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 2,601–2,700 of 3,693
Supporting Self-care in Migrants with Type 2 Diabetes
Pettersson, S. (2024) · Linköping University medical dissertations · doi:10.3384/9789180754330 · Cited by 1
Ingibergsdóttir, S., Larusdottir, M. K., Kaas, M. J., & Svavarsdóttir, E. K. (2024) · Discover Psychology · doi:10.1007/s44202-024-00134-5 · Cited by 1
“The feasibility criteria for this current study were based on 8 key areas of focus suggested by Bowen et al. [37]: the acceptability of the study, its demands, its implementation, practicality, integration, adaptation, ability to be expanded and efficacy.”
Pak, S. H. L., Wang, M. P., Teitelman, A. M., Wong, J. Y. H., Fong, D., & Choi, E. P. H. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/52695 · Cited by 1
“Our evaluation was conducted systematically based on Bowen et al’s [18] framework.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWang, J., Zhang, C. S., Zhang, A. L., Yu, J., Deng, H., Chen, H., Xue, C. C., & Lu, C. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297834 · Cited by 1
“Feasibility studies are used to determine whether an intervention is appropriate for further testing [42].”
Liljehult, J., Mølsted, S., Møller, T., Overgaard, D., & Christensen, T. (2024) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-024-01478-4 · Cited by 2
“We used the model for designing feasibility studies in preventive medicine proposed by Bowen et al. [31] to evaluate the feasibility.”
MethodMindfulness-Based Interventions for People Experiencing Psychosis: A Randomized Feasibility Study
Ridler, J., Millar, A., & Schwannauer, M. (2024) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-024-02326-5 · Cited by 2
“Feasibility was appraised based upon the framework proposed by Bowen et al. (2009) and the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions (Skiv-ington et al., 2021).”
Adaptation of the Communities That Care Youth Survey for Use in Estonia: A Pilot Study
Siilbek, E., & Streimann, K. (2024) · Journal of Prevention · doi:10.1007/s10935-024-00777-z · Cited by 1
“Practicality of the measure involves determining whether it can be used given contextual and environmental constraints such as time, resource availability, and specialists’ commitment (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Simons, M., Harvey, G., McMillan, L., Ryan, E., Young, A. D., McPhail, S., Kularatna, S., Senanayake, S. J., Kimble, R. M., & Tyack, Z. F. (2024) · Burns · doi:10.1016/j.burns.2024.03.032 · Cited by 1
Kuipers, S., Castelein, S., Kronenberg, L. M., Veer, J. V. ‘., & Boonstra, N. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph21040492 · Cited by 1
“These criteria, based on the work of Prochaska and Di Clemente (criteria 1–3) [22] and key critical success factors in implementation (criteria 4–7) [30], were that the tool should (1) enhance knowledge pertaining to oral health care among MHNs (not oral health care specialists); (2) contribute to…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRedquest, B. K., Clark, C. A., Sanguino, H., Lunsky, Y., Hutton, S., Weiss, J. A., Davies, T., & McMorris, C. A. (2024) · Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1111/jar.13229 · Cited by 1
Feasibility of an online clinical assessment of competence in physiotherapy students
Flew, B., Chipchase, L. S., Lee, D., & McClelland, J. A. (2024) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593985.2024.2344024 · Cited by 1
“First, a deductive approach was used to investigate the domains of feasibility related to Implementation, Practicality, Acceptability, and Demand, as identified a priori from the literature (Bowen et al., 2009).”
InfluentialPratt, B. A., Krause‐Parello, C. A., Hardison, S., Moreno, S. J., Glynn, A., Dandu, O., & Liehr, P. R. (2024) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1080/01612840.2024.2344787 · Cited by 1
“…all eight aspects of feasibility were explored, this intervention was strongest on acceptability and adaptation, while the other criteria indicate a need for attention to assure that the DST intervention moves in the direction of effectiveness when used in real-world settings (Bowen et al., 2009).”
InfluentialKanazaki, R., Smith, A. B., Bu, S., et al. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05540-w · Cited by 1
“Feasibility was evaluated in the interview by focusing on issues related to implementation, practicality, and adaptation of the e-guide [21].”
BackgroundΤσεκούρα, Μ., Matzaroglou, C., Xergia, S. A., Dionyssiotis, Y., Tsepis, E., Sakellari, V., & Billis, E. V. (2024) · Journal of Frailty Sarcopenia and Falls · doi:10.22540/jfsf-09-089 · Cited by 1
“Feasibility studies are relied on to produce a set of findings that help determine whether an intervention should be recommended for efficacy testing 42 .”
BackgroundNovel Characterization of Socioecological Determinants of Health in Rural Alabama
English, N. C., Smith, B. P., Jones, B. A., Oslock, W. M., Hollis, R. H., Wood, L. N., Rubyan, M. A., Kennedy, G. D., Kaushik, M., Gibson, Q.-X. D., et al. (2024) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.06.030 · Cited by 1
Gulamhussein, Q.-U.-A., Susman-Stillman, A., Zhou, X., Addo, A. O., Ahmed, F., Flynn, P. M., Gunnar, M. R., Okoro, O. N., Olson, D., Osman, M., et al. (2024) · Journal of Prevention and Health Promotion · doi:10.1177/26320770241265570 · Cited by 1
“We identified three themes that aligned with our areas of focus (Bowen et al., 2009): (a) acceptability, (b) implementation, and (c) demand.”
InfluentialSeo, N. J., Brinkhoff, M., Fredendall, S., Coker‐Bolt, P., McGloon, K., & Humanitzki, E. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13163147 · Cited by 2
“While the strength of this study is an extended study duration of 2 years with daily procedures to investigate the long-term influence of TheraBracelet on a child with cerebral palsy, the major limitation is that this study is a case report involving only one child.”
BackgroundDavies, S. J., Anemaat, L., Gullo, H., et al. (2024) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2024.2391113 · Cited by 1
“We utilized Bowen et al framework [16] to guide interview development and explore participant experiences. the feasibility framework [16] provides a structured approach for evaluating the potential of an intervention by examining factors such as acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality,…”
Nageswaran, L., Giurleo, C., Seliman, M., Askes, H. K., Abu-Jurji, Z., Craven, B. C., Kras‐Dupuis, A., Watson, J., & Wolfe, D. L. (2024) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076241272618 · Cited by 2
Li, L., Wood, C. E., & Kostkova, P. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH) · doi:10.1109/segah61285.2024.10639586 · Cited by 1
Nicola, E., Mastroyannopoulou, K., & Pass, L. (2024) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.23287 · Cited by 2
Kwok, B. C., Lim, J. X. L., & Kong, P. W. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14198616 · Cited by 1
Timm, E., Ko, Y. M., Hundhammer, T., Berlowitz, I., & Wolf, U. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1469316 · Cited by 1
“This study had several limitations, including the observational single-arm design, which is however the norm for initial phases of feasibility testing of an intervention (Bowen et al., 2009).”
BackgroundAlmalki, S. A., & H.Ganong, L. (2024) · Family Relations · doi:10.1111/fare.13110 · Cited by 2
Perception of antimicrobial stewardship interventions in Swiss primary care: a mixed-methods survey
Schaad, S., Dunaiceva, J., Peytremann, A., Gendolla, S., Clack, L., Plüss-Suard, C., Niquille, A., Nicolet, A., Marti, J., Boillat‐Blanco, N., et al. (2024) · BJGP Open · doi:10.3399/bjgpo.2024.0110 · Cited by 1
Bektaş-Aydın, C., & Yüksel-Şahin, F. (2024) · Women s Studies International Forum · doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2024.103042 · Cited by 2
Costs analysis of integrating group interpersonal therapy into HIV care services in Senegal
Abounan, Y., Wittwer, J., Tine, J. M., Ndiaye, I., Ziadeh, S., Desmonde, S., Font, H., Verdeli, H., Ngom, N. F., de Rekeneire, N., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Mental Health Systems · doi:10.1186/s13033-024-00654-6 · Cited by 1
“However, to describe another significant aspect of its feasibility and to better inform policymakers, the description of the resources and implementing costs associated with its use is necessary [19].”
The Development and Feasibility Testing of an Anti-Bullying Program for Secondary Education: GRIPP
de Vries, E., Kaufman, T. M. L., Veenstra, R., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Bullying Prevention · doi:10.1007/s42380-024-00279-w · Cited by 1
“Testing the feasibility of the GRIPP program means testing “whether the intervention is appropriate for further testing, and enables researchers to assess whether or not the ideas and findings can be shaped to be relevant and sustainable” (Bowen et al., 2009, p. 2).”
Gregor, S., Mansfield, A., Mochizuki, G., Chen, J. L., & Patterson, K. K. (2025) · BioMedical Engineering OnLine · doi:10.1186/s12938-025-01352-1 · Cited by 1
“The present study was guided by work on feasibility studies by Bowen and colleagues [40] and previous work that evaluated online arts-based therapies in people with stroke [41].”
InfluentialRyan, A., Ferreira, N. B., Moffat, H., Eugenicos, M. P., Howson, W., Casburn-Jones, A., Moroni, F., Stevens, P., Wolters, M. K., & Gillanders, D. T. (2025) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2025.100887 · Cited by 1
Koudys, J., Esteves, J., Elliott, M., Spottiswood, K., Treszl, A., Randhawa, A.-P., & Perry, A. (2025) · Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities · doi:10.1007/s10882-025-10010-2 · Cited by 2
“The feasibility of the training package was investigated in several areas recommended by Bowen et al. (2009): ● acceptability with the target population (e.g., satisfaction, intent to continue to use, appropriateness), ● demand (e.g., use of the service), ● implementation in a community context…”
InfluentialAbreu, T., Araújo, L., Teixeira, L., et al. (2025) · Clinical Gerontologist · doi:10.1080/07317115.2025.2474983 · Cited by 1
“Therefore, feasibility studies can create a bridge between research and practice (Bowen et al., 2009”
Slatman, S., Heesink, L., Achterkamp, R., Broeks, J., de Oliveira, N. P. M., ter Riet, R., Stegeman, M., & Tabak, M. (2025) · JMIR XR and spatial computing. · doi:10.2196/58784 · Cited by 1
“The aim of this focus group was to gain more insight into the general experience and feasibility (including acceptability and practicality, which includes participants’ satisfaction and ability to use a new intervention [20]) of the VR intervention and substantiate findings from the SCED study.”
Halicki‐Asakawa, A., Mocci, J., & Libben, M. R. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/66298 · Cited by 1
“…sizes based on the pragmatics of recruitment are sufficient when evaluating the processes, feasibility, and preliminary acceptability of novel interventions [32,35], a sample size of 30 participants was selected, recruited while they wait for ED services and treatments in British Columbia, Canada.”
Cairney, M. V., Crampin, L., Campbell, L., & Cleland, J. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01640-6 · Cited by 1
“The feasibility nature of this study meant that the measures are descriptive, focusing on the acceptability, implementation, and practicalities such as recruitment, retention, and measure completion rates [31].”
Dariotis, J. K., Eldreth, D. A., Jackson‐Gordon, R., Li, H., Wang, K.-N., Xi, C., Lewis, G. F., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/75731 · Cited by 2
Narendorf, S. C., Munson, M. R., Khan, U., Brown, M., Gomez, G., Maria, D. S., Gilmer, T., Gattis, M. N., Hayward, P., & Herman, D. B. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01677-7 · Cited by 2
“We will also examine commonly identified assessment targets for feasibility studies [48], including acceptability, demand for the intervention, practicality of the intervention, and feasibility of integration into the current housing system.”
Meyer, K., Wei, W., Yonashiro‐Cho, J., Mage, S. M., Kim, S., Irani, E., Burant, C. J., Gassoumis, Z. D., Lamb, E. G., Zauszniewski, J. A., et al. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/73778 · Cited by 1
“A limitation of this model is that some of the identified components overlap heavily with other components of feasibility, such as usability and practicality, thus we also report on some aspects of feasibility that are strongly related to acceptability [29,31].”
InfluentialManikandan, M., Hunter-Graham, P., McGahey, A., Creeger, M., Walters, R., Walsh, A., McConnell, K., Kerr, C., Kenny, C., Wall, É., et al. (2025) · HRB Open Research · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14150.1
Szpak, V., Velez, A., Prostko, S., Rosenblum, N., Maurer, R., Aguiar, L. J., Weiss, R. D., & Suzuki, J. (2025) · Addiction Science & Clinical Practice · doi:10.1186/s13722-025-00589-4 · Cited by 1
“A priori, we established a benchmark for recruitment feasibility as “acceptable” if at least 70% of those eligible agreed to participate [23].”
Maus, E., Rittler, A., Amon, K. W., Heathcock, J., Lo, W. D., DeLuca, S., & Darragh, A. R. (2025) · Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities · doi:10.1007/s10882-025-10033-9 · Cited by 2
“A mixed-methods feasibility study provides rich insight into key barriers and facilitators (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Al‐Yaseen, W., Ashtiani, G. H., Pattinson, R., Pritchard, M., Pickles, T., Galloway, J., & Innes, N. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-104769 · Cited by 1
Lévesque, M., Delli-Colli, N., Couturier, Y., Larivière, N., Filiatrault, J., Poulin, V., Provencher, V., Giroux, D., Lagueux, É., & Levasseur, M. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1177/00084174251381405 · Cited by 1
“…et al., 2008, 2020) or on models such as ADEPT (Acceptability, Demand, Implementation, Practicality, Adaptation, Integration, Expansion, Ef fi cacy; Bowen et al., 2009) that do not speci fi cally address facilitators and obstacles to implementation (Levasseur et al., 2022; Maeir et al., 2020).”
Rasla, S., Meligy, A. E., & Marmoush, F. Y. (2017) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.01.078 · Cited by 1
Innovations in Payer–Community Partnerships: The EmblemHealth Neighborhood Care Program
Kwon, S. C., Trinh‐Shevrin, C., Wauchope, K., Islam, N. S., Fifield, J., Arlotta, P. K., Han, H. W., & Ng, E. (2017) · International Quarterly of Community Health Education · doi:10.1177/0272684x17740694 · Cited by 1
Hicks, N. M., McGrew, K. B., Heston, J. L., & Kelly, E. H. (2018) · Cited by 1
Mobile Application for Survivors of Domestic Violence
Neelam, V. (2022) · Digital Archive @ GSU · doi:10.57709/12005400 · Cited by 1
Camp-Based Intervention for Overweight Children with Developmental Disabilities
Davis, A. L. (2017) · The Scholars Repository - LLU (Loma Linda University) · Cited by 1
Colombi, C., Vivanti, G., & Rogers, S. J. (2019) · Autism and child psychopathology series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13027-5_2 · Cited by 4
Solomonian, L., Kwan, V., & Bhardwaj, S. (2019) · The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · doi:10.1089/acm.2019.0067 · Cited by 1
Omvlee, L., van der Molen, H. F., Pas, E. T., & Frings‐Dresen, M. H. W. (2019) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1743-3 · Cited by 1
Chrif, F., Nef, T., & Hunt, K. J. (2019) · BMC Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1186/s42490-019-0025-9 · Cited by 1
Boscart, V., Crutchlow, L., Taucar, L. S., et al. (2019) · Educational Gerontology · doi:10.1080/03601277.2019.1677043 · Cited by 1
Non-pharmacological Weight Loss Program in a Rural Community: Feasibility Study
McClintock-Donahue, A. (2019) · Online Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care · doi:10.14574/ojrnhc.v19i2.516 · Cited by 1
Ervin, J. N. (2020) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000019272 · Cited by 1
Iyer, S. N., Pope, M. A., Jordan, G., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Social Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/0020764020913580 · Cited by 1
Mixed methods feasibility study of Breathe2Sleep™ a peer modeling approach to PAP self-management.
Dickerson, S. S., TenBrock, E., Smith, P. M., Kwon, M., Chacko, T., Li, C., & Dean, G. E. (2020) · Heart & Lung · doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.04.015 · Cited by 1
Feasibility of Implementing Therapeutic Yoga in Assisted Living Facilities
Adams, E. V., Puymbroeck, M. V., Crowe, B. M., Pury, C. L. S., Allison, C., & Schmid, A. A. (2021) · OBM Geriatrics · doi:10.21926/obm.geriatr.2101148 · Cited by 1
Sonoda, N., 小川真世, Tadokoro, Y., Takahata, K., Shuo, T., & Horiuchi, S. (2018) · Journal of Japan Academy of Midwifery · doi:10.3418/jjam.jjam-2017-0029 · Cited by 1
Implementing the Med Wise Program in rural Alberta: A feasibility study to support seniors
Aref, H. A. T., Kolewaski, L., Whitfield, K. Y., et al. (2021) · Canadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · doi:10.1177/1715163521990401 · Cited by 1
Sanders, S., Jolivette, K., Michael, E. L., et al. (2021) · Education and Treatment of Children · doi:10.1007/s43494-021-00035-5 · Cited by 1
Igarashi, Y., Fukutomi, R., Mwilike, B. E., & Horiuchi, S. (2021) · International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ijans.2021.100337 · Cited by 1
Cameron, L., Etuk, L. E., Hateley-Browne, J., et al. (2021) · Social Science Protocols · doi:10.7565/ssp.v4.5712 · Cited by 1
Aziz, Y. H. A., Heydon, S. J., Duffull, S. B., et al. (2021) · Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.18549/pharmpract.2021.3.2422 · Cited by 1
Earlix, K., Shive, N., & Coats, H. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.16055 · Cited by 1
MODparents: Mothers overcoming depression, a feasibility pilot study for pregnant couples
Jewell, J. S., Brooks‐Russell, A., Mays, G. P., Dempsey, A. G., Hyer, J., & Leiferman, J. A. (2022) · Mental Health & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.mhp.2022.200240 · Cited by 1
Yamamoto, M., & Kataoka, Y. (2022) · Health · doi:10.4236/health.2022.146048 · Cited by 1
Kirkove, D., Barthélémy, N., Coucke, P. J., Mievis, C., Mustapha, S. B., Jodogne, S., Dardenne, N., Donneau, A., & Pétré, B. (2022) · Cancer/Radiothérapie · doi:10.1016/j.canrad.2022.04.004 · Cited by 2
On Job Resiliency Training, Tailored for Hospital Nurses: A Feasibility Study
Gerber, Z., Shafran‐Tikva, S., & Anaki, D. (2022) · Journal of Wellness · doi:10.55504/2578-9333.1078 · Cited by 1
Oestergaard, A. S., Sandal, L. F., Smidt, T. F., & Søgaard, K. (2022) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-022-01106-z · Cited by 1
Kline, P. W., Davis-Wilson, H. C., So, N. F., et al. (2022) · Prosthetics and Orthotics International · doi:10.1097/pxr.0000000000000181 · Cited by 1
Akanuwe, J. N. A., Cooke, S., Henderson, H., & Kane, R. (2022) · Perspectives in Public Health · doi:10.1177/17579139221136726 · Cited by 1
Smeers, E., Désiron, H., Hoof, E. V., Mebis, J., Godderis, L., & de Rijk, A. (2022) · Medical Research Archives · doi:10.18103/mra.v10i11.3226 · Cited by 1
Equilibrium coordination tests among children: A feasibility study
Sharma, N., & Samuel, A. J. (2022) · Advances in Rehabilitation · doi:10.5114/areh.2022.121224 · Cited by 3
From Patient Studies to a Hospital-Wide Initiative: A Mindfulness Journey
Freedenberg, V. A. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-22152-1_12 · Cited by 1
Pilot testing the knowledgeable nursing assistants as creative caregivers (KNACC) guide
Eaton, J., Cloyes, K. G., Paulsen, B., et al. (2023) · Geriatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.02.013 · Cited by 1
Tree of Life: Acceptability and Feasibility With Older Bosnian Women of Refugee Background
Khawaja, N. G., Murray, K. E., & Sadeed, S. (2022) · Psychotherapy and Counselling Journal of Australia · doi:10.59158/001c.71066 · Cited by 1
Royer, M. F., & Wharton, C. M. (2023) · Challenges · doi:10.3390/challe14040040 · Cited by 1
Li, Z., Liu, X., Cheng, J., Yuan, Y., & Yue, M. (2023) · Advances in Computer and Engineering Technology Research · doi:10.61935/acetr.1.1.2023.p174
Vainre, M., Dalgleish, T., Watson, P., Haag, C., Dercon, Q., Galante, J., & Hitchcock, C. (2024) · BMJ Mental Health · doi:10.1136/bmjment-2023-300885 · Cited by 3
Wilde, N., FOXCROFT, D. R., & Davies, E. (2025) · Advances in Mental Health · doi:10.1080/18387357.2025.2523005 · Cited by 1
Caring for healthcare professionals: improving prevention in occupational healthcare
Ketelaar, S. M. (2014) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 1
Efeito de programas de preparação para aposentadoria : um estudo experimental
Leandro-França, C. (2016) · RIUnB Institutional Repository (University of Brasília) · doi:10.26512/2016.06.t.21219 · Cited by 1
The Feasibility of a Home Telenutrition Intervention for Weight Reduction in Men in West Virginia
Campion, M. (2016) · The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) · doi:10.33915/etd.5305 · Cited by 1
Assessing the Feasibility of Implementing a Parenting Intervention with Karen Refugees
Ballard, J. (2017) · University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota) · Cited by 1
Lesiak, M. (2017) · KU ScholarWorks (The University of Kansas) · Cited by 1
Rivera, J. R. (2017) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) · Cited by 1
What Constitutes a Well-Designed Pilot Study?
McGrath, J. M., & Brandon, D. (2018) · Advances in Neonatal Care · doi:10.1097/anc.0000000000000535 · Cited by 3
The role of parental factors in the mental health problems experienced by refugee children
Eruyar, Ş. (2018) · Figshare · Cited by 1
Motivational Interviewing for antiretroviral therapy adherence in Nigeria: A feasibility study
Kayode, O. L. (2018) · Anglia Ruskin Research Online (Anglia Ruskin University) · Cited by 1
Assessing the Feasibility of Online Writing Support for Technical Writing Students
Hutchison, A. (2019) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) · Cited by 1
Acceptability and feasibility of fabric orthoses for movement control in multiple sclerosis
Snowdon, N. (2019) · Sheffield Hallam University · doi:10.7190/shu-thesis-00263 · Cited by 1
Johnston, A. (2018) · Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) · Cited by 1
Dowling, T. (2018) · Arizona State University Library Digital Repository (Arizona State University) · Cited by 1
SUNRISE Pilot Study: Canadian Surveillance Study of Movement Behaviours in the Early Years
Turner, E. (2020) · Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · doi:10.22215/etd/2020-14018 · Cited by 1
Loi, S. M., Tropea, J., Gaffy, E., Panayiotou, A., Capon, H., Chiang, J., Bryant, C., Doyle, C., Kelly, M., Livingston, G., et al. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-246921/v1 · Cited by 1
Aswad, E., & Gaynor, K. (2021) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/g5n3e · 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
