d) 75% of participants completed patient-reported outcomes at all timepoints [39].”
BackgroundPotential benefits of music playing in stroke upper limb motor rehabilitation
Grau‐Sánchez, J., Münte, T. F., ALTENMÜLLER, E. O., Duarte, E., & Rodríguez‐Fornells, A. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.02.027 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“Focus groups, measures of satisfaction in randomised controlled trials or surveys before and during the intervention can provide insight into all these aspects that influence acceptability (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Huberty, J., Sullivan, M., Green, J., Kurka, J. M., Leiferman, J. A., Gold, K. J., & Cacciatore, J. (2020) · BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies · doi:10.1186/s12906-020-02926-3 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
“We measured feasibility using Bowen’s guidelines [31] including acceptability, demand, and preliminary efficacy (i.”
MethodBeckers, L. W. M. E., Geijen, M., Kleijnen, J., Rameckers, E. A. A., Schnackers, M. L. A. P., Smeets, R., & Janssen‐Potten, Y. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035454 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Richardson, J. D., Datta, A., Dmochowski, J., Parra, L. C., & Fridriksson, J. (2015) · Neurorehabilitation · doi:10.3233/nre-141199 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“Feasibility outcomes were addressed in the study, specifically 1) implementation, 2) acceptability, and 3) preliminary efficacy (Bowen et al., 2009; Conn, Algase, Rawl, Zerwic, & Wyman, 2010).”
Parent Education and Training for autism spectrum disorders: Scoping the evidence
Dawson-Squibb, J.-J., Davids, E. L., Harrison, A. J., Molony, M. A., & de Vries, P. J. (2019) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361319841739 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
“Areas of focus can include acceptability, practicality, integration into existing systems, adaptations and expansion among others (Bowen et al., 2009; Tickle-Degnen, 2013).”
BackgroundMethodBeier, D., Proescholdt, M. A., Reinert, C., et al. (2017) · Neuro-Oncology · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox155 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Mobile health data collection at primary health care in Ethiopia: a feasible challenge
Medhanyie, A. A., Moser, A., Spigt, M., Yebyo, H., Little, A., Dinant, G., & Blanco, R. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.006 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“The interview guide was prepared by reviewing literature [14,15].”
MethodEvaluation of a web-based asthma self-management system: a randomised controlled pilot trial
Wiecha, J. M., Adams, W. G., Rybin, D., Rizzodepaoli, M., Keller, J., & Clay, J. M. (2015) · BMC Pulmonary Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12890-015-0007-1 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
“Key elements of feasibility [33] were successfully tested including: acceptability, and implementation.”
BackgroundHuberty, J., Eckert, R., Dueck, A. C., Kosiorek, H., Larkey, L., Gowin, K. L., & Mesa, R. A. (2019) · BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12906-019-2530-8 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
eHealth in Geriatric Rehabilitation: Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Usability
Kraaijkamp, J. J. M., van Isselt, E. F. V. D., Persoon, A., Versluis, A., Chavannes, N. H., & Achterberg, W. P. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/24015 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
“The aim of feasibility testing is to “determine whether an intervention is appropriate for further testing” [20,21], but a general accepted standard on feasibility testing is lacking.”
Kemp, J., Coburn, S. L., Jones, D. M., & Crossley, K. (2018) · Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7941 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
“Potential participants were excluded according to the following criteria: (1) received physical therapy treatment in the past 3 months, (2) had previous hip surgery or other major hip injury, (3) had other musculoskeletal conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, (4) were unable to perform testing procedures, (5) wer…”
BackgroundThe feasibility of fundamental movement skill assessments for pre-school aged children
Klingberg, B., Schranz, N. K., Barnett, L. M., Booth, V., & Ferrar, K. (2018) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640414.2018.1504603 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Davis, A. M., Kennedy, D. M., Wong, R., Robarts, S. F., Skou, S. T., McGlasson, R. A., LI, L. C., & Roos, E. M. (2017) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2017.11.005 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Boots, L. M., de Vugt, M. E., Withagen, H. E., Kempen, G. I., & Verhey, F. R. (2016) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.5142 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
“Methods An uncontrolled pre-post-intervention pilot study with EDC was conducted to establish feasibility, as this is recommended before moving on to a larger scale effect study [31,41].”
MethodSinha Deb, K., Tuli, A., Sood, M., Chadda, R., Verma, R., Kumar, S., Ganesh, R., & Singh, P. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203353 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Gastric Sonography in the Severely Obese Surgical Patient
de Putte, P. B. C. V., & Perlas, A. (2014) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000000373 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Peddle‐McIntyre, C. J., Bell, G. J., Fenton, D. W., McCargar, L., & Courneya, K. S. (2011) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.05.026 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Cook, C. R., Duong, M. T., McIntosh, K., Fiat, A. E., Larson, M. F., Pullmann, M. D., & McGinnis, J. L. (2018) · School Psychology Review · doi:10.17105/spr-2017-0026.v47-2 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Haines‐Saah, R., Kelly, M. T., Oliffe, J. L., & Bottorff, J. L. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4061 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
“This design is appropriate for feasibility studies that aim to determine whether the intervention is appropriate for further testing and estimate important parameters that are needed to refine the design of a full scale study [44,45].”
Hjelmfors, L., Strömberg, A., Friedrichsen, M., Sandgren, A., Mårtensson, J., & Jaarsma, T. (2018) · BMC Palliative Care · doi:10.1186/s12904-018-0340-2 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“The testing focused on two areas of feasibility; acceptability and limited efficacy of the intervention [22].”
BackgroundInfluentialPas, E. T., Johnson, S. R., Larson, K., Brandenburg, L., Church, R., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2898-y · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Hilgeman, M. M., Allen, R. S., Snow, A. L., Durkin, D. W., DeCoster, J., & Burgio, L. (2014) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2013.868403 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“Consistent with recommendations for limited-efficacy testing in feasibility studies, effect size estimates are the primary statistical indicator for determining the likely promise of the intervention (Bowen et al., 2009; Green & Glasgow, 2006; Robey, 2004; Schnurr, 2007).”
Standardizing Umbilical Catheter Usage in Preterm Infants
Shahid, S., Dutta, S., Symington, A., et al. (2014) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1373 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
How to choose your research organism
Dietrich, M. R., Ankeny, R. A., Crowe, N., Green, S., & Leonelli, S. (2019) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101227 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“On the other hand, it can be thought of as akin to a feasibility study (Bowen et al., 2009), where”
Kovacs, A. H., Grace, S. L., Kentner, A. C., Nolan, R. P., Silversides, C. K., & Irvine, M. J. (2018) · Canadian Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2018.02.023 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Sheffer, C. E., Bickel, W. K., Brandon, T. H., Franck, C. T., Deen, D., Panissidi, L., Abdali, S. A., Pittman, J. C., Lunden, S. E., Prashad, N., et al. (2017) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.037 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
“Sample size calculation Completion across conditions of< 45% is considered too low for efficacy testing (Bowen et al., 2009; Rounsaville et al., 2001).”
Li, L. C., Sayre, E. C., Xie, H., Clayton, C., & Feehan, L. M. (2017) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.7863 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“Although the study has identified strengths and areas of improvement for the intervention, we did not address demand (ie, intent to use) and acceptability (ie, intent to continue use and satisfaction) by people with arthritis [31].”
BackgroundMethodMatos, M., Albuquerque, I., Galhardo, A. B., Cunha, M. I. V. A., de Lima, M. P., Palmeira, L., Petrocchi, N., McEwan, K., Maratos, F. A., & Gilbert, P. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263480 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Nkuba, M. G., Hermenau, K., Goessmann, K., & Hecker, T. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201362 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., Bakken, S., Kaplan, C. P., Squiers, L., Fabrizio, C., & Fernandez, M.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Saint Louis University (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Yale Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bowen, Deborah J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 452-457
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2859314
- OpenAlex
- W2014261733
- Cited by
- 3,922
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 368 · 2025: 441 · 2024: 438 · 2023: 435 · 2022: 404 · 2021: 353 · 2020: 317 · 2019: 229 · 2018: 220 · 2017: 168 · 2016: 111 · 2015: 91 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 18.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- feasibility study, cancer prevention, evidence-based interventions, intervention selection, multi-level evaluation, cancer information services, underserved populations
- MeSH terms
- Feasibility Studies, Financing, Government, Humans, Medically Underserved Area, Neoplasms, Preventive Medicine, Public Health
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
