The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 1 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
14 Own interpretation · 1 Sources not found · 1 No basis given
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Does It Work?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The advantage of the cohort design, compared to the case-control design, is that it establishes the timing and directionality of effects.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Can It Work?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Does It Work?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Can It Work?
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Relating to the Real World
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Earlier-phase trials are used, in part, to estimate effect size, power, and sample size for a full Phase-III trial.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Does It Work?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
- It may state two separate claims as one. 2
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Can It Work?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Relating to the Real World
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Green and Glasgow9
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, experiments afford a very time- and cost-effective means of testing whether an intervention could work.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Can It Work?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But this focus on internal validity can reduce external relevance, and generalizability can decrease, limiting dissemination.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Relating to the Real World
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, because of resource constraints, not all interventions can be tested for both efficacy and effectiveness.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Introduction
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The disadvantage is that the need for follow-up means that cohort studies take longer to complete.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Can It Work?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Usually, these feasibility questions and others will be addressed initially through qualitative interviewing and surveys, followed by experimentation.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Will It Work?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The drawback of experimental feasibility studies is that they have relatively limited external validity.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Can It Work?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Typically, the Phase-I or -II trial entails a smaller sample size than a full Phase-III efficacy/effectiveness trial.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Does It Work?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, experiments permit random or unbiased assignment to intervention conditions. Therefore, some comparison to an unbiased control from the same population is available.”
§ How We Design Feasibility Studies > Can It Work?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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].”
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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].”
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
(2005) · Cited by 3,748
(2002) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 2,351
Planning health promotion programs an intervention mapping approach
Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., & Gottlieb, N. (2006) · Cited by 2,038
(1999) · PubMed · Cited by 1,155
Health Education Planning: A diagnostic approach
(1986) · Journal of Nutrition Education · doi:10.1016/s0022-3182(86)80109-1 · Cited by 950
Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E. (2006) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278705284445 · Cited by 922
Glasgow, R. E. (2006) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyl081 · Cited by 565
Green, L. W. (2006) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.066035 · Cited by 497
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
“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. I., & Cohn, E. S. (2015) · OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · doi:10.1177/1539449215578649 · Cited by 649
“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
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
“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
“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 443
“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
“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
“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
“Implementation is the extent the intervention can be successfully and reliably delivered to participants as it is intended [38,51,53].”
Effectiveness 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
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 345
“…– 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.”
MethodLee, 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
“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].”
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 317
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 293
“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
“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 260
Walton, H., Spector, A. E., Tombor, I., & Michie, S. (2017) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12260 · Cited by 255
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
“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
“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
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 218
“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
“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 186
“[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
“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 189
“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 202
“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 180
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
“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
“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
“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
“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 141
“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
“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 160
“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
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 158
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 132
“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
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 138
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 134
“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
“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
“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
Phillips, S. M., Summerbell, C., 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 137
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 129
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
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
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
“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
“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
“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
“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 122
“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 107
“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., MacNamara, F., McCormack, D., McDermott, C. J., McEntire, J., McKiernan, J., Lacey, S., Doran, P., et al. (2023) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afad012 · Cited by 114
“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 146
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 113
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
“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
“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
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
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
“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
de Sousa, V. E. C., & Lopez, K. D. (2017) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.4338/aci-2016-10-r-0170 · Cited by 99
“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
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
“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 104
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
“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 98
“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
“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
Richardson, J. D., Datta, A., Dmochowski, J., Parra, L. C., & Fridriksson, J. (2015) · Neurorehabilitation · doi:10.3233/nre-141199 · Cited by 88
“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 111
“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
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
“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
“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
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 89
“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. L., Coburn, S., Jones, D., & Crossley, K. M. (2018) · Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7941 · Cited by 83
“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
Davis, A. M., Kennedy, D. M., Wong, R., Robarts, S., 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 83
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
“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
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
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
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 92
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 79
“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 78
“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
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
“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
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
“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
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 73
“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
“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 93
Nkuba, M. G., Hermenau, K., Goessmann, K., & Hecker, T. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201362 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- 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)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Yale Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bowen, Deborah J.
- 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
- 4,021
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 471 · 2025: 483 · 2024: 482 · 2023: 467 · 2022: 409 · 2021: 370 · 2020: 332 · 2019: 255 · 2018: 231 · 2017: 180 · 2016: 120 · 2015: 97 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 15.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r21ca126390-02, 5r21ca126373-02, 1r21ca126321-01, 7r21ca126326-03)
- National Cancer Institute (R21-CA126326, R21 CA126321, 1R21CA126373-01, 1R21CA126321-01, R21 CA126390, R21CA126450, 1R21CA126390-01, R21CA126325, 1R21CA126326-01, R21 CA126373)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025741)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- 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, Research Design, Research Support as Topic, United States, National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
