↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 1,243)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
100 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
269 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploratory studies to decide whether and how to proceed with full-scale evaluations of public health interventions: a systematic review of guidance
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-018-0290-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Evaluations 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. We searched for published and unpublished guidance reported between January 2000 and November 2016 via bibliographic databases, websites, citation tracking and expert recommendations.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. The 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. Existing 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. PROSPERO 2016, CRD42016047843.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 269 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 269 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 16%
Student > Master 39 14%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 52 19%
Unknown 75 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 13%
Social Sciences 24 9%
Psychology 19 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 15 6%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 93 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#656,753
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#13
of 1,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,315
of 348,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#1
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.