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 2,501–2,600 of 3,693
Boarini, M., Banchelli, F., Fittipaldi, S., Scognamiglio, D., Farella, G. M. G., Platano, D., Rogati, G., Sipio, E. D., Villa, G., Berti, L., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-22231-8 · Cited by 1
“Primary outcomes: feasibility and safety Feasibility was evaluated following Bowen et al. (2009), which fits to this study’s context 31 .”
Mudiope, P., Nanyeenya, N., Okurut, S., Twimukye, A., Simon, K., Mutamba, B. B., Nangendo, J., Alamo, S., Makumbi, F. E., Wanyenze, R. K., et al. (2025) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-025-01324-7 · Cited by 1
“Acceptability was defined as the perceived appropriateness, satisfaction, cultural fit, and emotional or cognitive response to an intervention by recipients and providers, shaping engagement, uptake, and sustainability [23–26].”
Gracias, L., Patterson, B., Mosler, A., Savill, B., Franke, I., Crossley, K. M., Clifton, P., Makdissi, M., Willmott, C., Shawdon, A., et al. (2025) · BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2025-002686 · Cited by 1
“27 The gender-diverse author group included people with varying perspectives, including women and men; clinician researchers made up of physiotherapists, medical doctors (registrars and sport and exercise medicine physicians), neuropsychologists and scientists from varying ethnic backgrounds and at…”
Khan, N., Seferidi, P., Belesova, K., Chakma, N., Downey, L. E., Farzana, N., Garg, S. S., Ghosh‐Jerath, S., John, R., Khan, M., et al. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/80368 · Cited by 1
“…intervention through a planetary health lens, informed by the planetary health framework for preimplementation assessment, which we tailored for the purposes of our codevelopment process based on previous theories [25,26] and guidance for assessing acceptability and feasibility [39-41].”
Poveda-López, J. L., Jiménez‐Sánchez, C., Lafuente-Ureta, R., Marco-Gómez, B., Villagrasa-Cantín, A., Pérez-Mansilla, S., Guarch-Rubio, M., & Delgado, J. F. R. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326012 · Cited by 1
“This approach will provide a comprehensive understanding of the practicality and acceptability of the intervention in a real-world setting, in line with recommendations for feasibility assessment in single-group pre-post studies [55].”
Pradhan, N., Haugan, G., Rishal, P., & Infanti, J. J. (2025) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2025.2582260 · Cited by 2
Hawkins, M., Davis, E. M., Abebe, K. Z., McTigue, K. M., Kim, N., Goswami, M., Buysse, D. J., Chang, J. C., & Levine, M. D. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01733-2 · Cited by 1
“This framework, adapted from the work of Bowen et al., focuses on eight domains critical to assessing health interventions: acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation, integration, expansion, and limited-efficacy testing [56].”
Bernard, C., Mensah, K., Lovero, K. L., Lam, H. A., Font, H., Tine, J. M., Ziadeh, S., Ndiaye, I., Diagne, A., Ndiaye, M., et al. (2025) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-025-00801-1 · Cited by 3
Nally, S., Carlin, A., Gallagher, A. M., Wilson, J. J., Lahart, I. M., Salmon, J., & MURPHY, M. H. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335933 · Cited by 1
“The rationale behind conducting a pilot study, and not an effectiveness study, was to focus on potential intervention development, refinement and to address uncertainties around the feasibility of intervention methods [39,40].”
Lees, L., Young, R. F., Abraham, J., et al. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13734-1 · Cited by 1
“Throughout phase three of the study, point prevalence methodology [19, 21] was used for each quantitative data collection, guided by feasibility methodology [20, 23], guided by a prevalence study checklist [Additional information, File 2].”
Sokol, Y., Glatt, S., Andrusier, S., Levin, C., Boucher, C., Ridley, J., Brown, C. H., Landa, Y., Glynn, S. M., & Goodman, M. S. (2025) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101576 · Cited by 1
“(5) Limited Efficacy Signals: Preliminary indications of the intervention ’ s potential impact on relevant clinical outcomes, examined through exploratory analyses of pre-post changes [44], while acknowledging that pilot studies are typically underpow-ered for definitive efficacy conclusions [45].”
Effects of Yoga and Physical Exercise on Adolescent Development and Learning: A Randomized Trial
Pandey, M., & Behera, N. (2025) · Improving Schools · doi:10.1177/13654802251403889 · Cited by 4
“Adverse effects were evaluated with the feasibility checklist by Bowen et al. (2009) and a fidelity of implementation questionnaire by Moonaz et al. (2021), along with structured interviews about yogic practices (Butzer et al., 2017).”
Triandafilidis, Z., Hobden, B., Richardson, S., & Carey, M. L. (2025) · Australian Journal of Primary Health · doi:10.1071/py25040 · Cited by 1
Norris, M. L., Power, K. A., Spettigue, W. J., Lavallée, N., Gertler, M. J., Livingston, D. B. H., Rodrigue, A. F., Porter, J., Pope, L., Harrison, M. E., et al. (2025) · Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1186/s40337-025-01490-w · Cited by 1
“Study feasibility was assessed using established feasibility guidelines for design and evaluation [6, 34, 43], which were adapted to address considerations specific to the adolescent ED population under investigation.”
Marston, M. T., Perez, M., & Ramelet, A. (2025) · Nursing in Critical Care · doi:10.1111/nicc.70294 · Cited by 3
“Limited efficacy, as a feasibility indicator according to Bowenet al. [50] was estimated in relation to relevant child and parent clinical outcomes.”
Smith, J. J., Kennedy, S. G., Eather, N., Riley, N., & Lubans, D. R. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01751-0 · Cited by 1
“We used the framework outlined by Bowen and colleagues [36] to assess feasibility across the following four domains: (i) acceptability, (ii) implementation, (iii) adaptation, (iv) practicality.”
InfluentialKier, L., Brooks, D. D., Reifsteck, E. J., & Drollette, E. S. (2025) · International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/24711616.2025.2600346 · Cited by 1
“Feasibility was examined through the constructs of acceptability, appropriateness, practicality, and implementation (Bowen et al., 2009).”
van Beurden, S. B., Cross, R., McDonagh, S. T. J., Clark, L., Thomas, C. R., Greaves, C. J., Doherty, P., Taylor, R. S., & Dalal, H. M. (2025) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076251406545 · Cited by 3
“40 We conducted semi-structured interviews with: (1) patients and caregivers after initial use and familiarisation (2 – 4 weeks into the programme) and towards the end of the programme (10 – 12 weeks) and (2) facilitators who had been able to deliver D:REACH-HF to a patient during the study period…”
Interventions to prevent noise-induced hearing loss in farmworkers: a scoping review
Coco, L., Fried, M., Quijano, K., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992027.2025.2598645 · Cited by 1
Volunteering of Former Caregivers: A Pilot Intervention Study in the Chinese American Community
Liu, J., Cheung, E. S. L., & Lou, Y. (2025) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/07334648251412641 · Cited by 1
Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement for Cancer Pain Relief: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bryl, K., Hanley, A. W., Baser, R. E., Desai, K., Dowd, M. F., Li, Q. S., Sandweiss, B., Garland, E. L., & Mao, J. J. J. (2026) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.12.024 · Cited by 1
Sousa-Leite, M., & Gameiro, S. (2025) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf248 · Cited by 1
“We considered three dimensions of acceptability that, according to Bowen et al. (2009), must be targeted when determining whether resources are appropriate and feasible for implementation: acceptability, demand, and practi-calities.”
InfluentialDeGraves, B. S., O’Rourke, H. M., Dell, C. A., Titley, H. K., & Estabrooks, C. A. (2026) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-026-07033-5 · Cited by 1
“…study addressed intervention suitability (intervention demand, current AASP experiences and recommendations), intervention benefits (practicality, acceptability) and factors influencing implementation (intervention barriers, implementation concerns, and recommendations for future AASPs) [24, 47].”
Jemcov, A., Corkum, P. V., Smith, I. M., & Mackinnon, S. P. (2026) · Frontiers in Sleep · doi:10.3389/frsle.2025.1665671 · Cited by 1
“Examining preliminary effectiveness is not equivalent to well-powered hypothesis testing; rather, our goal was to look for evidence of the intended effects of the intervention (Bowen et al., 2009).”
InfluentialRothenberg, M. B., Gregersen, M., Berthelsen, C. B., et al. (2026) · Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences · doi:10.1111/scs.70193 · Cited by 1
Social Networks as Agents of Student Coping: Al Ain University Reflections on Five Years of COVID-19
Zaitoun, E. A., Jaradat, M. E., Abuhumaidan, Y., Zaitoun, H., & Mustafa, M. (2025) · International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS) · doi:10.1109/snams67467.2025.11391044 · Cited by 1
“The rapid transition to online learning presented significant challenges, highlighting the importance of integrating evidence-based, culturally sensitive, and user-centered educational resources to address students' mental health needs effectively [1, 4 - 5].”
Hardman, R., Begg, S. J., & Spelten, E. R. (2026) · Journal of Multimorbidity and Comorbidity · doi:10.1177/26335565261417400 · Cited by 1
“Since the focus was on feasibility, we applied Bowen et al ’ s 27 framework to guide our evaluation.”
InfluentialChoudhary, S., Sidiq, M., Sharma, J., et al. (2026) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.20777 · Cited by 1
“As this was the pilot feasibility study which required us to evaluate multiple feasibility outcomes through Bowen’s established framework ( Bowen et al., 2009 ).”
Adeyanju, Q. A., Bellew, B., & Teixeira, M. J. C. (2026) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-026-09599-y · Cited by 1
“A single-centre quasi-experimental feasibility study to explore the use of VR as an adjunct to standard post-operative pain management for adult patients undergoing knee replacement surgery [27].”
Mattisson, M., Lundahl, R., Liljeroos, M., Lang, H. F., Johansson, P., Strömberg, A., Pak, N.-Y., Jaarsma, T., & Kato, N. (2026) · European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvag075 · Cited by 1
“26 To understand how the intervention was delivered by a primary care nurse using the decision-support algorithm ( implementation ), the nurse’s actions were described using intervention notes and interview data.”
Hargreaves, L., Ankravs, J., Peiris, C. L., Krol, L., Joeng, R., Brash, M., Rowe, J., Read, D., Gumm, K., & D’Souza, A. N. (2026) · Injury · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2026.113186 · Cited by 1
de Korne, C. M., Romijnders, K. A. G. J., Bluyssen, P. M., Bonn, D., Ding, E., Gaillard, A., Janssen, E. R., Rittscher, A. E., Wouters, I. M., & Bruijning-Verhagen, P. C. J. L. (2026) · Indoor Environments · doi:10.1016/j.indenv.2026.100168 · Cited by 1
Russo, L., Proto, L., Farina, S., Pascucci, E., Galarducci, R., Pasciuto, T., Severino, A., Liuzzo, G., Innecco Urbani, A., Iavicoli, I., et al. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0345294 · Cited by 1
Bailly, D., Abdessater, M., Sawaya, R. T., Barrou, B., & Drouin, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Nephrology · doi:10.3389/fneph.2026.1776371 · Cited by 1
Huang, X., Karpageshwary, K. S., Wang, Y., et al. (2026) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-09097-8 · Cited by 1
Cloes, J.-O., Bitter, K., Lorenz, L., Thomasius, R., & Paschke, K. (2026) · Journal of Behavioral Addictions · doi:10.1556/2006.2025.00211 · Cited by 2
“As recognized indicators of feasibility regarding intervention practicability and participant engagement, retention and attendance rates were captured (Arain, Campbell, Cooper, & Lancaster, 2010; Bowen et al., 2009).”
D’Andrea, F., Bartels, S. L., Markaryan, M., Masterson‐Algar, P., Bernal, A. N., de Bruin, S. R., Chirico, I., Flynn, A., Garcia, L., Gebhard, D., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-114584 · Cited by 1
Kataria, K., Kumavor, P. D., & Srinivasan, S. M. (2026) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-026-01824-8 · Cited by 2
“The child and camp staff exit questionnaires completed at posttest were based on Bowen et al.’s framework of recommended factors to assess feasibility studies [25, 35].”
Kurlyandchik, I., Tiralongo, E., Lauche, R., Tracey, G., Ng, J., & Schloss, J. M. (2026) · Pain Research and Management · doi:10.1155/prm/7311235 · Cited by 4
Darmová, B., Fajnerová, I., & Appel, L. (2026) · Technologies · doi:10.3390/technologies14050305
Ikeda, J., Martin, M., & Pacheco, M. (2026) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/ajcp.70076 · Cited by 1
Gulstad, V. E., Svendsen, J. C., Madsen, H. B., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvag135 · Cited by 1
van der Ven, J., Flendrie, M., Brokking, A., et al. (2026) · Rheumatology Advances in Practice · doi:10.1093/rap/rkag064 · Cited by 1
“Bowen’s feasibility framework was used to guide data collection [18].”
Berry, D. M., Colson, L., Estrada, A., et al. (2026) · Journal of Professional Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2026.06.005 · Cited by 1
Miller, H., Olawole, W., Lee, A., Ngige, A. A., Okonkwo, P. I., Chepkorir, J., Stephens, J. D., & Himmelfarb, C. D. (2026) · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2026.04.017 · Cited by 1
Gasca, K. G. H. (2026) · Journal of Robotic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11701-026-03749-z · Cited by 1
“…include data availability and completeness, time and personnel required for collection, consistency of variable interpretation, acceptability to clinical and administrative teams, integration with existing registries, and whether review meetings translate findings into documented decisions [ 50].”
Collimore, A. N., Sutter, E. N., Wilkerson, E., Baumer, N., & Iverson, J. M. (2026) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2026.2716555 · Cited by 1
Castrejón, A. H., Tiburcio, M., Berenzon, S., & Moreno-Coutiño, A. B. (2026) · Salud Mental · doi:10.17711/sm.0185-3325.2026.27 · Cited by 1
Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Population Screening Tests
Lionis, C. D., & Petelos, E. (2012) · InTech eBooks · doi:10.5772/27404 · Cited by 1
Move More Mommy: A Web-Based Physical Activity Intervention for Postnatal Women (Pilot Study)
Gray, S. (2014) · Scholarship@Western (Western University) · Cited by 1
Blok, S., Gouttebarge, V., Slebus, F. G., et al. (2011) · Safety and Health at Work · doi:10.5491/shaw.2011.2.4.328 · Cited by 1
Salud con Sabor Latino para los Niños: A Feasibility Study
Stevens, C. J. (2011) · Cited by 1
Kluppels, K., Portzky, G., & Hoppenbrouwers, K. (2017) · JGZ Tijdschrift voor jeugdgezondheidszorg · doi:10.1007/s12452-017-0100-3 · Cited by 1
Momeni, A., Pincus, M. R., & Libien, J. M. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60543-2_2 · Cited by 1
Paul, L. (2017) · ProQuest LLC eBooks · Cited by 1
Sieverdes, J., Bergamin, M., Chandler, J., Noltemeyer, Z., Moore, T., Baliga, P., Ruggiero, K. J., Campbell, R., Nemeth, L., Treiber, F. A., et al. (2017) · International Archives of Nursing and Health Care · doi:10.23937/2469-5823/1510086 · Cited by 1
Therapeutic Yoga Is Feasible for Informal Caregivers: A Multi-Method Pilot Study
Walter, A. A., Puymbroeck, M. V., Townsend, J., Linder, S. M., & Schmid, A. A. (2020) · Activities Adaptation & Aging · doi:10.1080/01924788.2020.1783741 · Cited by 1
Beemster, T. T., van Velzen, J. M., van Bennekom, C. A. M., Reneman, M. F., & Frings‐Dresen, M. H. W. (2020) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1780481 · Cited by 1
Morley, D., Miller, A., Rudd, J. R., Issartel, J., Goodway, J., O’Connor, D., Harvey, S., Ogilvie, P., & van Rossum, T. (2021) · International Sport Coaching Journal · doi:10.1123/iscj.2020-0038 · Cited by 2
Health Promotion in Children and Adolescents through Sport and Physical Activities
Bianco, A. (2019) · MDPI eBooks · doi:10.3390/books978-3-03897-887-9 · Cited by 1
Applying medicines reconciliation indicators in two UK hospitals: a feasibility study
Aljamal, M. S., Abdel‐Qader, D. H., & Meslamani, A. Z. A. (2021) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research · doi:10.1093/jphsr/rmaa029 · Cited by 1
Thompson, M., Rabusch, S., Radomski, M. V., et al. (2021) · Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy · doi:10.1080/08854726.2021.1929764 · Cited by 1
Wendt, B., & Dell’Aglio, D. D. (2021) · Research Society and Development · doi:10.33448/rsd-v10i9.18412 · Cited by 1
Newell, M., Reinthal, A. K., Espy, D., et al. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21165610 · Cited by 1
Kaminska, M. E., Roots, R., & Singh, A. K. (2021) · Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · doi:10.1177/20543581211056233 · Cited by 1
Feasibility of student-designed, peer-led classroom physical activity breaks in graduate school
Littleberry, A., Amruthapuri, R., Ross, S. E. T., Hunter, I., & Documet, P. I. (2021) · Journal of American College Health · doi:10.1080/07448481.2021.2007113 · Cited by 1
Brown, R., Davies, M. B., Drury, G., Lane, J., Lavy, C., Nungu, S., & Munthali, J. C. (2022) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03142-y · Cited by 1
Henna Budhwani, P., Sharma, V., Long, D. M., et al. (2022) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/33982 · Cited by 1
Hendry, L. S., Taylor, E. P., & Mackinlay, L. (2022) · Child & Youth Services · doi:10.1080/0145935x.2022.2078697 · Cited by 1
Wang, N., Gamble, J. A., Zhang, Q., Elder, E. G., Allen, J., 陆虹, Xiu, Z., & Creedy, D. K. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19116611 · Cited by 1
A Study of Work-Related Interview Skills Training for People With Visual Impairments
Lu, W., Oursler, J. D., Herrick, S. J., Socha, C., Zaher, A., Beninato, J., & Harris, K. (2022) · Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling · doi:10.1891/jarc-d-20-00041 · Cited by 1
Thomas-Purcell, K. B., Patterson, S., McIntosh, A. N., Richards, C., Primus-Joseph, M., Purcell, D. J., & Ashing, K. T. (2022) · PEC Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100073 · Cited by 1
Zaman, S. B., Evans, R. G., Singh, R., Singh, R. P., Singh, A. R., Goh, T. Y., Singh, P., Silva, N. D., & Thrift, A. G. (2022) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100681 · Cited by 1
Kulich, H. R., Bass, S. R., Piva, S. R., et al. (2022) · Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine · doi:10.1080/10790268.2022.2122332 · Cited by 1
Harris, M., Houtven, C. H. V., & Hastings, S. N. (2022) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/43098 · Cited by 1
Siraneh, Y., Woldie, M. K., & Birhanu, Z. (2022) · International Journal of Women s Health · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s385662 · Cited by 1
Feasibility of a Healthy Relationships Program with Youth at a Child Protective Services Agency
Houston, B., & Crooks, C. V. (2022) · Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal · doi:10.1007/s10560-022-00886-w · Cited by 1
Baldursdottir, I. M., Petursdottir, A. B., & Svavarsdóttir, E. K. (2023) · Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.1111/jcap.12405 · Cited by 1
Singh, S., Solanki, M., Vaney, N., et al. (2023) · Indian Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.20529/ijme.2023.018 · Cited by 1
Willett, M., Rushton, A., Stephens, G., Fenton, S. A. M., Rich, S., Greig, C. A., & Duda, J. L. (2023) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-023-01274-6 · Cited by 3
Zipfel, N., de Wit, M., Snippen, N. C., Bosma, A. R., Hulshof, C. T. J., de Boer, A. G. E. M., & van der Burg-Vermeulen, S. J. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04141-3 · Cited by 1
Boyd, L. E., Soangra, R., Mukhar, L., Kling, R., & Grant-Beuttler, M. (2023) · Human Factors in Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.hfh.2023.100044 · Cited by 1
Haynam, M. L., Chaplow, Z. L., DeScenza, V. R., Bowman, J. D., Dispennette, K., Zhang, X., Kilar, M., Hohn, S., Fairman, C. M., Lustberg, M. B., et al. (2023) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101154 · Cited by 1
Feasibility of Augmenting Cognitive Strategy Training With Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation
Boone, A. E., Noe, J., & Wolf, T. (2023) · OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · doi:10.1177/15394492231176214 · Cited by 1
Kindness Curriculum: Adaptação cultural e estudo de viabilidade para o contexto brasileiro
Ortiz, M. O., Santos, T. D. L. S., Noto, A. R., & de Mello, C. B. (2023) · Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación · doi:10.17979/reipe.2023.10.1.9537 · Cited by 2
Gray, S. M., Nettlefold, L., Mackey, D. C., Sims‐Gould, J., & McKay, H. A. (2023) · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1123/japa.2023-0011 · Cited by 1
Spirituality and Happiness: A Neuroscientific Perspective
Arora, R., & Mandal, M. K. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-3493-5_2 · Cited by 2
Development of A Training And Injury Log For Powerlifting: A Feasibility Study
Andersson, F., & Berglund, L. (2023) · International Journal of Strength and Conditioning · doi:10.47206/ijsc.v3i1.116 · Cited by 1
The feasibility of an online yoga program to improve low back and pelvic pain in pregnant women
Masuda, E., & Kataoka, Y. (2023) · Journal of Japan Academy of Midwifery · doi:10.3418/jjam.jjam-2023-0006 · Cited by 1
Ortiz, R., & Smith, A. M. (2023) · Journal of School Violence · doi:10.1080/15388220.2023.2214739 · Cited by 1
Hurley, E. A., Mayatsa, J., Matovu, J. K. B., Schuetz, N., Wanyenze, R. K., Wagner, G. J., & Goggin, K. (2023) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2023.2251919 · Cited by 1
Gilbertson, C. J., Rasekaba, T. M., & Blackberry, I. (2023) · Journal of Perioperative Nursing · doi:10.26550/2209-1092.1268 · Cited by 1
Draxler, H., Hjärthag, F., Tillfors, M., & Almqvist, K. (2023) · Violence Against Women · doi:10.1177/10778012231203622 · Cited by 1
Hawke, L. J., Shields, N., Dowsey, M. M., Choong, P., & Taylor, N. F. (2023) · Musculoskeletal Care · doi:10.1002/msc.1827 · Cited by 3
Feasibility of frailty screening among patients with advanced heart failure
Lehto, H., Jain, N., Bernacki, R., Landzberg, M. J., Desai, A. S., & Orkaby, A. R. (2023) · BMJ Open Quality · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002430 · Cited by 1
Peter, L., Stumm, J., Wäscher, C., et al. (2023) · Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2023.10.003 · Cited by 1
Giuliani-Dewig, H. K., Gerstner, G. R., Register‐Mihalik, J. K., Blackburn, J. T., Padua, D. A., Staley, J. A., & Ryan, E. D. (2023) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104212 · Cited by 3
Dai, Y.-M., Axelin, A., Fu, Z., et al. (2024) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000001091 · Cited by 1
Efi, A., Budiwirman, Yusmerita, Y., Novrita, S. Z., Aryati, Y., & Muthia, G. H. (2023) · Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA · doi:10.29303/jppipa.v9ispecialissue.5838 · Cited by 2
Implementing Mindfulness-Based Programs for Children
Lo, H. H. M. (2024) · Mindfulness in behavioral health · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-51943-7_9 · Cited by 1
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
