Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29854417›Full record

ReviewPilot and feasibility studies2018

Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance.

Britt Hallingberg, Ruth Turley, Jeremy Segrott, Daniel Wight, Peter Craig, Laurence Moore, Simon Murphy, Michael Robling, Sharon Anne Simpson, Graham Moore

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04631302 (Work Engagement and Well-being Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 105 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04631302 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): A Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial Evaluating the Effects of Mindfulness Versus Light Physical Exercise at Work

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences UnitRan2021 to 2023Enrolled241ConditionsMindfulness, ExerciseArmsBe Mindful, Light exercise course
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

105 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Britt Hallingberg1Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8016-5793
Ruth Turley1Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales UK.
Jeremy Segrott1Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales UK.
Daniel Wight3MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Peter Craig3MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Laurence Moore3MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Simon Murphy1Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales UK.
Michael Robling1Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales UK.
Sharon Anne Simpson3MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Graham Moore1Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU14Chief Scientist Office SPHSU15Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Medical Research Council MR/N015843/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluations of complex interventions in public health are frequently undermined by problems that can be identified before the effectiveness study stage. Exploratory studies, often termed pilot and feasibility studies, are a key step in assessing the feasibility and value of progressing to an effectiveness study. Such studies can provide vital information to support more robust evaluations, thereby reducing costs and minimising potential harms of the intervention. This systematic review forms the first phase of a wider project to address the need for stand-alone guidance for public health researchers on designing and conducting exploratory studies. The review objectives were to identify and examine existing recommendations concerning when such studies should be undertaken, questions they should answer, suitable methods, criteria for deciding whether to progress to an effectiveness study and appropriate reporting.

methodsWe searched for published and unpublished guidance reported between January 2000 and November 2016 via bibliographic databases, websites, citation tracking and expert recommendations. Included papers were thematically synthesized.

resultsThe search retrieved 4095 unique records. Thirty papers were included, representing 25 unique sources of guidance/recommendations. Eight themes were identified: pre-requisites for conducting an exploratory study, nomenclature, guidance for intervention assessment, guidance surrounding any future evaluation study design, flexible versus fixed design, progression criteria to a future evaluation study, stakeholder involvement and reporting of exploratory studies. Exploratory studies were described as being concerned with the intervention content, the future evaluation design or both. However, the nomenclature and endorsed methods underpinning these aims were inconsistent across papers. There was little guidance on what should precede or follow an exploratory study and decision-making surrounding this.

conclusionsExisting recommendations are inconsistent concerning the aims, designs and conduct of exploratory studies, and guidance is lacking on the evidence needed to inform when to proceed to an effectiveness study.

trial registrationPROSPERO 2016, CRD42016047843.

Indexed as

Complex interventionsExploratory studiesFeasibility studyPilot studyPublic healthResearch methodsStudy design

Identifiers

PMID29854417
PMCPMC5971430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.