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 3,101–3,200 of 3,693
Stockley, R., Gooch, H. J., Jarvis, K. A., & Watkins, C. L. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.07.11.25331266
LGBTIQA+ Patient Liaison Service—Seeking to Improve the Experience of Hospitalised LGBTIQA+ People
Hayes, S., Gryffydd, C., Jolley, J., et al. (2025) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70160
Mazya, A. L., Boström, A., Sandlund, C., et al. (2025) · Primary Health Care Research & Development · doi:10.1017/s1463423625100297
“( Bowen et al. 2009) Our results indicate that the overall acceptability of the TFI was high among the PHCPs.”
Guru, A., Ajay, A., Raj, J. S. S., et al. (2025) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2025.104633
Kinyina, A., Hellar, A., Bandio, R., et al. (2025) · doi:10.12688/verixiv.1705.1
Exploring the feasibility of a ‘Move to Sport’ programme for secondary Physical Education
van Rossum, T., Till, K., Gregory, S., et al. (2025) · Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education · doi:10.1080/25742981.2025.2537057
Huang, J., Yang, S., Xie, Z., Guo, B., Lan, Y., Li, Y., Jiang, Y., Forman, L. S., Lunze, K., Liang, B., et al. (2025) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-025-04823-7 · Cited by 1
“The objective of this two-group, randomized controlled trial was to test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy [ 19 ] on 12-week biochemically-verified smoking abstinence of a smoking cessation intervention for PWH smokers in Guangxi, China called Quit for Life.”
Botfield, J. R., Moffat, M., Dunphy, C., Parry, N., Perkins, J., Cameron, S. T., & Black, K. I. (2025) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2025.101955
Cruz-León, C., Marín‐Jiménez, N., Sánchez‐Parente, S., Borges‐Cosic, M., Grao‐Cruces, A., Castro‐Piñero, J., & Cuenca‐García, M. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.07.27.25332266
Mishra, T., Jagannathan, A., & Jasti, L. N. (2025) · International Journal of Yoga · doi:10.4103/ijoy.ijoy_242_24
Exploring the feasibility of perinatal interpersonal psychotherapy group for distressed women
Shieh, P.-L., Hsu, H., & Hsu, W.-S. (2025) · Australasian Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/10398562251365825
“Since feasibility studies are crucial for determining whether novel interventions are practical, acceptable, and implementable, 8 – 10 a study that evaluates the feasibility of a longitudinal perinatal IPT-G in-terventionspanningpregnancyandpostpartumiswarranted.”
Bainbridge, D. B., Lysecki, D. L., Akitt, T., Georgiou, G., McKean, H., Orr, E., Meyer, R. M., & SUSSMAN, J. S. (2025) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-025-09829-4
“The guides were modeled around eight domains of feasibility proposed by Bowen et al.: acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation, integration, expansion, and limited efficacy [35].”
Brar, S., Jaana, M., Santos, O. A., Kassabri, N., Sweet, L., Knoefel, F. D., Chandler, M. J., Jaiswal, A., & Thomas, N. (2025) · Journal of dementia and Alzheimer's disease · doi:10.3390/jdad2030026
“This study has several strengths, including its novel focus on the feasibility of MSS implementation within the Ontario healthcare context, the inclusion of both individuals with MCI and their support partners, and the use of a validated framework for assessing acceptability [11].”
InfluentialAdhikari, T., Nair, S., & Grover, A. K. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13099-5
“[12] Acceptability .”
Gabrielsson, A., Laugharne, R. A., Painter, J., et al. (2025) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2025.10814
Development, validation, and feasibility testing of Tele-Yoga Module for PTSD
Katla, N., Ilavarasu, J. V., Mavathur, R. N., Bhargav, H., Holla, B., Kumar, V., Ramsahaye, A., Thulasi, A., & Zaidi, S. Z. H. (2025) · Advances in Integrative Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.aimed.2025.100562
Yepez, V. V., Yang, M.-J., Washington, S., Jones, S. R., Poudel, R., Pidala, J., Horta, M., & Vinci, C. (2025) · Palliative & Supportive Care · doi:10.1017/s1478951525100485
“Benchmark criteria for recruitment, retention, and session attendance were informed by prior literature (Bowen et al. 2009; Freedland 2020; Pfledderer et al. 2024) and by outcomes observed in our previous FOCUS intervention pilot study among HCT care-givers (Vinci et al. 2020).”
Osaka, W., Aoki, Y., Yonekura, Y., Danya, H., & Nakayama, K. (2025) · PEC Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2025.100425
Keyan, D., Habashneh, R., El-Dardery, H., Faroun, M., Al-Johary, F., Abualhaija, A., Aqel, I. S., Akhtar, A., Dardas, L. A., & Bryant, R. A. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098188 · Cited by 1
“Baseline socio-demographic characteristics were descriptively summarised and analysed using independent samples t-tests and χ 2 tests.”
Gameiro, S., Leone, D., D’Angelo, A., Veleva, Z., Morey, R. D., & Boivin, J. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101269
“27 Another strength of the trial is the inclusion of patient outcomes that will advance knowledge about the impact of SBN training on patients’ care experiences and specifically of SPIKES-based training, which is an important contribution given SPIKES evaluation studies have rarely examined these…”
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.4
Feasibility study of a digital NHS Health Check
Gidlow, C. J., Sams, L., Riley, V., Ellis, N., Povey, R. C., Nolan, A., Walsh, G., Green, H., & Thompson, K. (2025) · BMC Digital Health · doi:10.1186/s44247-025-00161-9
“The framework for feasibility studies from Bowen et al. [29] (Table 1) was adapted and aligned with study objectives to aid the design and interpretation.”
Revollon, N., Arikawa, S. C., Richard, É., Sadio, A. J., Konu, Y. R., Bhatta, B., Tchankoni, M. K., Dzoka, K. D., Gbeasor-Komlanvi, D. F., Enguita‐Fernàndez, C., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.09.01.25334879
Marston, C., L'etang, M., Philip, J. A. M., Morgan, D. D., Edbrooke, L., Chang, S., & Agar, M. R. (2025) · Palliative & Supportive Care · doi:10.1017/s1478951525100710
“Feasibility was assessed using 3 key areas of focus recommended by Bowen’s framework for feasibility studies (Bowen et al. 2009) – practicality, implementation (fidelity), and limited efficacy, with links of areas of focus to trial aims and measures detailed in Table 1.”
A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Response to NOVELA Among Hospice Family Caregivers
Cruz-Oliver, D. M., Blinka, M. D., Milner, G. E., Nelson, K. E., Bugayong, M. T., Durkin, N., Gallo, J. J., Oliver, D. P., & Saylor, M. A. (2025) · American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · doi:10.1177/10499091251371149
“Mixed-methods analysis can examine reactions to a speci fi c intervention 6 by combining the strengths of quantitative and qualitative data to understand the complexities of intervention delivery and acceptability.”
Copeland, J. L., Zdjelar, M., B̀ouchard, D. R., Klicnik, I., Leadbetter, B., & Dogra, S. (2025) · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1123/japa.2024-0128 · Cited by 1
Attard, C., Rubeis, V. D., MacMillan, H. L., Barlow, J., Ratcliffe, J., Duku, E., Bennett, T. A., & González, A. (2025) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108584
Christiansen, M. G., Pappot, H., Jarden, M., Tolver, A., Mikkelsen, H. S., Mirza, M. R., & Piil, K. (2025) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-025-09875-y · Cited by 1
“Feasibility was evaluated based on general and study-specific parameters [19, 20]: including safety (timely management of moderate or severe symptoms, nurses consulting a physician in case of doubt, and ensuring patient data protection), acceptability (adherence, recruitment, conduction of…”
Miller, M. K., Barral, R., Noel‐MacDonnell, J., et al. (2025) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyaf036
Michaelsen, M. M., Uhl, J., Mindrup, L., Neumann, C., Langer, L., & Esch, T. (2025) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06223-x
“Additionally, if the intervention is difficult to navigate or implement within the existing healthcare system, it may face resistance or challenges in gaining widespread acceptance [43].”
Ezzat, A. M., Gibbs, A., Silva, D. D. O., Pazzinatto, M. F., Kemp, J. L., Manski-Nankervis, J.-A. E., & Barton, C. J. (2025) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-025-02968-x
Kisch, A. M., Eriksson, L. V., O’Sullivan, A., et al. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13192463
“The study focused on two key areas of feasibility described by Bowen et al. (2009): practicality, i.e., the extent to which the model could be applied as intended, and acceptability, i.e., the extent to which participants using the model find it appropriate and satisfactory [29].”
Salwa, M., Chowdhury, S. M., Rois, R., Uddin, M. K., Akhter, S., Nahar, K., Mullick, A. R., Mannan, M., Kundu, G. K., Fatema, K., et al. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-105688
“42 Data will include the participant recruitment rate, retain-ment rate and reasons, required time to recruit target participants, intervention session attendance, rate of”
Saksida, A., Rebesco, R., Scuderi, M., Colombani, A., Messineo, I., Pavani, F., Orzan, E., & Pintonello, S. (2025) · Deafness & Education International · doi:10.1080/14643154.2025.2541433 · Cited by 1
“The feasibility of the proposed parental intervention was systematically assessed (Bowen et al., 2009) through semi-structured focus groups with parents and professionals involved in the intervention, and through the prelimi-nary assessment of the efficacy of the proposed FCEI.”
InfluentialBove, A. M., Zavacky, E. N., Zeleznik, H., Bise, C. G., Patterson, C. G., Parmanto, B., & Fitzgerald, G. K. (2025) · JOSPT open. · doi:10.2519/josptopen.2025.0167
Miyauchi, A., Takahata, K., Idei, Y., Shuo, T., & Horiuchi, S. (2025) · Japan Journal of Nursing Science · doi:10.1111/jjns.70026
Itinéraire d’un vieillissement en santé (VIeSA) : résultats d’une étude de faisabilité à Genève
Busnel, C., Ashikali, E., Vallet, F., Graf, C. E., & Ludwig, C. (2025) · Santé Publique · doi:10.3917/spub.255.0161
Sami, M., Macridis, S., & Ogunseitan, O. A. (2025) · Discover Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12982-025-01002-w
“Although video technology allowed for continuous coverage over extended periods, the manual coding of images was highly time-consuming and required substantial human effort, which limits the scalability and practicality [25] of the method in its current form.”
InfluentialHaegens, L. L., Bekker, C. L., Flendrie, M., van den Bemt, B. J. F., & Huiskes, V. J. B. (2025) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/66514 · Cited by 1
“…an answer from a pharmacist), patients’ preferred form of address, what alternatives patients would use instead of text messaging, and the added value of the text messaging to current care were constructed based on the framework by Bowen et al [20] and its description of the acceptability domain.”
InfluentialZimmermann, E., & Tomczyk, S. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/78774
“The qualitative content analysis was guided by the feasibility framework by Bowen et al [50], which comprises 8 key domains for evaluating whether and how an intervention can work: acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation, integration, limited efficacy testing, and expansion…”
InfluentialThe family model in child and adult mental health services
Linderborg, C., Weimand, B. M., Falkov, A., & Östman, M. (2025) · Nordic Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/08039488.2025.2570252
“Such research would show whether interventions are acceptable to the intended recipients [32], and would especially influence feasibility studies [33,34].”
Technologieakzeptanz und Zufriedenheit mit digitalen Anwendungen im Sport
Kleinert, J., & Mackenbrock, J. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-70475-2_32
Meng, J., Meng, D., Sun, C., Shen, Q., Bai, Y., Xu, G., Song, Y., Wang, S., & Chen, H. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/78449
“Previous feasibility studies of Namaste Care and similar interventions have used comparable sample sizes [24], and Bowen et al [25] recommend using small sample sizes for exploratory feasibility objectives.”
Rodrigues, M., Carvalho, R., Gomes, B. V., et al. (2025) · Pediatric Pulmonology · doi:10.1002/ppul.71331
Tibbitts, D., Chalmers, C. R., Stoyles, S. A., Shannon, J., Dieckmann, N. F., Lyons, K. S., & Winters‐Stone, K. M. (2025) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-025-01912-3
Sim, A., McNeilage, A. G., Rebbeck, T. J., Sterling, M. M., Nicholas, M. K., Donovan, S. J., Gholamrezaei, A., & Ashton-James, C. E. (2025) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2025.2573162
“Evaluating feasibility, a broader concept that includes acceptability, entails investigating the practicality and ease with which an intervention can be implemented within a given setting or context [62,63].”
Isaksson, M., Ekenberg, D., Martinsen, E. H., Lööf, M., & Isaksson, J. (2025) · Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/sjop.70034
“In line with recommendations for designing feasibility studies (Bowen et al. 2009), key areas such as implementation (i.e., at-trition rates and whether different practitioners and locations would impact the outcome), acceptability (whether the intervention was perceived as appropriate and…”
InfluentialPagán, A. F., Loveland, K. A., & Acierno, R. (2025) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-025-07094-2
Wood, C. L., & Torres-Chavarro, M. (2025) · Literacy Research and Instruction · doi:10.1080/19388071.2025.2557800
Mobile telephone provider to provider helpline: A pilot study in Cameroon
Enah, C. C., Jauk, V. C., Ngong, M. G., Bond, C. L., Ambe, L. N., Kyeng, R. M., Mbole, R., Carlo, W. A., Halle-Ekane, G. E., Tih, P. M., et al. (2025) · AJOG Global Reports · doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2025.100581
Zylva, R. D., Wilson, C. J., & Ward, P. (2025) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/13591053251371955
“We investigated other areas of feasibility suggested by Bowen et al. (2009), such as practicality, economic analysis, adaptation and integration of MBIs into novel modalities.”
Participatory learning to enhance leadership competence in nursing students: a feasibility study
Martín‐Ferreres, M. L., Rodríguez-Higueras, E., Fuster, P., et al. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-03935-8
“The intervention was planned based on the three criteria proposed by Bowen et al. [17], namely perceived demand, intention to use and real possibility of implementation in practice.”
Sarkkinen, E., Niemistö, D., Luukkainen, N., et al. (2025) · Journal of Motor Learning and Development · doi:10.1123/jmld.2025-0028
Me and my foster family: assessing the feasibility of a flexible intervention
Jacobsen, C. B., Baviskar, S., Frederiksen, A. B., Schrøder, I., Hildeshejn, C. M., & Danneskiold-Samsøe, S. (2025) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108649
van Rijsbergen, G. D., Otto, L., Pijnenborg, G. H. M., Boonstra, N., Korevaar, E. L., & Hofstra, J. (2025) · Community Mental Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10597-025-01540-2
Shakya, S., Gopalakrishnan, S., Vani Lakshmi, R., Anaby, D., Shamantha Madapura, S., Shetty, H. B., Shah, H. H., Venkatesan, V. S., & Rao, B. K. (2025) · Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/10400435.2025.2577801
“Furthermore, other feasibility elements (Bowen et al., 2009) such as; the demand for the intervention, adapt-ability to different settings, cost-effectiveness analysis, and support from the stakeholders could also have been addressed.”
Pearsall, M. S., Gilkey, M. B., Ennett, S. T., et al. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/72823
“The aims of this study were to assess acceptability, demand, integration, adaptation, and implementation according to the feasibility framework outlined by Bowen and colleagues [22].”
Andersen, L. H., Jensen, R. D., Skipper, M., Davodian, I., Bech, J. K., Lietzen, L. W., Krogh, K., & Løfgren, B. (2025) · The Clinical Teacher · doi:10.1111/tct.70245
Gaddie, J., Saunders, F., & Vosper, J. (2025) · Journal of Psychosexual Health · doi:10.1177/26318318251386196
“18 Effectiveness and acceptability were assessed using self-report questionnaires and thematic analysis of qualitative data.”
Yang, Y., Green, K. L., Zhang, N., McGarrigle, L., & Todd, C. J. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01693-7 · Cited by 1
“Although RCTs are considered the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of health interventions, it is strongly recommended to conduct a pilot and feasibility study before a full-size RCT [49].”
Harris, J., Sutton, K., Fournier, Q., Armes, J., Ream, E., & Bacon, N. J. (2025) · Veterinary and Comparative Oncology · doi:10.1111/vco.70028
Hausken‐Sutter, S. E., Moen, C., Sjølie, E. S., Bjørndal, C. T., Myklebust, G., Møller, M., & Grindem, H. (2025) · BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2025-002766
“18 20 A primarily semantic and deductive approach was used, which was appropriate given the study’s a priori research focus.”
Gatland, A., Jones, T., Marthick, M., Stratulate, S., Lees, J., Parry, S. M., & Short, C. E. (2025) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-025-01925-y
“You Don’t Feel Alone”: Perceptions of the My Tools 4 Care-In Care Web-Based Interactive Toolkit
Thompson, G. N., Peacock, S., Kraut, J., Harrison, T., O’Rourke, H. M., Baxter, P. E., Dubé, V., Swindle, J., & Duggleby, W. (2025) · Global Qualitative Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/23333936251390491
Giordano, N. A., Kaplan, D. M., Peacock, C., Vyas, I., Pozzo, N. S., Shelton, M., Escoffery, C., Rana, S., Raison, C. L., Grant, G. H., et al. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01712-7 · Cited by 1
KIDERA, M., Takeuchi, S., Shinohara, E., & Nakamura, S. (2025) · Journal of Japan Academy of Midwifery · doi:10.3418/jjam.jjam-2025-0004
Gubser, I., Bauer, G. F., & Bagehorn, J. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7805102/v1
Sánchez-Cabrero, D., Rubio, J., Esteve, J. D., Guzmán-Gómez, L., Guzmán-Rolo, G., Grande, C., Aguilar, A. M., Pérez-Wert, P., Pertejo, A., Sulo, S. S., et al. (2025) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers17223697
“A relevant aspect for assessing the feasibility of the PRONTO in clinical practice, apart from its ability to adequately screen patients with nutritional risk, is the usability of the tool [23].”
Tonmon, T. T., Haapaniemi, T., Alam, M. S., Mahmood, H. R., Ashorn, P., Muthiani, Y., Ashorn, U., & Ameen, S. (2025) · doi:10.12688/verixiv.2042.1
Yinusa, G., Surr, C., Thomas, S., Fenge, L., Howdon, D., Major, J., Heward, M., Taylor, G. T., Knight, H. P., Townson, J., et al. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01722-5
“We will relate the evaluation to focused components of feasibility studies [43].”
Hwang, H., Kim, N. Y., Kim, D. S., Yu, E., Kim, S. M., & Kim, H. J. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-25710-9 · Cited by 1
A Qualitative Observation Tool for Folding, Writing, and Cutting in School-Aged Children: Hands-On!
Faber, L., Hartman, E., Derikx, D. F. A. A., et al. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.1177/00084174251397726
Lewellen, J. A., Barnes, C. A., Forget, A., Garcia, J. M., Follmer, D. J., Hornsby, G., Silva-Breen, H. L., & Giacobbi, P. R. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0337537
“Acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality outlined by Bowen and colleagues [36] also supported the feasibility of the VREAP among baseball and softball players.”
InfluentialAnis, L., Benzies, K., Ewashen, C., Hart, M. J., & Letourneau, N. L. (2025) · Children · doi:10.3390/children12121605
“Phase 1 of RCTs typically includes feasibility [16–19, 21– 23] and pilot studies [ 17, 18, 22] RCTs suffer from several limitations, such as problems with the generalizability of results, inflated costs associated with long-term follow-up, large sample sizes, and extensive staff training.”
Youssef, M., Clay, S., Zaref, C., Harris, V. S., Clay, E., & Muchira, J. M. (2025) · The Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · doi:10.1097/jcn.0000000000001257
Hurley, E. A., Gwokyala, V., Nabitaka, L. K., Beyeza‐Kashesya, J., Agasha, M., Namaganda, F., Schuetz, N., Ross, J. N., Matovu, J. K. B., Wanyenze, R. K., et al. (2025) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-025-04949-8
“To guide iterative intervention development, we explored select Bowen feasiblity constructs [45] most releveant to this stage in our work (e.g., demand, acceptabilty, implementation, practicality, integration) and Health Beilef Model constructs [46] (e.g., perceieved suseptability, severity, risks…”
Hodges, J., Cohn, W. F., Castel, A. D., Flickinger, T., Waldman, A. L., Hilgart, M. M., Kirby, O., Caldwell, S., & Ingersoll, K. S. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/76327
Impact of Meditation on Improving Quality of Life Among Glaucoma Patients: A Study Protocol
Sheng, J., Yu, B. E., Fong, M., Hutnik, C. M. L., & Malvankar‐Mehta, M. S. (2025) · Patient Related Outcome Measures · doi:10.2147/prom.s535666
Waddington, A. F., Fields, A. M., Schneider, K. M., Fratzke, V., & Hill, R. B. S. (2025) · Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy · doi:10.1080/2326716x.2025.2595680
“To complete the limited-efficacy testing to measure intermediate outcomes (Bowen et al., 2009) of the Cultural Bias and Diagnosis Activities , we used an established assessment for understanding constructs surrounding cultural humility and implicit bias and adapted language to reflect diagnosis.”
InfluentialSaugy, A., Pythoud, P., Clifford‐Faugère, G. D., Rahmaty, Z., Enes, A. P., Barazzoni, M. S., Schneider, J., Richard, C. F., Contino, M., & Ramelet, A. (2025) · Nursing in Critical Care · doi:10.1111/nicc.70276
Semciw, A. I., Jessup, R. L., Duckham, R. L., Gokhale, S., Gray, H., Bell, E. C., Quick, S. M., Gentle, J., Phan, U., See, K., et al. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/85701
“To address the 3 distinct aims, the study will be conducted across 3 phases informed by the generative co-design framework for health care interventions [25], as outlined in Textbox 1 [26-29].”
Influentialvan Dijk, H., Köke, A. J. A., Doomen, A., Elbers, S., Goossens, M. E. J. B., Smeets, R., & Wittink, H. M. (2025) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593985.2025.2598396
“The interview guide was informed by the theoretical framework of feasibility studies developed by Bowen et al. (2009) (Bowen et al, 2009).”
Justino, F. H., Santos, A. T. S., Silvestre, P. O. D. O., da Silva, J. R. T., Iunes, D. H., & Silva, A. M. (2025) · Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies · doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2025.12.023
Boone, A. E., Kiselica, A. M., Earwood, J. H., Golzy, M., Reid‐Arndt, S. A., & Wolf, T. (2025) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2025.11.027
Bushaway, S., Naumann, K., Singh, B., Maher, C. A., Deepak, S., Hartland, A., Konstantopoulos, P., Virieux, A., Wall, M., Wilksch, S., et al. (2025) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-025-15417-w
“Intervention feasibility was evaluated using key domains defined by Bowen et al. [23], including acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, and limited efficacy testing.”
Ojo, T., Yassin, H., Sowunmi, E., Hameed, T., Ryan, N., Gyamfi, J., Shelley, D., Ogedegbe, G. G., & Peprah, E. K. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1597996
Haezebrouck, E., Ridgeway, K. J., Balistreri, S., Norris, E., & Mayer, K. P. (2025) · Journal of Acute Care Physical Therapy · doi:10.1097/jat.0000000000000270
Building paediatric eyecare capability via Project ECHO tele-mentoring in Australia
Toomey, M., Keay, L. J., Ren, K., et al. (2025) · Clinical and Experimental Optometry · doi:10.1080/08164622.2025.2560975
Evaluating the feasibility of a co-designed, Māori-centred autism resource for educators
Tupou, J., Wallace-Watkin, C., Ataera, C., Ellison, L., Ellison, R., Everitt, N., Kelly, M., Royal, J., & Waddington, H. (2025) · Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education · doi:10.1080/10901027.2025.2600030
Seenan, C., Hill, S. A., Abaraogu, U. O., McSwiggan, S., Roche, P. A., Tan, C.-W., Mercer, T. H., & Belch, J. J. F. (2025) · Journal of Vascular Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.jvn.2025.11.004
The Analysis of the Real People With Diabetes Study Using the NIH Feasibility Framework
Karduck, J., & Chapman‐Novakofski, K. (2025) · Topics in Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1097/tin.0000000000000403
Son, J. Y., Marriott, D. J., Struble, L. M., Chen, W., Dechert, R. E., Tucker, S. K., & Larson, J. L. (2025) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/07334648251408186
Richiez, D. (2024) · Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · doi:10.7275/7043594
Hookmani, A. A., Lalani, N., Sultan, N., Zubairi, A., Hussain, A., Hasan, B. S., & Rasheed, M. A. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16640941
Swillens, J. E. M., Voorham, Q. J. M., Akkermans, R. P., Nagtegaal, I. D., & Hermens, R. P. M. G. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20408728
Hinteregger, A., Niedermann, K., & Wirz, M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26620312
Thapa, R., Chimoriya, R., & Arora, A. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13551060
Additional file 2 of Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials
Pearson, N., Naylor, P.-J., Ashe, M. C., Fernandez, M., Yoong, S. L., & Wolfenden, L. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13173941
Self-citationSurendran, A., McSharry, J., Meredith, D., McNamara, J., Bligh, F., Meade, O., & O’Hora, D. P. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.23625459
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
