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
Items 1,601–1,700 of 3,693
Obilor, H. N., Veryha, O., Weisz, T., Botros, M., Wilson, R., Tranmer, J. E., & Woo, K. Y. (2024) · PEC Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100307 · Cited by 6
“A feasibility study is the preliminary exploration of the practicality of a proposed intervention, including its efficacy, for provisional evidence of its effectiveness among the intended population that could inform future research and clinical decisions [27].”
BackgroundFeasibility of a co-designed online nutrition education program for people with multiple sclerosis
Russell, R., Begley, A. M., Daly, A., Dunlop, E., Mazahery, H., Pham, N. M., Grech, L., & Black, L. J. (2024) · Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.msard.2024.105816 · Cited by 7
“[22 ] The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of EWWMS.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEnriquez‐Geppert, S., Krc, J., O'Higgins, F., & Lietz, M. P. (2024) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2023.0095 · Cited by 5
Novotny, N. L., Deibner, J., & Herrmann, C. (2015) · Journal of Nursing Education and Practice · doi:10.5430/jnep.v5n7p123 · Cited by 7
Visser, A., van Laarhoven, H. W. M., Woldringh, G. H., Hoogerbrugge, N., & Prins, J. B. (2015) · Acta Oncologica · doi:10.3109/0284186x.2015.1049292 · Cited by 6
Koller, A., Hasemann, M., Jaroslawski, K., Geest, S. D., & Becker, G. (2014) · Open Journal of Nursing · doi:10.4236/ojn.2014.42012 · Cited by 6
van der Molen, H. F., & Frings‐Dresen, M. H. W. (2014) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-541 · Cited by 6
A Multilevel Health Promotion Intervention in Minority-Owned Workplaces
Bowen, D. J., Briant, K. J., Harris, J. R., et al. (2015) · Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities · doi:10.1007/s40615-015-0093-z · Cited by 6
Self-citationPromoting Healthy Nutrition Behavior Using Mobile Devices and Ubiquitous Computing
Besoaín, F., Pérez-Navarro, A., Ojeda, F., et al. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26410-3_9 · Cited by 6
Dunphy, E., Hamilton, F. L., & Button, K. (2016) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.6402 · Cited by 6
Nylén, E. C., Lindfors, P., Ishäll, L., Göransson, S., Aronsson, G., Kylin, C., & Sverke, M. (2017) · Work · doi:10.3233/wor-172522 · Cited by 6
Exploring Cloud Computing Tools to Enhance Team-Based Problem Solving for Challenging Behavior
Johnson, L. (2017) · Topics in Early Childhood Special Education · doi:10.1177/0271121417715318 · Cited by 6
Gray, S. M., Higgins, J., & Rhodes, R. E. (2017) · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1123/japa.2017-0066 · Cited by 7
Correlation of PROMIS CAT instruments with Oswestry Disability Index in chiropractic patients
Papuga, M. O., & Barnes, A. L. (2018) · Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.02.001 · Cited by 6
The feasibility of a training course for clubfoot treatment in Africa: A mixed methods study
Smythe, T., Owen, R., Le, G., Uwizeye, E., Hansen, L., & Lavy, C. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203564 · Cited by 6
Reilly, K. C., Tucker, P., Irwin, J. D., Johnson, A. M., Pearson, E. S., Bock, D. E., & Burke, S. M. (2018) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph15122858 · Cited by 6
Klingberg, B., Hoeboer, J., Schranz, N. K., Barnett, L. M., de Vries, S. I., & Ferrar, K. (2019) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640414.2019.1575326 · Cited by 7
Using the OSU TBI-ID method for screening rural, older adults: a mixed methods feasibility study
Schneider-Cline, W., Bush, E. J., & McKelvey, M. L. (2019) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699052.2019.1606450 · Cited by 6
MacAndrew, M., Kolanowski, A. M., Fielding, E., Kerr, G., McMaster, M., Wyles, K., & Beattie, E. (2019) · International Journal of Older People Nursing · doi:10.1111/opn.12244 · Cited by 6
Castrén, S., Mäkelä, N., Haikola, J., Salonen, A. H., Crystal, R., Scheinin, M., & Alho, H. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023728 · Cited by 6
Psarakis, M., Lord, S. R., & Hoang, P. D. (2020) · International Journal of MS Care · doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2019-022 · Cited by 6
Pensak, M. J., Lundsberg, L. S., Stanwood, N. L., Cutler, A. S., & Gariepy, A. M. (2020) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/17295 · Cited by 5
Dawson-Squibb, J.-J., & de Vries, P. J. (2020) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361320942988 · Cited by 6
Simons, M., Young, A. D., McPhail, S., Harvey, G., Kenardy, J. A., Kularatna, S., Kimble, R. M., & Tyack, Z. F. (2020) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00636-8 · Cited by 6
Bleasdale, J., Kruger, J. S., Gampp, A., Kurtz, K., & Anzman‐Frasca, S. (2020) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980020002815 · Cited by 6
Brei, N. G., Raicu, A., Lee, H. J., & Klein-Tasman, B. (2020) · International review of research in developmental disabilities · doi:10.1016/bs.irrdd.2020.09.002 · Cited by 6
Stern, M., Redwine, L. S., Lozano, S. S., Rancourt, D., Rodriguez, C. S., Gray, H. L., Lock, S., & Bailey, R. (2020) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2020.106243 · Cited by 7
Travers, J., Romero‐Ortuño, R., Power, D., Doran, P., Langan, J., MacNamara, F., McCormack, D., McDermott, C. J., McEntire, J., McKiernan, J., et al. (2021) · HRB Open Research · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13188.2 · Cited by 6
Hakkim, A., Jagannathan, A., Bhargav, H., Jasti, N., Varambally, S. S., & Gangadhar, B. N. (2021) · International Journal of Yoga · doi:10.4103/ijoy.ijoy_87_21 · Cited by 6
Bruder, J., Ballenberger, N., Villas, B., Haugan, C., McKenzie, K., Patel, Z., Zalpour, C., Mevawala, A. S., Handl, M. N., & Guptill, C. A. (2021) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-021-05829-9 · Cited by 6
Feasibility of an adjunctive cognitive task in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder
Badawi, A., Steel, Z., Mahoney, C., & Berle, D. (2021) · Discover Psychology · doi:10.1007/s44202-021-00011-5 · Cited by 6
Koller, E. C., Abel, R., & Milton, L. E. (2022) · The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.15453/2168-6408.1847 · Cited by 10
Raess, L., Hawe, R. L., Metzler, M. J., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · doi:10.3389/fresc.2022.843767 · Cited by 6
Vandesande, S., Bosmans, G., Sterkenburg, P. S., Schuengel, C., & Maes, B. (2022) · Journal of Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1177/17446295221087564 · Cited by 6
Piotie, P. N., Wood, P. S., Muchiri, J. W., Webb, E. M., & Rheeder, P. (2022) · Journal of Endocrinology Metabolism and Diabetes of South Africa · doi:10.1080/16089677.2022.2074122 · Cited by 7
Igai, Y., & Porter, S. E. (2022) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.1274 · Cited by 6
Badía, J. M., del Toro, M. D., Gracia, J. F. N., Balibrea, J. M., Herruzo, R., Sánchez, C. G., García, J. L., Perez, I. R., Guirao, X., Soria‐Aledo, V., et al. (2022) · Cirugía Española (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.cireng.2022.11.009 · Cited by 6
Ma, P. W., Torres, A., & Akoto, M. (2023) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.22861 · Cited by 6
Lasrado, R., Bielsten, T., Hann, M., Davies, L. M., Schumm, J. E., Reilly, S., Swarbrick, C., Keady, J. D., & Hellström, I. (2018) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.9087 · Cited by 6
Development and feasibility study of an app (Ladle) for weight loss and behaviour change
Ogden, J., Maxwell, H., & Wong, A. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.6907 · Cited by 6
Vandersman, P., Newton-John, T. R. O., & Phillips, J. L. (2019) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-019-0442-5 · Cited by 6
McVay, M. A., Yancy, W. S., Bennett, G. G., Levine, E. L., Jung, S., Jung, S., Anton, S., & Voils, C. I. (2019) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/tbm/ibz143 · Cited by 6
Weijers, M., FERON, F. J. M., van der Zwet, J., & Bastiaenen, C. H. G. (2021) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/21942 · Cited by 6
Kitojo, C. A., Chacky, F., Kigadye, E. S., Mugasa, J. P., Lusasi, A., Mohamed, A., Reaves, E. J., Gutman, J., & Ishengoma, D. S. (2021) · Malaria Journal · doi:10.1186/s12936-021-03782-3 · Cited by 6
Cofta-Woerpel, L. M., Randhawa, V., McFadden, H. G., Fought, A. J., Bullard, E., & Spring, B. J. (2009) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-444 · Cited by 6
Self-citationA new method for self‐paced peak performance testing on a treadmill
Hunt, K. J., Anandakumaran, P., Loretz, J. A., et al. (2016) · Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging · doi:10.1111/cpf.12390 · Cited by 6
Berthold, S. M., Kong, S., Kuoch, T., Schilling, E. A., An, R., Blatz, M., Sorn, R., Ung, S., Yan, Y., Scully, M. F., et al. (2017) · Progress in community health partnerships · doi:10.1353/cpr.2017.0015 · Cited by 6
Evaluation of a novel community-based COVID-19 ‘Test-to-Care’ model for low-income populationsPreprint
Kerkhoff, A. D., Sachdev, D. D., Mizany, S., Rojas, S., Gandhi, M., Peng, J., Black, D., Jones, D., Rojas, S., Jacobo, J., et al. (2020) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2020.07.28.20161646 · Cited by 6
Jäger, M., Terry, J., & Rance, J. (2021) · International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ijosm.2021.12.004 · Cited by 6
“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…”
BackgroundStecher, C. D., Chen, C.-H., Codella, J., Cloonan, S., & Hendler, J. (2024) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-024-00492-4 · Cited by 6
“%) of participants in Treatment Groups 2 and 3 reported using contextual cues to help them establish other healthy habits during the study, which indicates a clear “intent to continue use” (Bowen et al., 2009) and highlights the generalizability of the anchoring intervention.”
Bakuwa, T. C., Saloojee, G. M., & Slemming, W. (2024) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1390645 · Cited by 6
“It involves assessing factors such as acceptability, appropriateness, relevance and practicality in terms of the availability of resources and time (23, 24).”
BackgroundMethodPham, J., Buttazzoni, A. N., & Gilliland, J. (2024) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19208-z · Cited by 9
“Regarding the first aspect of RQ1, intervention preparation, this component of the program includes those milestones related to program design and acceptability [86], the latter specifically referring to how recipients of a program react to the proposed intervention [94].”
BackgroundYang, L. H., Bass, J. K., Le, P. D., Singh, R., Gurung, D., Velasco, P. R., Grivel, M. M., Susser, E., Cleland, C. M., Alvarado, R., et al. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11783-6 · Cited by 7
“We selected these implementation outcomes because they are leading indicators of adoption of evidence-based interventions [41, 42].”
MethodRoig, J. B., Parés-Salomón, I., Loef, B., Vaqué-Crusellas, C., Coffey, A., Gustems-Morral, A., Señé-Mir, A. M., Luznik, I., Pajek, M., Dowd, K., et al. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-21598-7 · Cited by 6
Whittemore, R., Jeon, S., Akyirem, S., Chen, H. N., Lipson, J., Minchala, M., & Wagner, J. A. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/67293 · Cited by 5
“Feasibility and acceptability of data collection were determined as a priori based on an established framework [49].”
A qualitative investigation of the feasibility and acceptability of lower risk gambling guidelines
Egerer, M. D., Jääskeläinen, P., Marionneau, V., et al. (2025) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-025-01225-9 · Cited by 5
“Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the LRGG in the Finnish context using a qualitative focus group interview methodology [44].”
Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., Martinez‐Fuentes, S., Sladek, M. R., Baldeh, M., Hill, H. C., Ramanadhan, S., Etienne, K., Foint, S., Ison, A., Jones, S. M., et al. (2025) · Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcop.70025 · Cited by 5
Phanguphangu, M., & Ross, A. J. (2025) · International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2025.112446 · Cited by 5
Khurana, R., Valera, K., Raghunathan, R. R., Gallagher, K. D., Angove, R., Bradshaw, E., Patton, J., Alvarado, S., Crespo, S., Judon, K. M., et al. (2025) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101523 · Cited by 5
“The overall objective of the study is to determine the feasibility of AYA-NAV [53].”
Pouplier, A., Fridh, M. K., Schmidt‐Andersen, P., Nielsen, A. M. L., Winther, H., Christensen, J., & Larsen, H. B. (2025) · European Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/s00431-025-06350-y · Cited by 5
“The feasibility outcomes were inspired and modified from Bowen et al. [50] and the feasibility studies by Schmidt-Andersen et al. [51] and Hubbard et al. [52].”
Scannell, N., Mantzioris, E., Cowan, S., Moran, L., & Villani, A. M. (2025) · Proceedings of The Nutrition Society · doi:10.1017/s0029665126104054 · Cited by 8
Mothemela, B., Frisby, C., Mahomed‐Asmail, F., de Kock, T., Moore, D. R., Manchaiah, V. K. C., & Swanepoel, D. W. (2025) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2025.2545630 · Cited by 5
“The Bowen framework provides guidance for designing feasibility studies with consideration for eight focus areas, including acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation, integration, expansion, and limited-efficacy testing [20].”
Tiwari, A., Rodrigues, L. C., Caruso, R., Enseñado, E. M., Makousiari, E., & Gharbia, S. S. (2025) · Sustainable Futures · doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2025.101506 · Cited by 7
PROMIS Global Health: Feasibility in home health
Riggs, J. S., Roczen, M. L., Levitt, A. F., et al. (2021) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-021-02845-x · Cited by 5
The “trial within cohort design” was a pragmatic model for low-resourced settings
Heine, M., Derman, W. E., & Hanekom, S. D. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.010 · Cited by 5
Espenes, K., Waaler, P. M., Keleş, S., Helland, S. S., Schmidt, H., Kjøbli, J., & Tørmoen, A. J. (2022) · Residential Treatment for Children & Youth · doi:10.1080/0886571x.2022.2090481 · Cited by 5
Taylor, N. F., Shields, N., Thompson, L. A., O’Halloran, P., Harding, K. E., Dennett, A. M., Hau, R., & Peiris, C. L. (2022) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/02692155221128721 · Cited by 6
Martin, S., Parlier‐Ahmad, A. B., Eglovitch, M., Ondersma, S. J., Svikis, D. S., & Martin, C. E. (2022) · Women s Health Reports · doi:10.1089/whr.2022.0046 · Cited by 6
Surendran, A., McSharry, J., Meredith, D., McNamara, J. G., Bligh, F., Meade, O., & O’Hora, D. P. (2023) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-023-01319-w · Cited by 5
Tomas, V., Kingsnorth, S., Anagnostou, E. A., Kirsh, B. H., & Lindsay, S. (2023) · Autism in Adulthood · doi:10.1089/aut.2023.0054 · Cited by 6
Robinson, J., Gittelsohn, J., Bowie, J. V., Dankwa, L., & Thorpe, R. J. (2023) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980023002884 · Cited by 5
Kelly, M., Kilham, K., Walter, A., Bell-Weinberg, K., Livingston, G., & Dow, B. (2024) · Brain Impairment · doi:10.1071/ib23073 · Cited by 5
Beer, O. W. J., McInroy, L. B., Hefner, J. L., & Beer, S. (2024) · Journal of Public Child Welfare · doi:10.1080/15548732.2024.2312838 · Cited by 5
Massage therapy for hospital-based nurses: A proof-of-concept study
Hulett, J. M., Spotts, R. A., Narkthong, N., & Scott, S. D. (2024) · Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2024.101846 · Cited by 5
Stockwell‐Smith, G., Moyle, W., Grealish, L. A., Comans, T. A., Varghese, P. N., Whitlatch, C. J., & Orsulic‐Jeras, S. (2024) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.16167 · Cited by 5
Lewis, A. P., Turner, L., Fryer, S. M., Smith, R., Dillarstone, H., Patrick, Y., & Bevan-Smith, E. (2024) · Chronic Respiratory Disease · doi:10.1177/14799731241238435 · Cited by 4
Komasawa, M., Sato, M., Ssekitoleko, R., Waiswa, P., Gitta, S. N., Nabugoomu, J., Honda, S., Saito, K., & Aung, M. N. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084539 · Cited by 5
Barter, C., Bracewell, K., Farrelly, N., Clelland, A. K., & Chantler, K. (2024) · Journal of Gender-Based Violence · doi:10.1332/23986808y2024d000000030 · Cited by 7
Herbert, J., Schumacher, T. L., Brown, L., et al. (2024) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x241247245 · Cited by 5
“26 The completion of the AES-Heart and PNQ prior to the baseline consultations and the completion of the AES-Heart and pathology tests prior to the 3-month consultation appear to be relatively practical for intervention participants, with areas for improvement.”
InfluentialSafety and practicality study of using an exoskeleton in acute neurosurgery patients
kaïm, A. E., Serra, M., de Noray, H., et al. (2024) · Acta Neurochirurgica · doi:10.1007/s00701-024-06112-z · Cited by 5
“…to evaluate the safety and practicality of using an exoskeleton for standing sessions in neurosurgical intensive care and post-neurosurgical rehabilitation, practicality exploring the extent to which the intervention can be delivered when resources, time, commitment are constrained in some way[2].”
Purohit, N., Goyal, A., Rairker, A. B., et al. (2023) · Indian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.4103/ijph.ijph_885_22 · Cited by 5
D’Souza, A. N., Merrett, M., Griffin, H., Tran‐Duy, A., Struck, C., Fazio, T. N., Juj, G., Granger, C. L., & Peiris, C. L. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph21070958 · Cited by 5
“An observational, single-site cohort feasibility study was conducted using a feasibility evaluation framework [15].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMeasuring 24‐h use of time in people with a diabetes‐related foot ulcer: A feasibility study
Murphy, A., Graham, K., Olds, T., Loughry, C., Fraysse, F., Dumuid, D., Stanford, T., & Matricciani, L. (2024) · Journal of Foot and Ankle Research · doi:10.1002/jfa2.12045 · Cited by 6
Hoops, K. E. M., Bedner, A., Kemper, E., Aksamit, D., O’Brien, C. E., Johnson, M. K., Stewart, R. W., Maydan, D. D., Hailey‐Fair, K., & Galiatsatos, P. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1339215 · Cited by 5
“CPR and bleeding control measures save lives when administered immediately by trained responders, and given known racial disparities in provision of CPR by bystanders, providing this education must also be a priority for health systems (13).”
Chong, M. K., Hickie, I. B., Ekambareshwar, M., Poulsen, A., McKenna, S., Hutcheon, A., Hockey, S. J., Scott, E. M., & Iorfino, F. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12889-1 · Cited by 5
“Acknowledging that sharing in group settings may not be ideal for all participants, a mixed-methods approach was chosen to enable safe and comfortable participation for all [36].”
Art Group Interventions for Children With Learning Differences: A Systematic Review
Conolly, N. B., Hoosain, M., Rautenbach, G., & Plastow, N. A. (2025) · OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · doi:10.1177/15394492251340378 · Cited by 6
“…two or more variables), efficacy (the effect in ideal, clinical conditions), and effectiveness (effect in the real, non-ideal context) studies (Bowen et al., 2009), all clinician, child, or caregiver-rated outcomes relating to a child’s social interaction, academic performance, and/or…”
Hansen, T., Kjærsgaard, A., Beck, A. M., et al. (2018) · The journal of nutrition health & aging · doi:10.1007/s12603-018-1092-7 · Cited by 5
Improving Nurses' Behavioral Health Knowledge and Skills With Mental Health First Aid
Baker, M. W., Dower, C. M., Winter, P. B., Rutherford, M. M., & Betts, V. T. (2019) · Journal for Nurses in Professional Development · doi:10.1097/nnd.0000000000000543 · Cited by 5
West, S., White, G., Caterini, J. E., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16091608 · Cited by 5
Ending the Game ® : A New Psychoeducational Curriculum for Victims of Commercial Sexual Exploitation
Usacheva, M., Smalley, C., Hafer, N., & Brooks, S. (2021) · Women & Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/08974454.2021.1885568 · Cited by 5
The Role of Disordered Eating in Type 2 Diabetes: A Pilot Study
VELA, A. M., Palmer, B. E., Gil‐Rivas, V., & Cachelin, F. M. (2021) · American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine · doi:10.1177/15598276211002459 · Cited by 5
Richter, M., Smith, J. R., & Pineda, R. G. (2022) · OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · doi:10.1177/15394492221082051 · Cited by 5
Natal, K. H., Machado, T. G., Bracco, F., Lemos, L. I., Viganó, M. E. F., Machado, G. M., Vargas, J. D. Y., Raggio, D. P., Mendes, F. M., Imparato, J. C. P., et al. (2022) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02101-9 · Cited by 7
Agley, J. D., Barnes, P. A., Tidd, D., Todd, A., Friedman, K., Gordon, S., Richardson, J., & Delong, J. (2022) · INQUIRY The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing · doi:10.1177/00469580221097428 · Cited by 5
Vainre, M., Galante, J., Watson, P., Dalgleish, T., & Hitchcock, C. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050951 · Cited by 4
Verheul, F., Gosselt, I. K., Spreij, L. A., et al. (2022) · Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.3233/prm-200801 · Cited by 5
The use of augmented reality for patient and significant other stroke education: a feasibility study
Finch, E., Minchell, E., Cameron, A. E., Jaques, K., Lethlean, J., Shah, D. G., & Moro, C. (2022) · Brain Impairment · doi:10.1017/brimp.2022.16 · Cited by 5
Swillens, J. E. M., Voorham, Q. J. M., Akkermans, R., Nagtegaal, I. D., & Hermens, R. (2022) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01224-5 · Cited by 6
Chorwe‐Sungani, G., Mwagomba, M., Chirwa, E. M., Jere, D. L., & Chipps, J. A. (2022) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-022-04195-5 · Cited by 6
Lian, T., Reid, H., Rader, A., Dewitt-Feldman, S., Hezarkhani, E., Gu, E., Scott, M., Kutzer, K. M., Sandhu, S., Crowder, C., et al. (2022) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/37316 · Cited by 5
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
