A brief summary of pilot and feasibility studies: Exploring terminology, aims, and methods
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Introduction There is limited guidance on methods for pilot and feasibility studies and, as a result, they are often poorly conducted or poorly reported. All CAM/IM modalities can be considered to be complex interventions; as such, the research on this topic faces additional challenges when compared to pharmaceutical studies. Pilot and feasibility studies should take account of intervention complexity, implementation, and acceptability; this focus suits the wider needs of CAM research and potentially contributes to improved study quality. This opinion paper provides a narrative summary of the literature relating to terminology & conceptual clarity, aims & objectives, epistemology, and research methods. Terminology & conceptual clarity Definitions and conceptualisations of pilot and feasibility studies vary; attempts are made here to identify commonality. Recommended aims & objectives for pilot & feasibility studies The main purpose of pilot and feasibility studies is to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness of new interventions or interventions in new contexts. Where a pilot trial is conducted, the feasibility of trial processes should also be evaluated. Epistemology, methods & research frameworks Mixed methods is the most valuable data collection strategy for pilot and feasibility studies and their use can be successfully underpinned by a pragmatic epistemological stance. Several frameworks relevant to pilot and feasibility testing are explored. Conclusion Rigorous feasibility testing is necessary to underpin high quality CAM/IM research. Employing mixed methods within an appropriate framework will generate vital data for optimising CAM/IM research and intervention delivery.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Cites
Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x033007014 · Cited by 11,170 · see citing works
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & for the CONSORT Group (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c332 · Cited by 9,329 · see citing works
How we design feasibility studies
Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., Bakken, S., Kaplan, C. P., Squiers, L., Fabrizio, C., et al. (2009) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 · Cited by 3,922 · see citing works
CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials.
Eldridge, S. M., Chan, C. L., Campbell, M. J., Bond, C. M., Hopewell, S., Thabane, L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i5239 · Cited by 3,404 · see citing works
A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how
Thabane, L., Ma, J., Chu, R., Cheng, J., Ismaila, A., Rios, L. P., Robson, R., Thabane, M., Giangregorio, L., & Goldsmith, C. H. (2010) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-1 · Cited by 3,384 · see citing works
Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice
Lancaster, G. A., Dodd, S., & Williamson, P. R. (2004) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x · Cited by 2,572 · see citing works
Eldridge, S. M., Lancaster, G. A., Campbell, M. J., Thabane, L., Hopewell, S., Coleman, C. L., & Bond, C. M. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150205 · Cited by 1,581 · see citing works
What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy
Arain, M., Campbell, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2010) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-67 · Cited by 1,483 · see citing works
Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions
Oakley, A., Strange, V., Bonell, C., Allen, E., & Stephenson, J. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413 · Cited by 1,247 · see citing works
On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination
Browne, R. H. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780141709 · Cited by 1,007 · see citing works
Östlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., & Rowa‐Dewar, N. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005 · Cited by 780 · see citing works
Is Mixed Methods Social Inquiry a Distinctive Methodology?
Greene, J. C. (2007) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689807309969 · Cited by 751 · see citing works
The Continuing Unethical Conduct of Underpowered Clinical Trials
Halpern, S. D. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.358 · Cited by 548 · see citing works
Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials
Treweek, S., Mitchell, E., Pitkethly, M., Cook, J., Kjeldstrøm, M., Johansen, M., Taskila, T. K., Sullivan, F., Wilson, S., Jackson, C., et al. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000013.pub5 · Cited by 378 · see citing works
The importance of conducting and reporting pilot studies: the example of the Scottish Births Survey
van Teijlingen, E., Rennie, A. M., Hundley, V. A., & Graham, W. J. (2001) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01757.x · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Questions asked and answered in pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trials
Shanyinde, M., Pickering, R. M., & Weatherall, M. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-117 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Pincus, T., Kent, P., Bronfort, G., Loisel, P., Pransky, G., & Hartvigsen, J. (2013) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a8c5d6 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
The design and interpretation of pilot trials in clinical research in critical care
Arnold, D. M., Burns, K. E. A., Adhikari, N. K. J., Kho, M. E., Meade, M. O., & Cook, D. J. (2008) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181920e33 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Bugge, C., Williams, B., Hagen, S., Logan, J., Glazener, C., Pringle, S., & Sinclair, L. (2013) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-14-353 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
A Pragmatist Approach to the Problem of Knowledge in Health Psychology
Cornish, F., & Gillespie, A. (2009) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105309338974 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Qualitative methods: an alternative view
Paley, J., & Lilford, R. J. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d424 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Seguin, M., Dodds, C., Mugweni, E., McDaid, L. M., Flowers, P., Wayal, S., Zomer, E., Weatherburn, P., Fakoya, I., Hartney, T., et al. (2018) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta22220 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Fischer, F. H., Junne, F., Witt, C. M., Ammon, K. V., Cardini, F., Fønnebø, V. M., Johannessen, H., Lewith, G. T., Uehleke, B., Weidenhammer, W., et al. (2012) · Complementary Medicine Research · doi:10.1159/000343126 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Rorty, 1998, Vol. 3
- Dures, 2011, Mixed methods in health psychology theoretical and practical considerations of the third paradigm, J. Health Psychol., 16, 332, 10.1177/1359105310377537 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mellor, K., Albury, C., Dutton, S. J., Eldridge, S., & Hopewell, S. (2023) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-023-01291-5 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
“Mixed method approaches to PAFS data collection have been recommended [19, 20].”
MethodPasyar, N., Barshan Tashnizi, N., Mansouri, P., & Tahmasebi, S. (2019) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2019.08.008 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
- Authors
- Donald, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Donald, Graeme
- ORCID
- Donald, Graeme
- Venue
- European Journal of Integrative Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 24
- Pages
- 65-70
- ISSN
- 1876-3820 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2899036879
- Semantic Scholar
- 1e24b0d5930673b56f78418ff69501a11f00b20b
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 2.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Integrative Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Keywords
- pilot study, feasibility study, complementary and alternative medicine, integrative medicine, complex interventions, treatment acceptability, intervention implementation, feasibility testing, mixed methods, pragmatic epistemology, research methodology, terminology
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.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.
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
