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 3,001–3,100 of 3,693
Homeward Stroke Recovery: Results of a Home Rehabilitation Program
Rushanan, S. G., Giordano, N. A., & Keim, S. K. (2024) · Home Health Care Management & Practice · doi:10.1177/10848223241268153 · Cited by 1
“The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of a HSR program 25 by measuring signals of functional recovery (limited efficacy) in stroke survivors discharged to home, fidelity to the HSR intervention, and a financial analysis comparing average daily gross revenue for 7-days of an IRF…”
Ruiz, P., Cáceres-Hernández, A., König-López, B., Quintana-Guiñez, F., & Castro-Cruz, M. (2024) · Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes · doi:10.1016/j.rmclc.2024.05.012
NICU Music Therapy: Lessons Learned from a Randomized Trial
Germano, E., Grossoehme, D. H., Richner, G. J., Jenkins, R., Teal, C. M., Brown, M. F., Delahanty, D. L., & Friebert, S. E. (2024) · Music Therapy Perspectives · doi:10.1093/mtp/miae019
Hepburn, S. (2024) · International review of research in developmental disabilities · doi:10.1016/bs.irrdd.2024.09.010 · Cited by 1
Muro, M. P., Vargas, J. D. Y., Pontes, L. R. A., Braga, M. M., & the IuSTC collaborative group (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5285930/v1
Yuen, E. Y. N., Goldsmith, J. V., Wilson, C. J., Toke, S., Hutchinson, A. M., McLeod, V., Livingston, P. M., Day, D., Webber, K., & Wittenberg-Lyles, E. M. (2024) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-024-08964-8 · Cited by 1
“In the third step (preliminary adaptation and feasibility testing), a mixed methods pilot study was conducted to assess key focus areas identified by Bowen and colleagues [25]: acceptability, demand for the program, and implementation.”
Christovão, I. S., Chagas, P. S. D. C., Ferreira, L. C., Paleg, G., Leite, H. R., & Camargos, A. C. R. (2024) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2024.104869
Using the Design Thinking Approach for a University Health Promotion Program: A Pilot Study
Alber, J. M., Askay, D. A., Nelson, C., & Ramirez-Crippen, J. (2024) · Health Promotion Practice · doi:10.1177/15248399241294233
“Further, pilot studies are particularly important when there are few published articles on the subject and a new community partnership (e.g., a campus health center) is being established (Bowen et al., 2009).”
An Innovative Design Model Combining Brainstorming with Debate
Jiang, Z., & Chang, J. F. (2024) · doi:10.1109/icds62420.2024.10751741
Opérationnaliser l'approche de l'entretien motivationnel pour la réadaptation au travail
de Sherbrooke, U., Coutu, M., Durand, M., Labrecque, M.-É., & Pettigrew, S. (2024) · doi:10.70010/unma1911
Hodges, J., Cohn, W. F., Castel, A. D., Flickinger, T., Waldman, A. L., Hilgart, M. M., Kirby, O., Caldwell, S., & Ingersoll, K. S. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5347341/v1 · Cited by 2
“There is also a growing need within the �eld of DHI implementation research to evaluate implementation outcomes beyond user preferences and other outcomes (e.g. acceptability, usability, feasibility) typically reported in formative development studies (4, 5) and human-centered design (6–10).”
Deconinck, H., Hebie, M. T., Boi, A. N., & Dearden, K. A. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.11.25.24317840
Mañago, M. M., Forster, J. E., Biondi, E. A., Schenkman, M. L., Cameron, M. H., & Christiansen, C. L. (2024) · Neurology Report · doi:10.1097/npt.0000000000000504
Technologieakzeptanz und Zufriedenheit mit digitalen Anwendungen im Sport
Kleinert, J., & Mackenbrock, J. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-68241-8_32-1
Feasibility of a Pharmabuddy Care Service for patients with Parkinson’s disease
Stuijt, C. C. M., Karapinar‐Çarkit, F., van Gompel, C. V. D. S. –., et al. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-12057-x
Cuccaro, P. M., Choi, J., Savas, L. S., et al. (2024) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-024-00688-4
Ospina‐Pinillos, L., Shambo-Rodríguez, D. L., Riaño-Fonseca, M. I., Sánchez-Nítola, M. N., Ramírez-Castro, M. F., Calvo-Valderrama, M. G., Camacho, S., Gómez–Restrepo, C., Navarro-Mancilla, Á. A., Hickie, I. B., et al. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.69749
School-based mental health interventions: a feasibility study of the R.E.A.C.T. programme
Neill, R. D., Lloyd, K., Best, P., & Tully, M. A. (2025) · Irish Educational Studies · doi:10.1080/03323315.2024.2441172 · Cited by 1
“The rationale behind conducting a feasibility study and not an effectiveness study was to focus on programme development and refinement (Hallingberg et al. 2018; Bowen et al. 2009; Craig et al. 2008).”
Wang, Q., Ariffin, N. F. M., Aziz, F. A., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v15-i1/24472
Kramer-Kostecka, E. N., Lewis, B. A., & Barr‐Anderson, D. J. (2025) · Family & Community Health · doi:10.1097/fch.0000000000000429
“For this study, we collaborated with a local recreational facility to pilot a youth program and assess its feasibility and sustainability in a community setting 45 based on (1) limited efficacy testing and (2) implementation and acceptability data.”
Universal mental health training for frontline professionals (UMHT)’s feasibility analysis
Горбунова, В., Klymchuk, V., & Santangelo, P. (2025) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.17358.2
Guerrero, K. D., Lakata, L., Lima, D., Mendoza, C., Uthirasamy, N., Morrow, L. M., Perez‐Cortes, S., Pellerano, M. B., Bator, A., Ohman‐Strickland, P., et al. (2025) · JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · doi:10.2196/60764
“We also followed best practice recommendations [27,28].”
Fagan, N., & Hyrkäs, E. K. (2025) · Journal of Maine Medical Center · doi:10.46804/2641-2225.1200
Liljendahl, M. S., Staal, S., & Tønnesen, H. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1470820
Assessing sign language comprehension in adults with intellectual disability and deafness
Weber, C., Weber, C., & Holzinger, D. (2025) · The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · doi:10.1093/jdsade/enaf005
Natoli, A., Hunt, E., Hays, E., Thompson, E., Ioannidis, S., Read, D. J., Withiel, T., & Marston, C. (2025) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000001025
Conducting Grief Support Groups in Prison: A Pragmatic Feasibility and Impact Study
Supiano, K. P., Evans, M., Fetzer, A., Bradbury, L., Gonzalez, K. P., Bott, A., & Wong, B. G. (2025) · Journal of Correctional Health Care · doi:10.1089/jchc.24.05.0043
Lessons Learned in Recruitment, Training, and Retention in a Pre-Loss Grief Support Intervention
Bradbury, L., Supiano, K. P., Andersen, T. C., Ponce-Gonzalez, K., & Bott, A. (2025) · Journal of Gerontological Social Work · doi:10.1080/01634372.2025.2465244
“We evaluated research feasibility including participant recruitment, demand, participant retention, and intervention feasibility, including acceptability by social workers, acceptability by family caregiver participants, and practicality of delivery (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Hennah, C., Rizwan, M., Edwards, N., Beckett, H., Convery, M., Dawson, H., Morris, J., Rigby, M., Vilares, J., Wahl‐Jorgensen, K., et al. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319020 · Cited by 4
“The study outcomes are presented in Table 1, organized per the study’s research questions and Bowen’s framework [16] which evaluates different areas of intervention implementation that are directly relevant to our research aims.”
McFerran, K. S., Krause, A. E., & Osborne, M. S. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1505929 · Cited by 2
Chan, E., McMahon, E., Brimblecombe, J. K., et al. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-22116-5
“…facilitate semi-structured inter-views was developed for this study (see Supplementary File 1), informed by Bowen et. al’s feasibility framework, including the areas of focus deemed relevant to the research question and the scope of this study; implementation, practicality and acceptability [30].”
Broughan, J., McMahon, S., Gordon, S., Ravichandran, N., Bailey, D., Grant, J. L., McCombe, G., Sheil, J., & Cullen, W. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.72655
Alotni, M. A., Fernandez, R. S., Sim, J., et al. (2025) · Pain Management Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2025.02.005
Malcolm, C. P., Anderson, G. F., King, V., Ridout, D. A., Stark, D. L., Shavel‐Jessop, S., Bennett, E. S., Michalski, A. J., Murphy, T. L., & Vargha‐Khadem, F. (2025) · NIHR Open Research · doi:10.3310/nihropenres.13859.1
“…trial is for ‘limited-efficacy testing’ to inform a future fully powered RCT and for descriptive analysis of patient benefit by assessing 1) the measures’ sensitivity to change in the PBT population within the context of a feasibility trial, and 2) to estimate effect sizes of the measures 32 .”
Hoffman, R. M., Murphy, B., Watanabe‐Galloway, S., Vidoni, E. D., Riffin, C. A., & Monin, J. K. (2025) · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1123/japa.2024-0139 · Cited by 1
Tornatore, G., Gullo, H., & Fleming, J. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1177/00084174251316105
“The initial ef fi cacy domain will address health-related QOL and if participants show potential to improve (Bowen et al., 2009; Tickle-Degnen, 2013).”
InfluentialSpierings, J., Willinge, G., Kokke, M., Repping, S., de Lange, W., Geerdink, T., van Veen, R. V., van der Velde, D., Goslings, J. C., Twigt, B., et al. (2025) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/53074
“The interviews were guided by a topic list based on literature, including previously mentioned Bowen feasibility parameters (Multimedia Appendix 4) [8].”
InfluentialOwuor, M., Wamuti, B., Katz, D. A., Liu, W., Lagat, H., Kariithi, E., Naughton, B., Kingston, H., Mugambi, M., Bosire, R. K., et al. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088436
Balter, A.-S., Moloney, M., Ma, C., Lee, A., Pierre, S., Parkes, S., Pulat, D., Racine, N. M., & Andrade, B. F. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319398 · Cited by 2
Blackburn, A. D., Stone‐Heaberlin, M., Tamm, L., et al. (2025) · Child Care Health and Development · doi:10.1111/cch.70064
“…to which a new programme is judged to be suitable and satisfying to its population) and preliminary effectiveness (i.e., extent to which the programme produces effects when delivered under real-world conditions) of the behavioural education programme (Bowen et al. 2009; Marchand et al. 2011).”
Mobile Solution for Child Abuse Reporting: Enhancing Accessibility and Protection through SI-ADU
Ardini, P. P., Rawanti, S., Dwinanto, A., et al. (2024) · Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini Undiksha · doi:10.23887/paud.v12i2.62641
“The language presentation in the application is easy to understand The presentation of commands in each dialog box is easy to understand 3,4 The application product instrument consists of five criteria based on the feasibility study (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Mendonça, S. E., Roepke, A. M., Tsukayama, E., Grant, A. I., & Jayawickreme, E. (2025) · The Journal of Positive Psychology · doi:10.1080/17439760.2025.2481045
“A second goal was to determine feasibility – whether this intervention and research could successfully be conducted (Bowen et al., 2009; Orsmond & Cohn, 2015).”
InfluentialDavies, S. J., Doig, E., Gullo, M. J., & Gullo, H. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1177/00084174251327307
“Aligned with Bowen et al. (2009) framework, feasibility aspects of acceptability, demand, adaptation, and preliminary ef fi cacy were evaluated.”
Hawkins, M. S., Davis, E. M., Abebe, K. Z., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.03.25.25324617
Feasibility of a group supervision to support midwives providing mental care
AIKAWA, Y., YOSHIKAWA, R., & Kataoka, Y. (2025) · Journal of Japan Academy of Midwifery · doi:10.3418/jjam.jjam-2024-0050
Puffer, E. S., Mansoor, M., Rieder, A. D., Johnson, S. L., Quick, K. N., Rasmussen, J. D., Salgado, G. N., Boone, W. J., Proeschold‐Bell, R. J., & Coping Together Implementation Team (2025) · Journal of Prevention and Health Promotion · doi:10.1177/26320770241255114
“To assess the feasibility of the positive emotions incorporated into an intervention, we assessed four of eight aspects of feasibility as described by Bowen et al. (2009).”
Berry, M., & Muckleston, O. (2025) · Pain and Rehabilitation · doi:10.59210/h4v16g24
Cherriere, C., Beaudry, L., Éthier, L., Tallet, J., Donskoff, C., & Lemay, M. (2025) · Research in Dance Education · doi:10.1080/14647893.2025.2483722
Juckett, L., Joshi, S., Hyer, J. M., et al. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01623-7
van Rossum, T., Till, K., Gregory, S., et al. (2025) · Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education · doi:10.1080/25742981.2025.2488402
“Feasibility studies are needed so that researchers can evaluate whether a new intervention is appropriate for further testing (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Engels, B., Kotte, E. M. W., Engelbert, R., et al. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319659
“We used the Bowen framework to assess the AM-p Toolkit’s feasibility [32].”
Feasibility of a Mobile Exergame for Patients with Heart Failure
Andreassen, M., Santaularia, N., Berglund, A., Berglund, E., Orädd, H., Strömberg, A., Jaarsma, T., & Klompstra, L. V. (2025) · Games for Health Journal · doi:10.1089/g4h.2024.0093
“15 According to Bowen et al. (2009) 14 there are eight areas of feasibility to consider: acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation, integration, expansion, and limited ef fi cacy.”
Chappell, K. D., Chinbaatar, O., Goodman, K. J., & Kroeker, K. I. (2025) · Journal of Digestive Diseases · doi:10.1111/1751-2980.13342
Ardill‐Young, O., Teasdale, S. B., Rich, P. A., Ottavio, A., Lueck, B. D., Treen, L., Hodgins, M., & Curtis, J. (2025) · Early Intervention in Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/eip.70038
Draxler, H., Hjärthag, F., Almqvist, K., & Tillfors, M. (2025) · Nordic Psychology · doi:10.1080/19012276.2025.2490015
“…usage of PS was found in the data for all participants, and counsellors’ use of PS was initially presented as an attempt to attain knowledge about demand (i.e. estimated use and demand) and practicalities (i.e. ability to conduct the intervention) in an existing organization (Bowen et al., 2009).”
InfluentialImplementation and Acceptability of a Rural Active Living Initiative
Fedusiak, E., Cammer, A. L., Wickett, B., Morgan, D., Cameron, C., Szakács, S., & Kosteniuk, J. G. (2025) · Activities Adaptation & Aging · doi:10.1080/01924788.2025.2492995
“Implementation reflects the extent to which an intervention is successfully delivered to intended recipients as planned; acceptability refers to the extent that an intervention is suitable for individuals receiving or delivering the intervention (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Nur, A., Seruwagi, G. K., Odwe, G., et al. (2025) · doi:10.31899/sbsr2025.1006
Feasibility, Development and Dissemination of a Father Focused Parenting Intervention, DadPlayPreprint
StGeorge, J. M., Freeman, E. E., & Campbell, L. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6425121/v1
Albdour, M. M., El‐Masri, M. M., Jaber, L. A., Burghardt, P. R., Jenuwine, E., & Lumley, M. A. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/08445621251332166
“Speci fi cally, we 1) examined the feasibility of the study protocol as described by Bowen et al. (2009) (e.g., intervention acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, and adaptation); 2) examined the effect of the intervention on prediabetes control outcome measures, including hemoglobin…”
Karanasiou, M., Coates, R., & Kingston, J. L. (2025) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2025.2488475
“Here, we define feasibility as intervention demand, acceptability and initial efficacy (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Lovegrove, C., Bannigan, K., Hayward, C., Ingram, W. M., Bailey, M. P., Aspinall, P., Hosking, J., Sturkenboom, I. H. W. M., & Marsden, J. F. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079803
“22 Our study objectives are to estimate the feasibility and acceptability of the trial procedures by answering a range of feasibility study questions (figure 1).”
Active play in a digital age: exploring children's views of a physical activity app. (Preprint)Preprint
Frazer, M. T., Charlesworth, L., Wilson, L., Hall, J., Batool, F., Subiza‐Pérez, M., Burkhardt, J., Daly-Smith, A., & Chalkley, A. E. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.76498
Implementierung von achtsamkeitsbasierten Programmen für Kinder
Lo, H. H. M. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83285-7_9
de Jesus, M. S., Winckler, C., Gebara, L., Solé, S., Santos, S. M. C. B., Sarubbi, V., da Silva, M. O., & Demarzo, M. (2025) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/pyedek
Kelly, M., Mierendorff, S., Wales, K., Voeste, J., Allen, J., & McDonald, S. (2025) · Brain Impairment · doi:10.1071/ib24114 · Cited by 2
Hitching, R., Kluge, M. G., Walker, F. R., Gordon, C. J., & Lampe, L. A. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.77094
Feasibility of a Telehealth Intervention for Dementia Carers: Therapist Perspectives
Walter, A., Kilham, K., Dow, B., Rapaport, P., Livingston, G., & Kelly, M. (2025) · Counselling and Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/capr.70024
Hamilton, J., Brennan, K., Brown, D., & Barnhofer, T. (2025) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-025-02598-5
“In line with the feasibility framework suggested by Bowen et al. (2009), we used qualitative interviews to assess satisfaction with the intervention as an indicator of acceptability, attrition, adherence to the intervention and practices, that is patient’s ability to carry out the intervention…”
Sandström, L., Kaunonen, M., Huhtala, H., & Aho, A. L. (2025) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.17073
“Without examining and reporting feasibility and acceptability, refinement, further testing, or implementation of complex interventions might fail, leading to research waste (Bowen et al. 2009; Skivington et al. 2021).”
Reedman, S. E., Kilgour, G. M., Gomersall, S. R., et al. (2025) · Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · doi:10.1080/01942638.2025.2506061
“With limited knowledge in the area of participation-focused interventions in young children with CP, a feasibility study addressing the domains of demand, implementation, limited efficacy and acceptability appears to be an appropriate starting point (Bowen et al., 2009).”
InfluentialTurner, C., King, A. J., Tovar, I., et al. (2025) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/65887
Zhang, Y., Law, M. C. Y., Wee, S. K., Lee, B. S. T., Chew, B. L. A., Teo, W., & Lee, E. W. J. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/56905
Seiferth, C., Henning, C., Vogel, L., Opitz, A., Schoemann, N., Löchner, J., Deliens, T., & Wolstein, J. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.77632
Assessing the Feasibility of the Virtual Reality Training Protocol for Sport
Lewellen, J. A. (2025) · doi:10.33915/etd.12802
de Jesus, M. S., Winckler, C., Gebara, L., Solé, S., Santos, S. M. C. B., Sarubbi, V., da Silva, M. O., & Demarzo, M. (2025) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/pyedek.3
Al-Ebrahim, S. Q., Ouweini, A. E., Boura, F., Tayyem, H. M. A., Diab, R., Osman, O., Awwad, N., Tobeh, M., Salame, F. A. L., Jabi, S. A. L., et al. (2025) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2025.100620
Nowbuth, A. A., Parmar, V. S., Beltrán, A. M. P., Steinsbekk, A., & Jalote-Parmar, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94959-3_18
Decision-makers’ perspectives on the implementation of COVID-19 self-testing in Mozambique
Mavume-Mangunyane, E., Issufo, S., Ndima, S., et al. (2025) · Public Health Action · doi:10.5588/pha.24.0049
Ghaddar, Z., Matar, N. E., Diep, A. N., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1080/17549507.2025.2510234
“The authors had used a theoretical framework based on Orsmond & Cohn (2015) and Bowen et al., (2009) which defined the variables of the feasibility study and helped build the evaluation questionnaires.”
Kurhade, C., Jagannathan, A., Varambally, S., Shivanna, S., & Philip, M. (2025) · Indian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.4103/indianjpsychiatry_535_24
“[30] This module was found to be moderately acceptable despite logistical issues and dropouts.”
Shore, J., Gill, P. K., DuPlessis, D., Kyrinis, E., Lovell, A. J., Mallory, K. D., Hickling, A., Hutchison, M. G., Munce, S., Schneider, K., et al. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.78486
Tadokoro, Y., & Takahata, K. (2025) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph22060950
“The feasibility study, particularly in the first step, can use the qualitative data of subjective perception that is not directly linked to medical outcomes [24,26,28,31,45,50].”
InfluentialThomson, K. M., Davis, S., Bernier, S. L., Magnacca, C., Noone, S., & Lunsky, Y. (2025) · Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · doi:10.1111/jar.70058
“This study evaluated the feasibility of an adaptation of the PACT workshop with staff focusing on five of the eight categories from the framework described by Bowen et al. (2009), including demand, acceptability, implementation, adaptation and limited efficacy testing .”
Shore, J., Hwang, A. S., & Wang, R. H. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.79026
Moran, M. J., Thompson, T., Miller, R. L., Krause, J. T., Rigsby, B. A., Rzonca, A. J., Carreras, C., Nejman, J., Shomaker, L. B., Johnson, S. A., et al. (2025) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-025-02610-y · Cited by 1
“When evidence-based programs are implemented in and adapted to a new settings, feasibility studies are indicated to explicitly test whether an intervention will work under such conditions (Bowen et al., 2009).”
InfluentialZimmermann, E., & Tomczyk, S. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.78774
Bao, Z., Harris, J., Rafferty, A. M., et al. (2025) · Seminars in Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2025.151940
Mairing, J. P., Wiyogo, W., Husnatarina, F., et al. (2025) · Journal of Vocational Education Studies · doi:10.12928/joves.v8i1.11628
Bruun, M. K., Djurtoft, C., Rahbek, O., Rathleff, M. S., & Riel, H. (2025) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2025.103373
Kaden, J., Peper, J., Rahn, A. C., & Berger‐Höger, B. (2025) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2025.2515533
“We tested the training with health professionals in terms of feasibility and acceptance, as wells as practicality, comprehensibility, and the acceptance of the PtDA (Bowen et al., 2009), as described in Table 3.”
Holmqvist, M., Ros, A., Thor, J., & Johansson, L. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01661-1
Haste, A., Gray, N., Poulter, H. L., Crow, R., Copping, L. T., Ingwersen, J., Limbrick, H., Tindall, H., & Moore, H. J. (2025) · Mental Health & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.mhp.2025.200435
Hassard, J., Blake, H., Dulal‐Arthur, T., Frost, A. C., Bartle, C., Yarker, J., Munir, F., Vaughan, B., Daly, G. B. J., Meyer, C., et al. (2025) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/76373 · Cited by 1
Winther, L., Stahlhut, M., Curtis, D. J., Dall, C. H., Frandsen, T. L., & Sørensen, J. L. (2025) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/58019
“…of a customized digital play intervention via a mobile application for hospitalized children and adolescents using the framework by Bowen et al [18], including these 8 focus areas of acceptability, demand, practicality, implementation, adaptation, integration, expansion, and limited efficacy…”
InfluentialNtoukas, S. M., McNeely, M. L., Prado, C. M. M., & Courneya, K. S. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326860
“Feasibility studies are important to understand if further investigation is necessary, considering the sustainability and strength of the research and relevance of the findings [57].”
Djernis, D., Troije, C. P., Lygum, V. L., Bentsen, P., Grangaard, S., Ladegaard, Y., Nielsen, H. H., Dupret, K., & Jensen, C. G. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13141677
“For the limited-efficacy testing [50], our main outcome was the number of days per week including OOW, based on a self-reported estimate across the past two weeks.”
InfluentialRizvi, N., Iqbal, R., Jabeen, R., Harris, B., & Griffiths, F. E. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082558 · Cited by 1
Feasibility Study of a New Approach to Balance Job Demands and Resources
Meng, A., & Aust, B. (2025) · Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies · doi:10.18291/njwls.158205
Perperidi, M., Skeparnakou, E., Strongylou, D. E., Leptopoulou, A., Tsiampalis, T., Tsapakidis, K., Saloustros, E. S., Theodorakis, Y., & Androutsos, O. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13141683
“‘Intervention acceptability’, that is, the acceptance of the intervention by both intervention deliverers (e.g., dietitians/nutritionists) and recipients (e.g., breast cancer survivors) constitutes an essential prerequisite for successful intervention implementation [17].”
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
