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 3,401–3,500 of 3,693
Ljungh, A., Ängeby, K., & Lilja, L. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.93417
Talbot, R., Harris, C., Cable, E., Whiten, B., Warren, J. D., Varley, R. A., & Volkmer, A. (2026) · Dementia · doi:10.1177/14713012261425555 · Cited by 2
Højer, R., & Laugesen, S. M. B. (2026) · International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science · doi:10.1016/j.ijgfs.2026.101450 · Cited by 1
Kondo, K., Ishimori, T., Noguchi, N., et al. (2026) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2026.2631064
“this pilot study examined four domains of feasibility: acceptability, demand, implementation, and limited-efficacy testing [26].”
Dhakal, R., Thapa, B., Manandhar, D. L., et al. (2026) · PLOS Global Public Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0005941
“Of the eight areas of focus proposed by the framework, we assessed feasibility based on four parameters: a) acceptability, b) demand, c) practicality and d) implementation [26].”
InfluentialSilva, A. F. D. S., Motarelli, J. H. F., Pena, G. D. G., Penaforte, F. R. D. O., & Japúr, C. C. (2026) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-026-08520-9
“These outcomes were evaluated according to criteria established in previous studies [37 – 40].”
Gunasekara, S. D., Agampodi, S. B., Fernando, M. S., et al. (2026) · Tropical Medicine and Health · doi:10.1186/s41182-026-00930-w
“[22]: acceptability, implementation, practicality, adaptation, integration, and scalability.”
Burleson, S., Taylor‐Piliae, R. E., Rainbow, J. G., & Morrison, H. W. (2026) · Journal of Experiential Education · doi:10.1177/10538259261421547
“Feasibility studies offer critical insight into whether researchers can successfully deliver interventions as designed, particularly in high-demand settings such as health professions education (Bowen et al., 2009; Eldridge et al., 2016).”
Kortianou, E. A., Isakoglou, M., Karagianni, E., Antoniou, V., Sapouna, V., & Pepera, G. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14050576
“The feasibility includes the following domains: implementation, demand, acceptability, and practicality [32].”
Taylor‐Piliae, R. E., Skiba, M. B., Felion, C. M., Dando, E., Aras, S. G., Hsu, C., & Loya, J. (2026) · The Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care · doi:10.1177/26350106261426277
“22,49 In this study, the recruitment strategies were expanded to invite potential participants meeting the eligibility criteria to those registered in ResearchMatch to enroll an adequate number of participants.”
Wexler, R. S., Balsamo, W., Lendof, V., Shane, D., Fox, M., Heron, R. L., Berg, M., Hansen, T., Vaughn, A. W., Walton, T., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8682836/v1 · Cited by 1
Broughan, J., McMahon, S., Gordon, S., et al. (2026) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/72655
“The feasibility was assessed using Bowen et al’s [12] feasibility framework (Figure 1).”
Lacostales, M. (2026) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.520806
Feasibility of a livestream dance class for people with chronic strokePreprint
Gregman, S., Michaelchuk, W. W., Belfiore, L., et al. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.02.28.26347337
Villeneuve, M., Piché, J., Busch, A., & Lamontagne, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · doi:10.3389/fresc.2026.1661479
Pogrebnoy, D., Jones, J. R., Alsawaf, S., Joseph, L., Lau, P. Y., & Bower, K. J. (2026) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/02692155261428703
“32 Finally, effectiveness was de fi ned as the extent to which engaging with a technology-based intervention produced a bene fi cial outcome under typical, real-world conditions.”
Bisimirwe, C., Maombi, S., Nabuki, S., Mubelelwa, L., Llosa, A. E., & Palacios, L. (2026) · npj Women s Health · doi:10.1038/s44294-026-00136-9 · Cited by 3
Web-based discharge education program for caregivers of children with epilepsy: A feasibility study
Lee, H., Oh, E. G., Lee, S. E., Kang, H.-C., Shin, H.-K., Cha, Y., & Choi, E. K. (2026) · Journal of Pediatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2026.02.037
Porter, K., You, W., Foreman, B. R., LeBaron, V. T., Brock, D. P., Jones, C., & Zoellner, J. (2026) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2026.108271
Amholt, T. T., Bølling, M., Kristensen, M. R., Barfod, K. S., Aadahl, M., & Stahlhut, M. (2026) · Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning · doi:10.1080/14729679.2026.2641725
Walker, D. M., Spees, C., Brock, G., Williams, A., Smith, J., Shrodes, J., Gilmore, D. L., Headings, A., Baker, C., Price, T., et al. (2026) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2026.108285
Kanaan, R., Macdonell, R., Long, M., Richardson, R. J., Rogers, C., McManus, M. A., Braat, S., Zaloumis, S. G., Mihalopoulos, C., Chatterton, M. L., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112627
Rathnayake, S., Liyanage, I. P., Ekanayaka, J., & Liyanage, E. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-108450
Linde, E., van Grevenstein, W. M., Burdorf, A., et al. (2026) · Journal of surgical education · doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2026.103909
Wang, T., Wang, H., Li, M., Bressington, D. T., Terry, D., Wang, G., Kwok, W. H., & Tan, J.-Y. B. (2026) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106643 · Cited by 1
Li, S. W. A., Mok, S. W. A., Wong, S. W., Yang, B., Chan, J. N.-M., Fong, K. N. K., Chan, S. C. C., Lau, C. M. J., & Lau, B. W.-M. (2026) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma19061146 · Cited by 1
“…feasibility study focused on key aspects including acceptability (user satisfaction via QUEST 2.0), practicality (process times, clinician accessibility), and limited efficacy (preliminary performance observations), following frameworks for early-stage rehabilitation technology evaluation [19–21].”
InfluentialJoseph, R. P., Pituch, K. A., Yu, F., Salisbury, D. L., & Maxfield, M. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/82494
“Guided by the NIH Stage Model [25] and the feasibility framework of Bowen et al [26], a 6-month stage IA feasibility trial was conducted using a randomized, 4-arm mechanistic study design.”
Donroe, J. H., Sofair, A. N., Piro, K. M., et al. (2026) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-026-10309-6
“33 Our expert panel’s unanimous support of the EPA instrument as a means of competency assessment showed acceptability .”
Mak, S., McManus, P., Greer, S., Haws, K., Carlson, C. J., Chandler, H. K., Osinubi, O., & Ash, G. I. (2026) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/82177
“These evaluations identify key facilitators and barriers based on participant feedback and willingness to engage in intervention activities, and findings can be used to refine program design and delivery [15].”
Singh, S., Mann, S., Dorsey, C., Lahoff, D., McDermott, W., Cagle, J. G., Min, S., Lum, H. D., & Fischer, S. M. (2026) · Journal of Geriatric Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2026.102956
Das, P., Douma, G., Donkers, H., Roets-Merken, L. M., & Graff, M. J. L. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-105939 · Cited by 1
“Qualitative data from interviews and focus groups were analysed using qualitative content analysis, guided by Bowen’s feasibility framework, 28 with inductive coding within and across domains and informed by Corbin and Strauss’s analytic procedures.”
Caregiver-Implemented Hanen Programs ® : A Narrative Review
Bartlett, S. C., & McLeod, S. L. (2026) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2025_ajslp-25-00101
Feasibility of classic massage for Swedish nurses: a mixed methods pre-post-test design study
Westas, M., Ekström, L., Sandqvist, J. L., Wåhlin, C., Andersson, G., & Johansson, P. (2026) · BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies · doi:10.1186/s12906-026-05356-9
“Guided by Bowen et al. (2009) framework of feasibility [20], our aim was to: (1) conduct limited efficacy testing of massage of changes in stress, mental health, physical activity, health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), including pain, and work ability; and (2) assess acceptability of using…”
InfluentialLukersmith, S., Salvador‐Carulla, L., Gutiérrez-Colosía, M. R., Woods, C., Zeilinger, E. L., Castelpietra, G., GIAF Taxonomy Expert Panel group (group authors), Trujillo, F. A., Bulkeley, K., Chen, T., et al. (2026) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-026-00906-1
“An example of a vague definition of Acceptability is ‘ how the intended individual recipients—both targeted individuals and those involved in implementing programs —react to the intervention ’ [14].”
Amholt, T. T., Kurtzhals, M., Melby, P. S., Bølling, M., Møller, O. M., Lise, M. K., Stage, A., O’Brien, W., Belton, S., Elsborg, P., et al. (2026) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-026-01806-w
“In Table 1, a full overview of the aspects of feasibility assessed, according to Bowen et al. [13], outcomes, measures, and data analysis can be found.”
InfluentialGranziera, H., Durksen, T. L., Cumming, T. M., Rushby, J. V., & Lee, E. H. M. (2026) · The Australian Educational Researcher · doi:10.1007/s13384-026-00959-0
Meijer, T. L., van Opdorp, A., & Markus, W. (2026) · Psychedelics · doi:10.1016/j.psyche.2026.100014
Chang, D. F., Doucet, F., Whitney, J. M., Miao, I. Y., Yoo, N., Zwerger, N., Kaplan, J. E., Antoine-Abiala, C., Romano, L. E., & Flook, L. (2026) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-026-02823-9
“Feasibility of MBCC-T was assessed through (1) examination of the completion rate compared to the control groups (MT, CC, CCv2), and (2) compliance with the mindfulness practice assignments, as indicators of the demand and implementation components of feasibility described by Bowen et al. (2009).”
InfluentialHanspal, S. S., Sengar, G., Gera, A., et al. (2026) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-026-01818-6
“The feasibility of this study will be evaluated using the framework proposed by Bowen et al. [17], which encompasses four key domains: acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality.”
Vyshali, P., Segu, A. D., Soni, P., Sai Manoj, P., Sharma, E., Naidu, R., Benegal, V., Bhargav, H., & Holla, B. (2026) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.26077.1
Feasibility of a live-stream dance class for people with chronic stroke
Gregman, S., Michaelchuk, W. W., Belfiore, L., et al. (2026) · BioMedical Engineering OnLine · doi:10.1186/s12938-026-01567-w
“The present study was guided by work on feasibility studies by Bowen and colleagues[31] who outlined the purpose of feasibility studies as: “to identify not only what—if any-thing—in the research methods or protocols needs modification but also how changes might occur”[31].”
Noonan, D., Muhirwa, A., Sang, E., Calhoun, N., Crews, A., Peter, K., Crews, H., Mercer, L., Harrison, L. M., Guthrie, S., et al. (2026) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-026-01811-z
“Feasibility and acceptability definitions were adapted from published criteria [27, 28].”
Pouplier, A., Fridh, M. K., Schmidt‐Andersen, P., Hoffmann, M. H., Winther, H., Christensen, J., & Larsen, H. B. (2026) · Frontiers in Pediatrics · doi:10.3389/fped.2026.1768975
van Velzen, J. M., Mollet, J. M., van Bennekom, C. A. M., & de Boer, A. G. E. M. (2026) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699052.2026.2654830
“Feasibility was assessed using five of Bowen et al.’s (21) eight areas of feasibility: acceptability, implementation, practicality, adaptation, and limited-efficacy testing.”
InfluentialBuilding a data-driven evaluation framework of physician wellness initiatives: a rapid review
Khairi, I., Kundurthi, S., Lo, B., Tajirian, T., Rodak, T., Sockalingam, S., & Wilkie, T. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-106432
Shimizu, J. P. K., Dawson, S. J., Fitzpatrick, E. T., Tavares, I. M., Kempster, O., & Rosen, N. O. (2026) · LGBTQ+ Family An Interdisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/27703371.2026.2635395
Nelson, L. A., Cobb, J., Elasy, T. A., et al. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261443175
“18,19 We previously conducted a design sprint and formative usability testing to develop and refine the DCGI.”
Ng, A. Z. Y., YEO, S.-M., & Neo, S. H. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-108573
Linares, I. M. P., Xavier, J., Borginho, C., Bueno, C., Monazzi, A. C. D. C. D. B. L., Fagondes, S. C., Ferreira, R. E. R., Xanthopoulos, M. S., & Soster, L. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Sleep · doi:10.3389/frsle.2026.1791640
Scoville, C. W., Mirembe, B. G., Voldal, E. C., Maena, J., Etima, J., Harris-Wisecarver, J., Rukundo, I., Ssemere, H., Kemigisha, D., Nakyanzi, T., et al. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/87612
“Nevertheless, the protocol clearly outlines how feasibility and acceptability will be assessed and how the results will inform subsequent steps, in line with guidance from the literature [41,91].”
InfluentialKarlsson, A., Bäccman, C., Hallerbäck, M. U., & Støre, S. J. (2026) · European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation · doi:10.1016/j.ejtd.2026.100685
Ong, R. H. S., Lien, C. T. C., Nurjono, M., Jumala, J., Lim, J., Tan, P. C., Kee, M. M. N., Oh, H. C., Wee, M. K., Kan, K. L. M., et al. (2026) · Singapore Medical Journal · doi:10.4103/singaporemedj.smj-2025-152
Couturier, J. L., Kenner, E., Nicula, M., Chowdhury, F., Surette, M., & Pai, N. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-109115
“A standardised script will be used to describe objectives, risks, benefits and details of the randomisation to eligible participants.”
Schaffer, K. M., Evans, W. S., Wauters, L., Dutcher, C. D., Philburn, C., & Henry, M. L. (2026) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2026_jslhr-25-00390
Modi, R. D., Rossi, P., Brennan, H. B., Ton, L. T., Patel, A., Kidd, M., White, S. M., Ring, M. R., Schwartz, E. R., Glynn, T. K., et al. (2026) · Global Advances in Integrative Medicine and Health · doi:10.1177/27536130261442566
“43 Demand and engagement were evaluated through attendance records, with a priori benchmarks predicting at least 90% of participants would attend three out of four didactic and culinary sessions, and 90% would engage in one community service day, based on prior research on effective participation…”
Whitaker, J. I. 0.-0.-5.-4., Ghalichi, L., Amberbir, A., et al. (2026) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-026-14424-2
“These are validated survey tools to evaluate implementation outcomes of novel research tools [33].”
Branderhorst-Pruijssers, E., Metzelthin, S., Mouchaers, I., et al. (2026) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-026-07460-4
“Moreover, Bowen’s [26] framework and the experiences of professionals and older people complemented each other, enhancing the reliability of our study.”
InfluentialKwiet, A. J., Bredahl, A., Engan, H. K., Hansen, N., & Bathen, T. (2026) · Journal of Rare Diseases · doi:10.1007/s44162-026-00191-5
Liljeroos, M., Åkerberg, A., & Arkkukangas, M. (2026) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s595091
“21 The feasibility of TM was studied according to the description of various aspects of feasibility as described by Bowen et al. 18 First, all interviews were transcribed verbatim.”
Li, X., Meng, M., Li, X., Wang, Z., Wang, L., Liu, H., Hao, Y., & Shi, N. (2026) · International Journal of Nursing Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2026.04.002 · Cited by 1
“Given the exploratory nature of this feasibility study and the single-arm design without parallel controls, no formal statistical significance testing was conducted; the results should be interpreted as descriptive evidence of observed trends rather than causal effects [27].”
Forsberg, H., Lindqvist, A.-K., Rutberg, S., Chillón, P., Sjöberg, V., & Palstam, A. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/92946
“Finally, limited efficacy indicates the intervention’s potential for success [43].”
Neiling, S., Alt, M., Cretcher, S. R., & Leon, K. (2026) · International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1080/17549507.2026.2646439
Smith, L. L., Olson, L., & Gearing, R. E. (2026) · Research on Social Work Practice · doi:10.1177/10497315261441539
Square-stepping Exercise for Older Adults Attending a Daycare Service Facility: A Feasibility Study
UCHIDA, R., Kurosaki, T., Shigematsu, R., et al. (2026) · Physical Therapy Research · doi:10.1298/ptr.25-e10387
“The study focused on 2 key aspects: implementation and acceptability, with reference to the framework proposed by Bowen et al. 6) .”
InfluentialRonkainen, H., Kenttä, G., Lundgren, T., Ihalainen, J. K., Valtonen, M., & Lappalainen, R. I. (2026) · The Sport Psychologist · doi:10.1123/tsp.2025-0108
Iyer, S. S., Pry, J. M., Kapesa, H., et al. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346868
“…assessing provider’s reactions to RTRI testing (acceptability), provider’s use of the test and the extent to which providers thought the RTRI testing could be delivered in light of available resources (appropriateness), and provider’s capacity to deliver the tests as intended (implementation) [17].”
Cucciare, M. A., Hildebrand, D., Benton, C., Ghaus, S. J., & Timko, C. (2026) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-026-10492-6 · Cited by 1
Just breathe! The impact of a slow-paced breathing intervention for teachers
Carroll, T., Piggott, B., Conlon, J. A., Cripps, A. J., Bloomfield, L., & Newton, M. (2026) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2026.105564
Ganer, R., Agrawal, J., & Kumar, C. N. (2026) · Psychology and Developing Societies · doi:10.1177/09713336261441828
Folasire, O. F., Ige, C. B., Akpanukoh, A., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9405343/v1
Schmid, A., Ehrler, M., Bunge, S. A., Kretschmar, O., Landolt, M. A., Rousson, V., Tuura, R., Wehrle, F. M., & Latal, B. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-107681
“Acceptability was evaluated with acceptability targeted questions from the Acceptance and Feasibility Scale (AFS 34 ).”
Leske, M., Koczwara, B., Blunt, J., et al. (2026) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.70486
“A priori themes based on Bowen and colleagues' [17] feasibility framework included acceptability (i.e., suitability and satisfaction with HLaC Online ), demand (i.e., usage or intended usage), and practicality (i.e., resources, time, and commitment required for participation).”
Parra, C. A., Ávila, V. S., Hernández, P. C., Andrade, K., Donoso, C. L., Becerra, C., Solís, D., Gómez, D., Cortés, E., Vega, C. L., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9440464/v1
McClellan, L., Emezue, C., Reed, M., Schroeder, K., & Ruppar, T. M. (2026) · Global Qualitative Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/23333936261448868
“Areas of evaluation from Bowen et al. (2009).”
Dao Yin practice for student wellbeing: a classroom-based pilot study
Zhao, J., Zheng, Z., & Li, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1821289
Ghezzi, M., & Garvis, S. (2026) · Early Childhood Education Journal · doi:10.1007/s10643-026-02222-8
Addressing Financial Abuse in Australian Small Businesses: The Role of Industry Stakeholders
Pra, J. D., Brusco, N. K., Whittaker, S. L., Mitchell, D., & Ekegren, C. L. (2026) · Businesses · doi:10.3390/businesses6020026
“Feasibility considerations, such as acceptability, implementation, and practicality of proposed solutions, were embedded within the interview guide (Bowen et al., 2009).”
Feasibility of Mindfulness Training for Police Officers at the Spanish National Police Academy
Navarrete, J., García-Salvador, M. Á., Rodríguez‐Freire, C., Feliu‐Soler, A., & Luciano, J. V. (2026) · Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology · doi:10.1007/s11896-026-09818-1
Bowman, C., Peiris, C. L., Hawke, L. J., Cooke, S., Wundersitz, C. E., Senserrick, C., Embry, A., Wubbeling, L., & Taylor, N. F. (2026) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open · doi:10.1016/j.ocarto.2026.100815
“The primary outcome was feasibility, based on four domains of feasibility proposed by Bowen: acceptability, demand, implementation and practicality [22].”
InfluentialVigfusdottir, J., Breivik, E., Mork, E., Lien, L., Stenmark, H. I., & Jonsbu, E. (2026) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-026-01834-6
“Patients with SUD are at a high risk for traumatic exposure with up to 95% of SUD patients reporting a history of traumatic exposure [4].”
D’Souza, A. N., Fitzpatrick, J., Palmer, K., McDonald, H., Jolley, J., Juj, G., & Peiris, C. L. (2026) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70444
A roadmap for developing a program to self-manage post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis risk
Whittaker, J. L., Hoens, A. M., Archibald, C., Hunt, M. A., Le, C. Y., Losciale, J. M., Miciak, M., Mosewich, A. D., Silvester-Lee, T., Truong, L. K., et al. (2026) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open · doi:10.1016/j.ocarto.2026.100822
“…adverse events, goal completion), acceptability (ratings of program components value) and preliminary efficacy (e.g., self-reported knee-related symptoms, function and quality-of-life [82], functional restrictions [83], perceived self-management [84], and physical activity [85]) outcomes [86,87].”
Keller, A. M., Kotz, D., Marck, C. H., Winter, M., Friemel, C. M., Heesen, C., & Riemann-Lorenz, K. (2026) · Sage Open Chronic Disease · doi:10.1177/27558428261444225
Dickson, K. S., Holt, T., Galligan, M. R. L., Anthony, L. G., Kenworthy, L. E., & Brookman-Frazee, L. I. (2026) · Evidence-Based Practice in Child and Adolescent Mental Health · doi:10.1080/23794925.2026.2673504
Zhang, A., Chen, M., Weaver, A., Francis-Levin, N., Walters, C., Rappaport, A., & Himle, J. A. (2026) · Journal of Psychosocial Oncology · doi:10.1080/07347332.2026.2669385
Social robot design preferences as reported by stakeholders
Green, M., Dao, D., Canning, S., & Moyle, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Dementia · doi:10.3389/frdem.2026.1821891
“In parallel, the feasibility framework proposed by Bowen et al. (2009) was applied to ensure a comprehensive assessment across multiple domains, including acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation, integration, potential for expansion, and limited-effectiveness testing.”
Hawkins, M., Learmonth, Y. C., Weld-Blundell, I., Ayton, D., Haartsen, J., Kavanagh, A. M., Kalincik, T., Klaic, M., & Marck, C. H. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70691
“Topics in the discussion guide included current experiences of social needs assessment, barriers and enablers to social needs assessment, and feasibility of a social needs screening tool (informed by the framework by Bowen et al. [27]).”
InfluentialBehavioral activation delivery by lay individuals in Latinx communities: a feasibility study
Bagchi, A. D., Rivera, A. S., Marano, M. R., Valenzuela, M. A., Acevedo-Zmuda, M., & de Noguera, N. S. (2026) · The Journal of Mental Health Training Education and Practice · doi:10.1108/jmhtep-11-2025-0122
Hashemi, T. M., Khami, M. R., Razeghi, S., Yazdani, R., Shirvani, A., & Gholami, M. (2026) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/s12903-026-08622-x
“Detailed descriptions of the pathway design process have been published elsewhere [9, 10].”
Löthberg, M., Niman, A., Engström, S., Meyer, J., Wirström, E., Girdler, S. J., Bölte, S., & Jonsson, U. (2026) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2026.2674620
Morello, J. A., & Ludlow, C. (2026) · Australian Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00050067.2026.2671120
Telehealth autism services: Service providers and users’ perspectives
Hawi, L., Monaghan, J., & Neil, N. M. (2026) · Research in Autism · doi:10.1016/j.reia.2026.202942
Hines, C., Farragher, J. B., Vlahos, R., et al. (2026) · Heart Lung and Circulation · doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2026.02.023
Lee, H., Yun, H., Kim, K., Bae, E., & Choi, E. (2026) · Continence · doi:10.1016/j.cont.2026.102607
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
