ArticleBMJ global health2025
Measuring feasibility: complex questions need complex tools.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-based positive youth development intervention protocol in school settings.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We sought to assess the feasibility of mainstreaming balanced energy protein supplementation, a maternal nutrition intervention, into Bangladesh's routine antenatal care system in tandem with an ongoing effectiveness trial in northwestern Bangladesh. Feasibility is an implementation science outcome defined as the extent to which a new intervention can be implemented successfully in a given context. We found feasibility difficult to measure using existing Anglophone quantitative tools translated into Bangla and identified particular challenges with using Likert scales. We also found it challenging to measure feasibility early in implementation, as recommended in the implementation science literature, due to potential respondents' unfamiliarity with the intervention and what implementation would look like. To address these issues, we explored alternative assessment methods, such as focus groups and workshops. These formats presented additional difficulties, including identifying the correct participants and moderating participant power dynamics. In conclusion, we question whether existing feasibility assessment tools, developed in English, are suitable for use in non-Anglophone contexts as well as whether Likert scales are appropriate for use in low-income and middle-income countries more broadly. We also question current recommendations on the timing of feasibility assessments. We feel that-particularly with new, difficult-to-conceptualise interventions-feasibility must be assessed later in implementation or only after providing detailed explanations of the intervention to respondents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.