Methodological reporting in feasibility studies: a descriptive review of the nursing intervention research literature

Abstract

Background In reaction to weaknesses in feasibility studies reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement published an extension for feasibility studies in 2016. Aim The aim of this study was to systematically review and appraise the reporting of feasibility studies in the nursing intervention research literature based on the CONSORT statement extension for feasibility studies. Method Papers published prior to January 2018 that described feasibility studies of nursing interventions were retrieved. Components of feasibility studies were coded, and code frequencies were analysed. Results The review included 186 papers. Although most papers ( n = 142, 76.3%) included the label ‘pilot’ or ‘feasibility’ in their title, reporting for other components generally did not adhere to one or several CONSORT recommendations. Most papers reported objectives ( n = 116, 62.4%), designs ( n = 95, 51%), or rationales for sample size ( n = 165, 88.7%) that were incongruent with the purpose of feasibility studies. Discussion This review results in two main implications for nursing research. First, we noted that the reporting of feasibility studies is weak. While all papers described feasibility studies, almost half focused exclusively on testing the effectiveness of an intervention. Second, we identified rationales for sample size along with key references that could offer guidance in reporting feasibility studies while being coherent with the CONSORT recommendations.

Feasibility indicators in obesity-related behavioral intervention preliminary studies: A historical scoping review

“…While trial-related feasibility was reported in the majority of studies (recruitment and/or retention), key intervention-related feasibility indicators, including participant acceptability, adherence, attendance, and intervention delity were not widely reported. These results are supported by several reviews of pilot/feasibility studies conducted in other domains, 33,34 which all found a lack of trialand intervention-related feasibility indicator reporting as well. While recruitment and retention are important trial-related feasibility indicators to capture, intervention-related feasibility indicators are important to assess during the preliminary phases of implementation.…”

“…42 The lack of reporting feasibility indicators coupled with the high rate of statistical testing for preliminary e cacy is concerning as well, although this does seem to be common across domains. For example, in a review of nursing intervention feasibility literature, Mailhot et al 33 found that almost half of the included feasibility studies focused exclusively on testing effectiveness. While preliminary e cacy can be reported in pilot/feasibility studies, results should be interpreted with caution, and outcomes related to feasibility should take priority.…”

“…1 The margin column communicates marginal predicted probabilities calculated from logistic regression models; 2 95% CI stands for 95% Con dence Interval 33. Late Group (2018-2020) retention variable had no observations coded as 0.…”

Implementation and evaluation of the peer-training program for village health volunteers to improve chronic disease management among older adults in rural Thailand

“…The results from this study are reported according to the extended CONSORT guidelines for reporting pilot and feasibility studies [ 29 ].…”

The Effect of Care Pathways on Coronary Care Nurses: A Preliminary Study

“…The exclusion criteria were: nurses on long-term sick leave or maternity leave, or those who had worked for less than 6 months in the cardiac ward. Although a total of 37 coronary care nurses participated in this study, which is less than the calculated sample size of 49, this number is acceptable for a preliminary or feasibility study, where hypothesis testing is inappropriate 50,51…”