Tanya Mailhot1, Marie-Hélène Goulet2, Marc-André Maheu-Cadotte3, Guillaume Fontaine4, Pierre Lequin5, Patrick Lavoie6. 1. Postdoctoral Fellow, Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, USA. 2. Assistant Professor, Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Canada; Researcher, Quebec Network on Nursing Intervention Research, Canada. 3. Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada; Research Assistant, Montreal Heart Institute Research Center, Canada; Doctoral Student, CHUM Research Center, Canada. 4. Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Canada; Research Assistant, Montreal Heart Institute Research Center, Canada. 5. Clinician Nurse Specialist, Department of Psychiatry, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Vaudois, Switzerland. 6. Assistant Professor, Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Canada; Researcher, Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, Canada.
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.
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.
Authors: Sandra M Eldridge; Gillian A Lancaster; Michael J Campbell; Lehana Thabane; Sally Hopewell; Claire L Coleman; Christine M Bond Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sandra M Eldridge; Claire L Chan; Michael J Campbell; Christine M Bond; Sally Hopewell; Lehana Thabane; Gillian A Lancaster Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2016-10-21