Cited by 27Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics in Clinical Research

Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Palliative Care Research: A Systematic Review

Open access
Jones, Terry A., Olds, Timothy S., Currow, David C., Williams, Marie T.·2017·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Context Feasibility and pilot study designs are common in palliative care research. Finding standard guidelines on the structure and reporting of these study types is difficult.Objectives In feasibility and pilot studies in palliative care research, to determine 1) how commonly a priori feasibility are criteria reported and whether results are subsequently reported against these criteria? and 2) how commonly are participants' views on acceptability of burden of the study protocol assessed?Methods Four databases (OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed via caresearch.com.au.) were searched. Search terms included palliative care, terminal care, advance care planning, hospice, pilot, feasibility, with a publication date between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013. Articles were selected and appraised by two independent reviewers.Results Fifty-six feasibility and/or pilot studies were included in this review. Only three studies had clear a priori criteria to measure success. Sixteen studies reported participant acceptability or burden with measures. Forty-eight studies concluded feasibility.Conclusion The terms "feasibility" and "pilot" are used synonymously in palliative care research when describing studies that test for feasibility. Few studies in palliative care research outline clear criteria for success. The assessment of participant acceptability and burden is uncommon. A gold standard for feasibility study design in palliative care research that includes both clear criteria for success and testing of the study protocol for participant acceptability and burden is needed. Such a standard would assist with consistency in the design, conduct and reporting of feasibility and pilot studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.02.015

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • As a feasibility study, sample size was not formally calculated; based on prior experience, resources available and the intervention format, a sample of 30 was judged sufficient to enable a decision about feasibility.

    “As this was a feasibility study, sample size was not formally calculated. 31 Based on prior experience, resources available and the format of the intervention, we judged that a sample of 30 would be sufficient to enable a decision about feasibility to be made.”
  • Many feasibility studies are not powered to detect significant differences in outcomes; the focus is on whether the intervention looks promising and can be evaluated.

    “Many feasibility studies are not powered to detect significant differences in outcomes, rather the focus is on whether the intervention looks promising and can be evaluated.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, T. A., Olds, T. S., Currow, D. C., & Williams, M. T.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Jones, Terry A.
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-07
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
139-151.e4
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2609342647
Cited by
27
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of South Australia
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
feasibility study, pilot study, palliative care research, participant acceptability, participant burden, study design reporting, reporting guidelines, end-of-life care, advance care planning, hospice
MeSH terms
Feasibility Studies, Humans, Palliative Care, Pilot Projects

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.

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