how to identify a research question in an article

• SpringerLink shop

Identifying your research question

Making informed decisions about what to study, and defining your research question, even within a predetermined field, is critical to a successful research career, and can be one of the hardest challenges for a scientist.

Being knowledgeable about the state of your field and up-to-date with recent developments can help you:

• Make decisions about  what to study within niche research areas
• Identify  top researchers  in your field whose work you can follow and potentially collaborate with
• Find  important journals to read regularly and publish in
• Explain to others  why your work is important by being able to recount the bigger picture

How can you identify a research question?

Reading regularly is the most common way of identifying a good research question. This enables you to keep up to date with recent advancements and identify certain issues or unsolved problems that keep appearing.

Begin by searching for and reading literature in your field. Start with  general interest  journals, but don’t limit yourself to journal publications only; you can also look for clues in the news or on research blogs. Once you have identified a few interesting topics, you should be reading the table of contents of journals and the abstracts of most articles in that subject area. Papers that are directly related to your research you should read in their entirety.

TIP Keep an eye out for  Review papers and special issues in your chosen subject area as they are very helpful in discovering new areas and hot topics.

TIP: you can sign up to receive table of contents or notifications when articles are published in your field from most journals or publishers.

TIP: Joining a journal club is a great way to read and dissect published papers in and around your subject area. Usually consisting of 5-10 people from the same research group or institute they meet to evaluate the good and bad points of the research presented in the paper. This not only helps you keep up to date with the field but helps you become familiar with what is necessary for a good paper which can help when you come to write your own.

If possible, communicate with some of the authors of these manuscripts via email or in person. Going to conferences if possible is a great way to meet some of these authors. Often,  talking with the author  of an important work in your research area will give you more ideas than just reading the manuscript would.

Back │ Next

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Identify Research Questions

A research question is based on an area of concern or a lacuna in the existing knowledge. The purpose of a research question is to give your work a clear direction and to steer you to focus on important aspects that need to be solved. Learning how to identify research questions that are both meaningful and well-defined is also important for publication success. In fact, while identifying a research question is the very first step in a research project, it is also one of the most challenging activities in research.

How to identify a research question ?

As a researcher, you might need to generate research questions for various projects or come up with a thesis research question or dissertation research question. Here are some points that need to be considered when identifying research questions.

• Originality

An original research question aims to resolve a problem that has not been addressed before. Unique research work will increase your chances of publication, which makes it critical to know how to find a research question. So, familiarize yourself with the work done so far to identify knowledge gaps in the area and ensure that your question does not overlap with something that has already been asked and answered. Note that even within well-studied topics, you can generate research questions that are original simply by delving into the finer aspects of the topic or attempting to untangle a long-standing problem.

A good research question should be important enough and relevant to the scholarly literature in your area of inquiry. When you begin identifying research questions, contextualize the problem in a broad sense and consider the advantages and potential outcomes of answering a particular research problem. Your work should offer something new to the existing literature in your field.

• Feasibility

When you generate research questions, don’t forget to consider the feasibility of the project. Weigh all the possible practical constraints. Consider if the question(s) can be answered within a reasonable time, with the resources, expertise, and funding you have at your disposal.

• Ethical and legal aspects

If you are dealing with animal or human subjects, political issues, etc., your research question will need to factor in ethical and/or legal requirements and implications.

Tips on how to identify research questions

When you generate research questions, it is also important to consider the most up-to-date trends in the subject area, along with your own observations or conjectures.

1. Read as much as you can

The answer to how to identify research questions lies in reading the right material and reading extensively. Reading regularly is the most basic way to find a good research question. Keep up to date with recent advancements and identify critical issues or unsolved problems. You could begin with popular science articles and blogs and, if something catches your interest, look up those topics in journals specializing in them.

Do not miss out on review papers and meta-analyses on your chosen subject area; they are very helpful in discovering hot topics and unanswered questions.

2. Refine your literature search

If you want to know how to identify the research problem and find an original or unique question in your field, perform an extensive literature search to identify gaps in research that have remained unaddressed. The best way to identify research questions is to conduct both forward and backward literature searches, i.e., look through the reference lists of relevant articles, as well as the papers that have cited them.

When you generate research questions, avoid relying only on a few search engines and databases. Use a combination of databases and generalist and specialist search engines. This makes the journey of identifying research questions easier.

If you’re wondering how to identify research questions in an article, extensive and relevant reading is the key. Given the importance of literature searching and reading,  R Discovery  could be your perfect companion. R Discovery is a literature discovery app that lets you identify and read the most relevant academic research papers from top journals and publishers, covering all major disciplines in the arts and sciences. You can even access the latest preprints, which bring to light the latest research before it is published. This tool allows you to survey highlights and summaries of papers; once you hit upon something exciting, you can read the full version.

3. Define your keywords

Selecting effective keywords are important for a targeted literature search. Identify the key concepts in the topic(s) you are considering. From these, tease out some important keywords, and be sure to include synonyms or alternative phrasing when using search engines or academic databases. This will help to generate good research questions.

When you feed in key terms in the R Discovery literature search tool, it “deep-dives” into the topics and shows up articles that you can sort by recency or relevance and then choose to read in full. Based on your search history, the app even offers a personalized feed. Such customized research reading can make the process of generating research questions much easier.

4. Frame the research question

You have now understood how to find research questions, but do you know how to frame them? Framing the question properly is as important as knowing how to identify research questions. Create lists, thought bubbles, or mind maps to help you do some brainstorming till you hit on a good research question. List ideas from general to specific and from broad to narrow.

Knowing the current status of the topic, including what is known and what is not, will help you refine the original problem statement to a defined and more specific version.

Putting it all together

A good research question is compelling and timely. To generate research questions that can ensure publication success, it is important to stay up to date with the latest in your field and allied fields, as well as generalist and specialist topics. Efficient literature discovery serves as the perfect springboard to jumpstart your foray into an exciting and rewarding research journey.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Top 7 Tried and Tested Paraphrasing Techniques

Annex vs Appendix: What is the difference?

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Published on October 26, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research question pinpoints exactly what you want to find out in your work. A good research question is essential to guide your research paper , dissertation , or thesis .

All research questions should be:

• Focused on a single problem or issue
• Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
• Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
• Specific enough to answer thoroughly
• Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
• Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly

Table of contents

How to write a research question, what makes a strong research question, using sub-questions to strengthen your main research question, research questions quiz, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research questions.

You can follow these steps to develop a strong research question:

• Choose your topic
• Do some preliminary reading about the current state of the field
• Narrow your focus to a specific niche
• Identify the research problem that you will address

The way you frame your question depends on what your research aims to achieve. The table below shows some examples of how you might formulate questions for different purposes.

Using your research problem to develop your research question

Note that while most research questions can be answered with various types of research , the way you frame your question should help determine your choices.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them. The criteria below can help you evaluate the strength of your research question.

Focused and researchable

Feasible and specific

Complex and arguable

Relevant and original

Chances are that your main research question likely can’t be answered all at once. That’s why sub-questions are important: they allow you to answer your main question in a step-by-step manner.

Good sub-questions should be:

• Less complex than the main question
• Focused only on 1 type of research
• Presented in a logical order

Here are a few examples of descriptive and framing questions:

• Descriptive: According to current government arguments, how should a European bank tax be implemented?
• Descriptive: Which countries have a bank tax/levy on financial transactions?
• Framing: How should a bank tax/levy on financial transactions look at a European level?

Keep in mind that sub-questions are by no means mandatory. They should only be asked if you need the findings to answer your main question. If your main question is simple enough to stand on its own, it’s okay to skip the sub-question part. As a rule of thumb, the more complex your subject, the more sub-questions you’ll need.

Try to limit yourself to 4 or 5 sub-questions, maximum. If you feel you need more than this, it may be indication that your main research question is not sufficiently specific. In this case, it’s is better to revisit your problem statement and try to tighten your main question up.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

As you cannot possibly read every source related to your topic, it’s important to evaluate sources to assess their relevance. Use preliminary evaluation to determine whether a source is worth examining in more depth.

This involves:

• Reading abstracts , prefaces, introductions , and conclusions
• Looking at the table of contents to determine the scope of the work
• Consulting the index for key terms or the names of important scholars

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (“ x affects y because …”).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses . In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

• Researchability
• Feasibility and specificity
• Relevance and originality

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 21). Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-questions/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to define a research problem | ideas & examples, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, 10 research question examples to guide your research project, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• McGill Library

Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and other Knowledge Syntheses

• Identifying the research question
• Types of knowledge syntheses
• Process of conducting a knowledge synthesis

Constructing a good research question

Inclusion/exclusion criteria, has your review already been done, where to find other reviews or syntheses, references on question formulation frameworks.

• Developing the protocol
• Database-specific operators and fields
• Search filters and tools
• Exporting and documenting search results
• Deduplicating
• Grey literature and other supplementary search methods
• Documenting the search methods
• Updating the database searches
• Resources for screening, appraisal, and synthesis
• Writing the review
• Additional training resources

Formulating a well-constructed research question is essential for a successful review. You should have a draft research question before you choose the type of knowledge synthesis that you will conduct, as the type of answers you are looking for will help guide your choice of knowledge synthesis.

Examples of systematic review and scoping review questions

• Process of formulating a question

Developing a good research question is not a straightforward process and requires engaging with the literature as you refine and rework your idea.

Some questions that might be useful to ask yourself as you are drafting your question:

• Does the question fit into the PICO question format?
• What age group?
• What type or types of conditions?
• What intervention? How else might it be described?
• What outcomes? How else might they be described?
• What is the relationship between the different elements of your question?
• Do you have several questions lumped into one? If so, should you split them into more than one review? Alternatively, do you have many questions that could be lumped into one review?

A good knowledge synthesis question will have the following qualities:

• Be focused on a specific question with a meaningful answer
• Retrieve a number of results that is manageable for the research team (is the number of results on your topic feasible for you to finish the review? Your initial literature searches should give you an idea, and a librarian can help you with understanding the size of your question).

Considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria

It is important to think about which studies will be included in your review when you are writing your research question. The Cochrane Handbook chapter (linked below) offers guidance on this aspect.

McKenzie, J. E., Brennan, S. E., Ryan, R. E., Thomson, H. J., Johnston, R. V, & Thomas, J. (2021). Chapter 3: Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-03

Once you have a reasonably well defined research question, it is important to make sure your project has not already been recently and successfully undertaken. This means it is important to find out if there are other knowledge syntheses that have been published or that are in the process of being published on your topic.

If you are submitting your review or study for funding, for example, you may want to make a good case that your review or study is needed and not duplicating work that has already been successfully and recently completed—or that is in the process of being completed. It is also important to note that what is considered “recent” will depend on your discipline and the topic.

In the context of conducting a review, even if you do find one on your topic, it may be sufficiently out of date or you may find other defendable reasons to undertake a new or updated one. In addition, looking at other knowledge syntheses published around your topic may help you refocus your question or redirect your research toward other gaps in the literature.

• PROSPERO Search PROSPERO is an international, searchable database that allows free registration of systematic reviews, rapid reviews, and umbrella reviews with a health-related outcome in health & social care, welfare, public health, education, crime, justice, and international development. Note: PROSPERO does not accept scoping review protocols.
• Open Science Framework (OSF) At present, OSF does not allow for Boolean searching on their site. However, you can search via https://share.osf.io/, an aggregator, that allows you to search for major keywords using Boolean and truncation. Add "review*" to your search to narrow results down to scoping, systematic, umbrella or other types of reviews. Be sure to click on the drop-down menu for "Source" and select OSF and OSF Registries (search separately as you can't combine them). This will search for ongoing and/or registered reviews in OSF.

The Cochrane Library (including systematic reviews of interventions, diagnostic studies, prognostic studies, and more) is an excellent place to start, even if Cochrane reviews are also indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed.

By default, the Cochrane Library will display “ Cochrane Reviews ” (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, aka CDSR). You can ignore the results which show up in the Trials tab when looking for systematic reviews: They are records of controlled trials. 

The example shows the number of Cochrane Reviews with hiv AND circumcision in the title, abstract, or keywords.

• Google Scholar

Subject-specific databases you can search to find existing or in-process reviews

Alternatively, you can use a search hedge/filter; for example, the filter used by  BMJ Best Practice  to find systematic reviews in Embase (can be copied and pasted into the Embase search box then combined with the concepts of your research question):

(exp review/ or (literature adj3 review$).ti,ab. or exp meta analysis/ or exp "Systematic Review"/) and ((medline or medlars or embase or pubmed or cinahl or amed or psychlit or psyclit or psychinfo or psycinfo or scisearch or cochrane).ti,ab. or RETRACTED ARTICLE/) or (systematic$ adj2 (review$ or overview)).ti,ab. or (meta?anal$ or meta anal$ or meta-anal$ or metaanal$ or metanal$).ti,ab.

Alternative interface to PubMed: You can also search MEDLINE on the Ovid platform, which we recommend for systematic searching. Perform a sufficiently developed search strategy (be as broad in your search as is reasonably possible) and then, from Additional Limits , select the publication type  Systematic Reviews, or select the subject subset  Systematic Reviews Pre 2019 for more sensitive/less precise results. 

The subject subset for Systematic Reviews is based on the filter version used in PubMed .

Perform a sufficiently developed search strategy (be as broad in your search as is reasonably possible) and then, from  Additional Limits , select, under  Methodology,  0830 Systematic Review

See Systematic Reviews Search Strategy Applied in PubMed for details.

• healthevidence.org Database of thousands of "quality-rated reviews on the effectiveness of public health interventions"
• See also: Evidence-informed resources for Public Health

Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4

Scoping reviews: Developing the title and question . In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors) . JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.   JBI; 2020. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01

Due to a large influx of requests, there may be an extended wait time for librarian support on knowledge syntheses.

Find a librarian in your subject area to help you with your knowledge synthesis project.

Or contact the librarians at the Schulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering s [email protected]

Need help? Ask us!

Online training resources.

• Advanced Research Skills: Conducting Literature and Systematic Reviews A short course for graduate students to increase their proficiency in conducting research for literature and systematic reviews developed by the Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson).
• Compétences avancées en matière de recherche : Effectuer des revues de la littérature et des revues systématiques (2e édition) Ce cours destiné aux étudiant.e.s universitaires vise à peaufiner leurs compétences dans la réalisation de revues systématiques et de recherches dans la littérature en vue de mener avec succès leurs propres recherches durant leur parcours universitaire et leur éventuelle carrière.
• The Art and Science of Searching in Systematic Reviews Self-paced course on search strategies, information sources, project management, and reporting (National University of Singapore)
• CERTaIN: Knowledge Synthesis: Systematic Reviews and Clinical Decision Making "Learn how to interpret and report systematic review and meta-analysis results, and define strategies for searching and critically appraising scientific literature" (MDAndersonX)
• Cochrane Interactive Learning Online modules that walk you through the process of working on a Cochrane intervention review. Module 1 is free (login to access) but otherwise payment is required to complete the online training
• Evidence Synthesis for Librarians and Information Specialists Introduction to core components of evidence synthesis. Developed by the Evidence Synthesis Institute. Free for a limited time as of July 10, 2024.
• Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Free coursera MOOC offered by Johns Hopkins University; covers the whole process of conducting a systematic review; week 3 focuses on searching and assessing bias
• Mieux réussir un examen de la portée en sciences de la santé : une boîte à outils Cette ressource éducative libre (REL) est conçue pour soutenir les étudiant·e·s universitaires en sciences de la santé dans la préparation d’un examen de la portée de qualité.
• Online Methods Course in Systematic Review and Systematic Mapping "This step-by-step course takes time to explain the theory behind each part of the review process, and provides guidance, tips and advice for those wanting to undertake a full systematic review or map." Developed using an environmental framework (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, Stockholm Environment Institute)
• Scoping Review Methods for Producing Research Syntheses Two-part, online workshop sponsored by the Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (KTDRR)
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Online overview of the steps involved in systematic reviews of quantitative studies, with options to practice. Courtesy of the Campbell Collaboration and the Open Learning Initiative (Carnegie Mellon University). Free pilot
• Systematic Searches Developed by the Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library (Yale University)
• Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies (SYRCLE) Introduction to systematic reviews of animal studies
• << Previous: Types of knowledge syntheses
• Next: Developing the protocol >>
• Last Updated: Jul 17, 2024 3:57 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.mcgill.ca/knowledge-syntheses

McGill Library • Questions? Ask us! Privacy notice

• University of Oregon Libraries
• Research Guides

How to Write a Literature Review

• 1. Identify the Question
• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Reading Journal Articles
• Does it Describe a Literature Review?

Identify the question

Developing a research question.

• 2. Review Discipline Styles
• Searching Article Databases
• Finding Full-Text of an Article
• Citation Chaining
• When to Stop Searching
• 4. Manage Your References
• 5. Critically Analyze and Evaluate
• 6. Synthesize
• 7. Write a Literature Review

From Topic to Question (Infographic)

This graphic emphasizes how reading various sources can play a role in defining your research topic.

( Click to Enlarge Image )

Text description of "From Topic to Question" for web accessibility

In some cases, such as for a course assignment or a research project you're working on with a faculty mentor, your research question will be determined by your professor. If that's the case, you can move on to the next step .  Otherwise, you may need to explore questions on your own. 

A few suggestions

Photo Credit: UO Libraries

According to The Craft of Research (2003) , a research question is more than a practical problem or something with a yes/no answer. A research question helps you learn more about something you don't already know and it needs to be significant enough to interest your readers.

Your Curiosity + Significance to Others = Research Question

How to get started.

In a research paper, you develop a unique question and then synthesize scholarly and primary sources into a paper that supports your argument about the topic.

• Identify your Topic (This is the starting place from where you develop a research question.)
• Refine by Searching (find background information) (Before you can start to develop a research question, you may need to do some preliminary background research to see (1) what has already been done on the topic and (2) what are the issues surrounding the topic.) HINT: Find background information in Google and Books.
• Refine by Narrowing (Once you begin to understand the topic and the issues surrounding it, you can start to narrow your topic and develop a research question. Do this by asking the 6 journalistic question words.

Ask yourself these 6 questions 

These 6 journalistic question words can help you narrow your focus from a broad topic to a specific question.

Who : Are you interested in a specific group of people? Can your topic be narrowed by gender, sex, age, ethnicity, socio-economic status or something else? Are there any key figures related to your topic?

What : What are the issues surrounding your topic? Are there subtopics? In looking at background information, did you notice any gaps or questions that seemed unanswered?

Where : Can your topic be narrowed down to a geographic location? Warning: Don't get too narrow here. You might not be able to find enough information on a town or state.

When : Is your topic current or historical? Is it confined to a specific time period? Was there a causative event that led your topic to become an area of study?

Why : Why are you interested in this topic? Why should others be interested?

How : What kinds of information do you need? Primary sources, statistics? What is your methodology?

Detailed description of, "Developing a Research Question" for web accessibility

• << Previous: Does it Describe a Literature Review?
• Next: 2. Review Discipline Styles >>
• Last Updated: May 3, 2024 5:17 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.uoregon.edu/litreview

Contact Us Library Accessibility UO Libraries Privacy Notices and Procedures

1501 Kincaid Street Eugene, OR 97403 P: 541-346-3053 F: 541-346-3485

• Visit us on Facebook
• Visit us on Twitter
• Visit us on Youtube
• Visit us on Instagram
• Report a Concern
• Nondiscrimination and Title IX
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Find People

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.16(7); 2020 Jul

Ten simple rules for reading a scientific paper

Maureen a. carey.

Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America

Kevin L. Steiner

William a. petri, jr, introduction.

“There is no problem that a library card can't solve” according to author Eleanor Brown [ 1 ]. This advice is sound, probably for both life and science, but even the best tool (like the library) is most effective when accompanied by instructions and a basic understanding of how and when to use it.

For many budding scientists, the first day in a new lab setting often involves a stack of papers, an email full of links to pertinent articles, or some promise of a richer understanding so long as one reads enough of the scientific literature. However, the purpose and approach to reading a scientific article is unlike that of reading a news story, novel, or even a textbook and can initially seem unapproachable. Having good habits for reading scientific literature is key to setting oneself up for success, identifying new research questions, and filling in the gaps in one’s current understanding; developing these good habits is the first crucial step.

Advice typically centers around two main tips: read actively and read often. However, active reading, or reading with an intent to understand, is both a learned skill and a level of effort. Although there is no one best way to do this, we present 10 simple rules, relevant to novices and seasoned scientists alike, to teach our strategy for active reading based on our experience as readers and as mentors of undergraduate and graduate researchers, medical students, fellows, and early career faculty. Rules 1–5 are big picture recommendations. Rules 6–8 relate to philosophy of reading. Rules 9–10 guide the “now what?” questions one should ask after reading and how to integrate what was learned into one’s own science.

Rule 1: Pick your reading goal

What you want to get out of an article should influence your approach to reading it. Table 1 includes a handful of example intentions and how you might prioritize different parts of the same article differently based on your goals as a reader.

1 Yay! Welcome!

2 A journal club is when a group of scientists get together to discuss a paper. Usually one person leads the discussion and presents all of the data. The group discusses their own interpretations and the authors’ interpretation.

Rule 2: Understand the author’s goal

In written communication, the reader and the writer are equally important. Both influence the final outcome: in this case, your scientific understanding! After identifying your goal, think about the author’s goal for sharing this project. This will help you interpret the data and understand the author’s interpretation of the data. However, this requires some understanding of who the author(s) are (e.g., what are their scientific interests?), the scientific field in which they work (e.g., what techniques are available in this field?), and how this paper fits into the author’s research (e.g., is this work building on an author’s longstanding project or controversial idea?). This information may be hard to glean without experience and a history of reading. But don’t let this be a discouragement to starting the process; it is by the act of reading that this experience is gained!

A good step toward understanding the goal of the author(s) is to ask yourself: What kind of article is this? Journals publish different types of articles, including methods, review, commentary, resources, and research articles as well as other types that are specific to a particular journal or groups of journals. These article types have different formatting requirements and expectations for content. Knowing the article type will help guide your evaluation of the information presented. Is the article a methods paper, presenting a new technique? Is the article a review article, intended to summarize a field or problem? Is it a commentary, intended to take a stand on a controversy or give a big picture perspective on a problem? Is it a resource article, presenting a new tool or data set for others to use? Is it a research article, written to present new data and the authors’ interpretation of those data? The type of paper, and its intended purpose, will get you on your way to understanding the author’s goal.

Rule 3: Ask six questions

When reading, ask yourself: (1) What do the author(s) want to know (motivation)? (2) What did they do (approach/methods)? (3) Why was it done that way (context within the field)? (4) What do the results show (figures and data tables)? (5) How did the author(s) interpret the results (interpretation/discussion)? (6) What should be done next? (Regarding this last question, the author(s) may provide some suggestions in the discussion, but the key is to ask yourself what you think should come next.)

Each of these questions can and should be asked about the complete work as well as each table, figure, or experiment within the paper. Early on, it can take a long time to read one article front to back, and this can be intimidating. Break down your understanding of each section of the work with these questions to make the effort more manageable.

Rule 4: Unpack each figure and table

Scientists write original research papers primarily to present new data that may change or reinforce the collective knowledge of a field. Therefore, the most important parts of this type of scientific paper are the data. Some people like to scrutinize the figures and tables (including legends) before reading any of the “main text”: because all of the important information should be obtained through the data. Others prefer to read through the results section while sequentially examining the figures and tables as they are addressed in the text. There is no correct or incorrect approach: Try both to see what works best for you. The key is making sure that one understands the presented data and how it was obtained.

For each figure, work to understand each x- and y-axes, color scheme, statistical approach (if one was used), and why the particular plotting approach was used. For each table, identify what experimental groups and variables are presented. Identify what is shown and how the data were collected. This is typically summarized in the legend or caption but often requires digging deeper into the methods: Do not be afraid to refer back to the methods section frequently to ensure a full understanding of how the presented data were obtained. Again, ask the questions in Rule 3 for each figure or panel and conclude with articulating the “take home” message.

Rule 5: Understand the formatting intentions

Just like the overall intent of the article (discussed in Rule 2), the intent of each section within a research article can guide your interpretation. Some sections are intended to be written as objective descriptions of the data (i.e., the Results section), whereas other sections are intended to present the author’s interpretation of the data. Remember though that even “objective” sections are written by and, therefore, influenced by the authors interpretations. Check out Table 2 to understand the intent of each section of a research article. When reading a specific paper, you can also refer to the journal’s website to understand the formatting intentions. The “For Authors” section of a website will have some nitty gritty information that is less relevant for the reader (like word counts) but will also summarize what the journal editors expect in each section. This will help to familiarize you with the goal of each article section.

Research articles typically contain each of these sections, although sometimes the “results” and “discussion” sections (or “discussion” and “conclusion” sections) are merged into one section. Additional sections may be included, based on request of the journal or the author(s). Keep in mind: If it was included, someone thought it was important for you to read.

Rule 6: Be critical

Published papers are not truths etched in stone. Published papers in high impact journals are not truths etched in stone. Published papers by bigwigs in the field are not truths etched in stone. Published papers that seem to agree with your own hypothesis or data are not etched in stone. Published papers that seem to refute your hypothesis or data are not etched in stone.

Science is a never-ending work in progress, and it is essential that the reader pushes back against the author’s interpretation to test the strength of their conclusions. Everyone has their own perspective and may interpret the same data in different ways. Mistakes are sometimes published, but more often these apparent errors are due to other factors such as limitations of a methodology and other limits to generalizability (selection bias, unaddressed, or unappreciated confounders). When reading a paper, it is important to consider if these factors are pertinent.

Critical thinking is a tough skill to learn but ultimately boils down to evaluating data while minimizing biases. Ask yourself: Are there other, equally likely, explanations for what is observed? In addition to paying close attention to potential biases of the study or author(s), a reader should also be alert to one’s own preceding perspective (and biases). Take time to ask oneself: Do I find this paper compelling because it affirms something I already think (or wish) is true? Or am I discounting their findings because it differs from what I expect or from my own work?

The phenomenon of a self-fulfilling prophecy, or expectancy, is well studied in the psychology literature [ 2 ] and is why many studies are conducted in a “blinded” manner [ 3 ]. It refers to the idea that a person may assume something to be true and their resultant behavior aligns to make it true. In other words, as humans and scientists, we often find exactly what we are looking for. A scientist may only test their hypotheses and fail to evaluate alternative hypotheses; perhaps, a scientist may not be aware of alternative, less biased ways to test her or his hypothesis that are typically used in different fields. Individuals with different life, academic, and work experiences may think of several alternative hypotheses, all equally supported by the data.

Rule 7: Be kind

The author(s) are human too. So, whenever possible, give them the benefit of the doubt. An author may write a phrase differently than you would, forcing you to reread the sentence to understand it. Someone in your field may neglect to cite your paper because of a reference count limit. A figure panel may be misreferenced as Supplemental Fig 3E when it is obviously Supplemental Fig 4E. While these things may be frustrating, none are an indication that the quality of work is poor. Try to avoid letting these minor things influence your evaluation and interpretation of the work.

Similarly, if you intend to share your critique with others, be extra kind. An author (especially the lead author) may invest years of their time into a single paper. Hearing a kindly phrased critique can be difficult but constructive. Hearing a rude, brusque, or mean-spirited critique can be heartbreaking, especially for young scientists or those seeking to establish their place within a field and who may worry that they do not belong.

Rule 8: Be ready to go the extra mile

To truly understand a scientific work, you often will need to look up a term, dig into the supplemental materials, or read one or more of the cited references. This process takes time. Some advisors recommend reading an article three times: The first time, simply read without the pressure of understanding or critiquing the work. For the second time, aim to understand the paper. For the third read through, take notes.

Some people engage with a paper by printing it out and writing all over it. The reader might write question marks in the margins to mark parts (s)he wants to return to, circle unfamiliar terms (and then actually look them up!), highlight or underline important statements, and draw arrows linking figures and the corresponding interpretation in the discussion. Not everyone needs a paper copy to engage in the reading process but, whatever your version of “printing it out” is, do it.

Rule 9: Talk about it

Talking about an article in a journal club or more informal environment forces active reading and participation with the material. Studies show that teaching is one of the best ways to learn and that teachers learn the material even better as the teaching task becomes more complex [ 4 – 5 ]; anecdotally, such observations inspired the phrase “to teach is to learn twice.”

Beyond formal settings such as journal clubs, lab meetings, and academic classes, discuss papers with your peers, mentors, and colleagues in person or electronically. Twitter and other social media platforms have become excellent resources for discussing papers with other scientists, the public or your nonscientist friends, or even the paper’s author(s). Describing a paper can be done at multiple levels and your description can contain all of the scientific details, only the big picture summary, or perhaps the implications for the average person in your community. All of these descriptions will solidify your understanding, while highlighting gaps in your knowledge and informing those around you.

Rule 10: Build on it

One approach we like to use for communicating how we build on the scientific literature is by starting research presentations with an image depicting a wall of Lego bricks. Each brick is labeled with the reference for a paper, and the wall highlights the body of literature on which the work is built. We describe the work and conclusions of each paper represented by a labeled brick and discuss each brick and the wall as a whole. The top brick on the wall is left blank: We aspire to build on this work and label this brick with our own work. We then delve into our own research, discoveries, and the conclusions it inspires. We finish our presentations with the image of the Legos and summarize our presentation on that empty brick.

Whether you are reading an article to understand a new topic area or to move a research project forward, effective learning requires that you integrate knowledge from multiple sources (“click” those Lego bricks together) and build upwards. Leveraging published work will enable you to build a stronger and taller structure. The first row of bricks is more stable once a second row is assembled on top of it and so on and so forth. Moreover, the Lego construction will become taller and larger if you build upon the work of others, rather than using only your own bricks.

Build on the article you read by thinking about how it connects to ideas described in other papers and within own work, implementing a technique in your own research, or attempting to challenge or support the hypothesis of the author(s) with a more extensive literature review. Integrate the techniques and scientific conclusions learned from an article into your own research or perspective in the classroom or research lab. You may find that this process strengthens your understanding, leads you toward new and unexpected interests or research questions, or returns you back to the original article with new questions and critiques of the work. All of these experiences are part of the “active reading”: process and are signs of a successful reading experience.

In summary, practice these rules to learn how to read a scientific article, keeping in mind that this process will get easier (and faster) with experience. We are firm believers that an hour in the library will save a week at the bench; this diligent practice will ultimately make you both a more knowledgeable and productive scientist. As you develop the skills to read an article, try to also foster good reading and learning habits for yourself (recommendations here: [ 6 ] and [ 7 ], respectively) and in others. Good luck and happy reading!

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the mentors, teachers, and students who have shaped our thoughts on reading, learning, and what science is all about.

Funding Statement

MAC was supported by the PhRMA Foundation's Postdoctoral Fellowship in Translational Medicine and Therapeutics and the University of Virginia's Engineering-in-Medicine seed grant, and KLS was supported by the NIH T32 Global Biothreats Training Program at the University of Virginia (AI055432). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

How to Identify a Meaningful Research Question

When starting a new research project, it is important to develop a sound research question. This is a crucial step in the research process, as it will guide your research activity. Therefore, you should not rush to write an effective research question.

A properly written research question has several characteristics.

• It should be clearly defined, and free of jargon.
• The question should be sufficiently focused to steer your research to its logical conclusion. It should summarize an outstanding issue or problem you want to investigate through research-by a literature review or an experimental study or a theoretical exercise.
• It must be addressed within your limited time frame and other available resources (e.g., money, equipment, assistants, etc.).

Major Steps to Write a Research Question

Often, you already have a broader subject that interests you. For example, say organismal biology. However, this alone will get you nowhere, whether you are a graduate student or professor writing for a grant. Following steps can help you to organize priorities.

• Narrow down your broad idea to a topic that can be investigated (e.g., biodiversity maintenance). It is easier to do this if you follow your own curiosity and are passionate about a particular research question or problem.
• Get a good and accurate feel for this general topic. Do some preliminary reading, on top of what you know already. Here, review papers are very helpful (note: these are not the same as meta-analyses!). Ask yourself, what has been done previously and more recently? How were these studies conducted? What hypotheses were tested? After some weeks at this, you should be able to identify key gaps in knowledge, i.e., new questions. You may also find conflicting evidence or inconsistencies in the literature. It is the time to revisit old questions again (i.e., do a replication).
• This step is often the hardest. Here, you must refine the topic further — and “run with it”. This is sometimes a matter of taste or style. Other times it can be dictated by what is most logistically feasible to do. In worst cases, you follow a fad or are told by your supervisor what to do. Following our example, you may go on to ask, “What are the ecological processes that contribute most to maintaining biodiversity”, or consider “How is biodiversity maintenance threatened in different ecosystems”. At this point, get the pen out. Write down potential “how” and “why” questions. Write full sentences, not fragments, to clarify your thinking.
• In the final step, you now scrutinize your list of candidate research questions. Be critical. You want to filter them. Ask yourself, can I actually find/collect the data necessary to address this question or problem? Will the method be feasible to do it? Is my question overly broad or narrow, or too subjective or objective?

Revise Your List

Aspects of feasibility are best tested in pilot studies or modeling scenarios. Here, you could factor in costs in terms of time, labor, and tools.

Review your questions carefully. Take these three for instance.

A) How is global biodiversity maintained?

B) Which biotic processes contribute most to maintaining local plant diversity in Western Amazonian forests?

C) What limited biodiversity at site X in Amazonia in the last 5 years?

(A) is much too broad – there are many possible processes, and these will vary geographically. However, (C) is too narrow and probably impossible to answer. (B) is neither too narrow nor too broad. It is specific enough to guide a research project and is feasible.

Likewise, a too objective question will limit you. Take “How many species of trees are there in New England forests”. This is factual information now. So it does not lend itself to argumentation. A more subjective question would be “What is the relationship between climate change and tree diversity dynamics in New England forests?” Also, try to avoid overly simplistic questions (e.g. “Where do forest fires occur most?”), which could be answered with Web searches nowadays. Instead, ask something more complex, like “What are the effects of logging on forest fire frequency and intensity?”

It is Okay to Modify Your Question

Be flexible and adaptable. A good research question is not permanent. Do not be afraid to modify your research question, revising it as you investigate it more. For example, key data may be lacking, or a new study is published that challenges some presumptions you had. In hypothesis-driven research, a good research question can easily be transformed into a testable hypothesis.

In sum, an effective research question is thoughtfully formulated. It interests not only you but potentially other researchers as well. It should follow accepted ethical standards (honesty, no stealing of ideas or fabrication of data,  or no harming of human/animals subjects). A useful rule-of-thumb for a well-formulated research question is to follow Hulley et al .’s “FINER”: feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant.

In what part of your research do you find your research question?

Hi Stephen, Thank you for your question. Your research question should ideally be identified before you start your work. Research questions are based on research gaps and the latter becomes evident while conducting a comprehensive literature survey, prior to initiating any kind of research activity. Your entire work plan would be based on the question that you are trying to address through your research. Did you get a chance to install our FREE Mobile App . Make sure you subscribe to our weekly newsletter .

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• AI in Academia
• Infographic
• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research
• Trending Now

Can AI Tools Prepare a Research Manuscript From Scratch? — A comprehensive guide

As technology continues to advance, the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) tools can prepare…

Abstract Vs. Introduction — Do you know the difference?

Ross wants to publish his research. Feeling positive about his research outcomes, he begins to…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Demystifying Research Methodology With Field Experts

Choosing research methodology Research design and methodology Evidence-based research approach How RAxter can assist researchers

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

How to Choose Best Research Methodology for Your Study

Successful research conduction requires proper planning and execution. While there are multiple reasons and aspects…

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

While burning the midnight oil during literature review, most researchers do not realize that the…

How to Draft the Acknowledgment Section of a Manuscript

Discussion Vs. Conclusion: Know the Difference Before Drafting Manuscripts

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

• Research Guides

Literature Review: A Self-Guided Tutorial

• 1. Identify the question
• Literature Reviews: A Recap
• Peer Review
• Reading the Literature
• Using Concept Maps
• Developing Research Questions
• Considering Strong Opinions
• 2. Review discipline styles
• Super Searching
• Finding the Full Text
• Citation Searching This link opens in a new window
• When to stop searching
• Citation Management
• Annotating Articles Tip
• 5. Critically analyze and evaluate
• How to Review the Literature
• Using a Synthesis Matrix
• 7. Write literature review

Identify the Question

In some cases, such as for a course assignment or a research project you're working on with a faculty member, your research question will be determined by your professor. If that's the case, you can move on to the next step . Otherwise, you may need to explore questions on your own. 

A few suggestions:

Watch the videos in this section for advice on developing your research question and considerations related to choosing a topic for which you have a strong opinion.

• << Previous: Using Concept Maps
• Next: Developing Research Questions >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2024 4:11 PM
• URL: https://libguides.williams.edu/literature-review

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

Where to Put the Research Question in a Paper

Silke Haidekker has a PhD in Pharmacology from the University of Hannover. She is a Clinical Research Associate in multiple pharmaceutical companies in Germany and the USA. She now works as a full-time medical translator and writer in a small town in Georgia.

Of Rats and Panic Attacks: A Doctoral Student’s Tale

You would probably agree that the time spent writing your PhD dissertation or thesis is not only a time of taking pride or even joy in what you do, but also a time riddled with panic attacks of different varieties and lengths. When I worked on my PhD thesis in pharmacology in Germany many years back, I had  my  first panic attack as I first learned how to kill rats for my experiments with a very ugly tool called a guillotine! After that part of the procedure, I was to remove and mash their livers, spike them with Ciclosporin A (an immunosuppressive agent), and then present the metabolites by high-pressure liquid chromatography.

Many rats later, I had another serious panic attack. It occurred at the moment my doctoral adviser told me to write my first research paper on the Ciclosporin A metabolites I had detected in hundreds of slimy mashes of rat liver. Sadly, this second panic attack led to a third one that was caused by living in the pre-internet era, when it was not as easy to access information about  how to write research papers .

How I got over writing my first research paper is now ancient history. But it was only years later, living in the USA and finally being immersed in the language of most scientific research papers, that my interest in the art of writing “good” research papers was sparked during conferences held by the  American Medical Writers Association , as well as by getting involved in different writing programs and academic self-study courses.

How to State the Research Question in the Introduction Section

Good writing begins with clearly stating your research question (or hypothesis) in the Introduction section —the focal point on which your entire paper builds and unfolds in the subsequent Methods, Results, and Discussion sections . This research question or hypothesis that goes into the first section of your research manuscript, the Introduction, explains at least three major elements:

a) What is  known  or believed about the research topic?

B) what is still  unknown  (or problematic), c) what is the  question or hypothesis  of your investigation.

Some medical writers refer to this organizational structure of the Introduction as a “funnel shape” because it starts broadly, with the bigger picture, and then follows one scientifically logical step after the other until finally narrowing down the story to the focal point of your research at the end of the funnel.

Let’s now look in greater detail at a research question example and how you can logically embed it into the Introduction to make it a powerful focal point and ignite the reader’s interest about the importance of your research:

a) The Known

You should start by giving your reader a brief overview of knowledge or previous studies already performed in the context of your research topic.

The topic of one of my research papers was “investigating the value of diabetes as an independent predictor of death in people with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).” So in the Introduction, I first presented the basic knowledge that diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and thus made the reader better understand our interest in this specific study population. I then presented previous studies already showing that diabetes indeed seems to represent an independent risk factor for death in the general population. However, very few studies had been performed in the ESRD population and those only yielded controversial results.

Example :  “It seems well established that there is a link between diabetic nephropathy and hypertensive nephropathy and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Western countries. In 2014, 73% of patients in US hospitals had comorbid ESRD and type 2 diabetes (1, 2, 3)…”

b) The Unknown

In our example, this “controversy” flags the “unknown” or “problematic” and therefore provides strong reasons for why further research is justified. The unknown should be clearly stated or implied by using phrases such as “were controversial” (as in our example), “…has not been determined,” or “…is unclear.” By clearly stating what is “unknown,” you indicate that your research is new. This creates a smooth transition into your research question.

Example :  “However, previous studies have failed to isolate diabetes as an independent factor, and thus much remains unknown about specific risk factors associated with both diabetes and ESRD .”

c) The Research Question (Hypothesis)

Your research question is the question that inevitably evolves from the deficits or problems revealed in the “Unknown” and clearly states the goal of your research. It is important to describe your research question in just one or two short sentences, but very precisely and including all variables studied, if applicable. A transition should be used to mark the transition from the unknown to the research question using one word such as “therefore” or “accordingly,” or short phrases like “for this reason” or “considering this lack of crucial information.”

In our example, we stated the research question as follows:

Example :  “Therefore, the primary goal of our study was to perform a Kaplan-Meier survival study and to investigate, by means of the Cox proportional hazard model, the value of diabetes as an independent predictor of death in diabetic patients with ESRD.”

Note that the research question may include the  experimental approach  of the study used to answer the research question.

Another powerful way to introduce the research question is to  state the research question as a hypothesis  so that the reader can more easily anticipate the answer. In our case, the question could be put as follows:

Example :  “To test the hypothesis that diabetes is an independent predictor of death in people with ESRD, we performed a Kaplan-Survival study and investigated the value of diabetes by means of the Cox proportional hazard model.”

Note that this sentence leads with an introductory clause that indicates the hypothesis itself, transitioning well into a synopsis of the approach in the second half of the sentence.

The generic framework of the Introduction can be modified to include, for example,  two  research questions instead of just one. In such a case, both questions must follow inevitably from the previous statements, meaning that the background information leading to the second question cannot be omitted. Otherwise, the Introduction will get confusing, with the reader not knowing where that question comes from.

Begin with your research purpose in mind

To conclude, here is my simple but most important advice for you as a researcher preparing to write a scientific paper (or just the Introduction of a research paper) for the first time: Think your research question through precisely before trying to write it down; have in mind the reasons for exactly why you wanted to do this specific research, what exactly you wanted to find out, and how (by which methods) you did your investigation. If you have the answers to these questions in mind (or even better, create a comprehensive outline ) before starting the paper, the actual writing process will be a piece of cake and you will finish it “like a rat up a drainpipe”! And hopefully with no panic attacks.

Wordvice Resources

Before submitting your master’s thesis or PhD dissertation to academic journals for publication, be sure to receive proofreading services (including research paper editing , manuscript editing , thesis editing , and dissertation editing ) to ensure that your research writing is error-free. Impress your journal editor and get into the academic journal of your choice.    

• Joyner Library
• Laupus Health Sciences Library
• Music Library
• Digital Collections
• Special Collections
• North Carolina Collection
• Teaching Resources
• The ScholarShip Institutional Repository
• Country Doctor Museum
• ECU Libraries
• Frequently Asked Questions

Q. How do I identify a research study?

• 46 Circulation
• 19 Computing
• 27 Database List Help
• 51 General Information
• 26 Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• 10 Laupus Health Sciences Library
• 3 Library Staff Profiles
• 9 Music Library
• 60 Research Help
• 16 Teaching Resources Center (TRC)

Please note:

Answered by: david hisle last updated: aug 30, 2022     views: 66353.

These guidelines can help you identify a research study and distinguish an article that presents the findings of a research study from other types of articles.

• Ask a research question
• Identify a research population or group
• Describe a research method
• Test or measure something
• Summarize the results

Research studies are almost always published in peer-reviewed (scholarly) journals. The articles often contain headings similar to these: Literature Review, Method, Results, Discussion , and Conclusion .

Articles that review other studies without presenting new research results are not research studies. Examples of article types that are NOT research studies include:

• literature reviews
• meta-analyses
• case studies
• comments or letters relating to previously-published research studies

Some databases allow you to limit by publication type. Use this feature to help identify research studies. Here are tips for limiting by publication type in several popular databases:

• Click on the Advanced Search button.
• Type your search terms in the top boxes.
• In the area below the search boxes, find the box labeled "Publication Type".
• Select "Peer Reviewed Journal"
• empirical study
• follow-up study
• longitudinal study
• prospective study
• retrospective study
• treatment outcomes study

ERIC via EBSCO host :

• In the area below the search boxes, find the box labeled "Journal or Document".
• Select "Journal Articles" from the menu choices.
• Further down the screen, find the box labeled "Publication Type".
• Select "Reports - Research / Technical."
• Look carefully at the article abstracts to see if the article meets the requirements of a research study. Sometimes, you may have to look at the actual article to make this determination.

Some databases, like Sociological Abstracts , and Social Work Abstracts allow you to limit to "Articles" or "Abstracts of Journal Articles," but do not have more specific publication types. In Sociological Abstracts , a quick and dirty way to find research studies is to limit to "Articles" and then add "tables" to your search. This works because most research studies contain tables, and this is an indexed field in this database. For example, you might search for "gender and tables." This doesn't work well in Social Work Abstracts , though, because "tables" is not indexed. Instead, try something like "gender and research study" or even "gender and study." In all of these examples, you need to carefully examine the abstracts to see if the articles meet the requirements of a research study.

Many of the EBSCO host databases (e.g., Academic Search Complete , Health Source Nursing/Academic Edition, Sociological Collection ) allow you to limit to peer reviewed journals, but not by specific publication type. Be sure to click in the box to limit to peer reviewed journals. Then, add terms like "research study," "empirical," or "longitudinal" to your search. Again, carefully examine the abstracts to see if the articles meet the requirements of a research study.

Here is an example of an abstract of a research study from Sociological Collection . Phrases that help identify it as a research study are in bold:

Self-pity is a frequent response to stressful events. So far, however, empirical research has paid only scant attention to this subject. The present article aims at exploring personality characteristics associated with individual differences in feeling sorry for oneself . Two studies with N=5141 and N=5161 university students were conducted, employing multidimensional measures of personality, control beliefs, anger, loneliness, and adult attachment. With respect to personality, results showed strong associations of self-pity with neuroticism, particularly with the depression facet. With respect to control beliefs, individuals high in self-pity showed generalized externality beliefs, seeing themselves as controlled by both chance and powerful others. With respect to anger expression, self-pity was primarily related to anger-in. Strong connections with anger rumination were also found. Furthermore, individuals high in self-pity reported emotional loneliness and ambivalent-worrisome attachments. Finally, in both studies, a strong correlation with gender was found, with women reporting more self-pity reactions to stress than men. Findings are discussed with respect to how they support, extend, and qualify the previous literature on self-pity, and directions for future empirical research are pointed out.

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 35 No 40

Comments (0)

Related topics.

• Research Help

• EMU Library
• Research Guides
• Library & Research Help

Quantitative and Qualitative Research

• Identifying Methods
• Introduction
• Locating Quantitative & Qualitative Articles Using PsycINFO

Reading Articles & Identifying Methods

When reviewing research that you have found, start by reading the abstract in order to identify the methodologies used in the study.  Research articles should also include a section that describes the methods used in more detail.  

Not all quantitative or qualitative studies will include the same clues present in the examples on this page. Read articles carefully to understand the methodologies used.

Identifying Quantitative Research - Example

This abstract has several indications that this is a quantitative study:

• the goal of the study was examining relationships between several variables
• the researchers used statistical methods (logistic regression models)
• subjects completed questionnaires
• the study included a large number of subjects

Identifying Qualitative Research - Example

This abstract has several indications that this is a qualitative study:

• the goal of the study was to explore the subjects' experiences
• the researchers conducted open-ended interviews
• the researchers used thematic analysis when reviewing the interviews
• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Locating Quantitative & Qualitative Articles Using PsycINFO >>
• Last Updated: Aug 27, 2021 3:34 PM
• URL: https://guides.emich.edu/quantqualmethods

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic

Identifying Keywords

• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

Mind Mapping

Created by Joshua Vossler

Make a list of keywords relevant to your topic.  Be sure to list similar, broader, narrower, and related terms . Keep the list by your side when you start your research and continue to add to it as you come across useful terms.

Before searching for information, you need to identify keywords related to your topic. The keywords you use have an impact on the results of your research. 

If the keywords you choose do not give you the results you need, try the others on your list or use the  search strategies  listed under Step 2.

Keywords and phrases can easily be found by scanning . . .

• your initial research questions
• encyclopedia and other articles used when conducting background research
• bibliographies found at the end of books and articles

If you are still struggling, try these suggestions:

• Use a thesaurus to identify synonyms
• Find pictures related to your topic, then describe the picture
• Brainstorm keywords with a librarian, your instructor, or a friend

Combining Keywords

When researching, we are like detectives trying to combine the right terms in the right place to find the information we need. This information will help you combine search terms to find relevant sources.

Broad Search

Search for information using the single most important term related to your topic. Use this type of search when looking for basic background information.

Specific Search

Search for information by combining key concepts using the words you have brainstormed. Each concept/word should be separated by the word "AND" . Use this kind of search when looking for specific evidence related to your claim or thesis.

Getting Too Many Irrelevant Results?

Add more search terms.

Getting Too Few Relevant Results?

Change or remove some search terms.

Using a Concept Map

A concept map is a graphical tool used to organize and structure knowledge. 

https://bubbl.us/

http://popplet.com/

• Concept Map Worksheet
• Concept Map Example
• << Previous: Select Topic
• Next: Background Information >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to Identify

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to Identify

Table of Contents

Research Gap

Definition:

Research gap refers to an area or topic within a field of study that has not yet been extensively researched or is yet to be explored. It is a question, problem or issue that has not been addressed or resolved by previous research.

How to Identify Research Gap

Identifying a research gap is an essential step in conducting research that adds value and contributes to the existing body of knowledge. Research gap requires critical thinking, creativity, and a thorough understanding of the existing literature . It is an iterative process that may require revisiting and refining your research questions and ideas multiple times.

Here are some steps that can help you identify a research gap:

• Review existing literature: Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature in your research area. This will help you identify what has already been studied and what gaps still exist.
• Identify a research problem: Identify a specific research problem or question that you want to address.
• Analyze existing research: Analyze the existing research related to your research problem. This will help you identify areas that have not been studied, inconsistencies in the findings, or limitations of the previous research.
• Brainstorm potential research ideas : Based on your analysis, brainstorm potential research ideas that address the identified gaps.
• Consult with experts: Consult with experts in your research area to get their opinions on potential research ideas and to identify any additional gaps that you may have missed.
• Refine research questions: Refine your research questions and hypotheses based on the identified gaps and potential research ideas.
• Develop a research proposal: Develop a research proposal that outlines your research questions, objectives, and methods to address the identified research gap.

Types of Research Gap

There are different types of research gaps that can be identified, and each type is associated with a specific situation or problem. Here are the main types of research gaps and their explanations:

Theoretical Gap

This type of research gap refers to a lack of theoretical understanding or knowledge in a particular area. It can occur when there is a discrepancy between existing theories and empirical evidence or when there is no theory that can explain a particular phenomenon. Identifying theoretical gaps can lead to the development of new theories or the refinement of existing ones.

Empirical Gap

An empirical gap occurs when there is a lack of empirical evidence or data in a particular area. It can happen when there is a lack of research on a specific topic or when existing research is inadequate or inconclusive. Identifying empirical gaps can lead to the development of new research studies to collect data or the refinement of existing research methods to improve the quality of data collected.

Methodological Gap

This type of research gap refers to a lack of appropriate research methods or techniques to answer a research question. It can occur when existing methods are inadequate, outdated, or inappropriate for the research question. Identifying methodological gaps can lead to the development of new research methods or the modification of existing ones to better address the research question.

Practical Gap

A practical gap occurs when there is a lack of practical applications or implementation of research findings. It can occur when research findings are not implemented due to financial, political, or social constraints. Identifying practical gaps can lead to the development of strategies for the effective implementation of research findings in practice.

Knowledge Gap

This type of research gap occurs when there is a lack of knowledge or information on a particular topic. It can happen when a new area of research is emerging, or when research is conducted in a different context or population. Identifying knowledge gaps can lead to the development of new research studies or the extension of existing research to fill the gap.

Examples of Research Gap

Here are some examples of research gaps that researchers might identify:

• Theoretical Gap Example : In the field of psychology, there might be a theoretical gap related to the lack of understanding of the relationship between social media use and mental health. Although there is existing research on the topic, there might be a lack of consensus on the mechanisms that link social media use to mental health outcomes.
• Empirical Gap Example : In the field of environmental science, there might be an empirical gap related to the lack of data on the long-term effects of climate change on biodiversity in specific regions. Although there might be some studies on the topic, there might be a lack of data on the long-term effects of climate change on specific species or ecosystems.
• Methodological Gap Example : In the field of education, there might be a methodological gap related to the lack of appropriate research methods to assess the impact of online learning on student outcomes. Although there might be some studies on the topic, existing research methods might not be appropriate to assess the complex relationships between online learning and student outcomes.
• Practical Gap Example: In the field of healthcare, there might be a practical gap related to the lack of effective strategies to implement evidence-based practices in clinical settings. Although there might be existing research on the effectiveness of certain practices, they might not be implemented in practice due to various barriers, such as financial constraints or lack of resources.
• Knowledge Gap Example: In the field of anthropology, there might be a knowledge gap related to the lack of understanding of the cultural practices of indigenous communities in certain regions. Although there might be some research on the topic, there might be a lack of knowledge about specific cultural practices or beliefs that are unique to those communities.

Examples of Research Gap In Literature Review, Thesis, and Research Paper might be:

• Literature review : A literature review on the topic of machine learning and healthcare might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the use of machine learning for early detection of rare diseases.
• Thesis : A thesis on the topic of cybersecurity might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in detecting and preventing cyber attacks.
• Research paper : A research paper on the topic of natural language processing might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the use of natural language processing techniques for sentiment analysis in non-English languages.

How to Write Research Gap

By following these steps, you can effectively write about research gaps in your paper and clearly articulate the contribution that your study will make to the existing body of knowledge.

Here are some steps to follow when writing about research gaps in your paper:

• Identify the research question : Before writing about research gaps, you need to identify your research question or problem. This will help you to understand the scope of your research and identify areas where additional research is needed.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the literature related to your research question. This will help you to identify the current state of knowledge in the field and the gaps that exist.
• Identify the research gap: Based on your review of the literature, identify the specific research gap that your study will address. This could be a theoretical, empirical, methodological, practical, or knowledge gap.
• Provide evidence: Provide evidence to support your claim that the research gap exists. This could include a summary of the existing literature, a discussion of the limitations of previous studies, or an analysis of the current state of knowledge in the field.
• Explain the importance: Explain why it is important to fill the research gap. This could include a discussion of the potential implications of filling the gap, the significance of the research for the field, or the potential benefits to society.
• State your research objectives: State your research objectives, which should be aligned with the research gap you have identified. This will help you to clearly articulate the purpose of your study and how it will address the research gap.

Importance of Research Gap

The importance of research gaps can be summarized as follows:

• Advancing knowledge: Identifying research gaps is crucial for advancing knowledge in a particular field. By identifying areas where additional research is needed, researchers can fill gaps in the existing body of knowledge and contribute to the development of new theories and practices.
• Guiding research: Research gaps can guide researchers in designing studies that fill those gaps. By identifying research gaps, researchers can develop research questions and objectives that are aligned with the needs of the field and contribute to the development of new knowledge.
• Enhancing research quality: By identifying research gaps, researchers can avoid duplicating previous research and instead focus on developing innovative research that fills gaps in the existing body of knowledge. This can lead to more impactful research and higher-quality research outputs.
• Informing policy and practice: Research gaps can inform policy and practice by highlighting areas where additional research is needed to inform decision-making. By filling research gaps, researchers can provide evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve policy and practice in a particular field.

Applications of Research Gap

Here are some potential applications of research gap:

• Informing research priorities: Research gaps can help guide research funding agencies and researchers to prioritize research areas that require more attention and resources.
• Identifying practical implications: Identifying gaps in knowledge can help identify practical applications of research that are still unexplored or underdeveloped.
• Stimulating innovation: Research gaps can encourage innovation and the development of new approaches or methodologies to address unexplored areas.
• Improving policy-making: Research gaps can inform policy-making decisions by highlighting areas where more research is needed to make informed policy decisions.
• Enhancing academic discourse: Research gaps can lead to new and constructive debates and discussions within academic communities, leading to more robust and comprehensive research.

Advantages of Research Gap

Here are some of the advantages of research gap:

• Identifies new research opportunities: Identifying research gaps can help researchers identify areas that require further exploration, which can lead to new research opportunities.
• Improves the quality of research: By identifying gaps in current research, researchers can focus their efforts on addressing unanswered questions, which can improve the overall quality of research.
• Enhances the relevance of research: Research that addresses existing gaps can have significant implications for the development of theories, policies, and practices, and can therefore increase the relevance and impact of research.
• Helps avoid duplication of effort: Identifying existing research can help researchers avoid duplicating efforts, saving time and resources.
• Helps to refine research questions: Research gaps can help researchers refine their research questions, making them more focused and relevant to the needs of the field.
• Promotes collaboration: By identifying areas of research that require further investigation, researchers can collaborate with others to conduct research that addresses these gaps, which can lead to more comprehensive and impactful research outcomes.

Disadvantages of Research Gap

While research gaps can be advantageous, there are also some potential disadvantages that should be considered:

• Difficulty in identifying gaps: Identifying gaps in existing research can be challenging, particularly in fields where there is a large volume of research or where research findings are scattered across different disciplines.
• Lack of funding: Addressing research gaps may require significant resources, and researchers may struggle to secure funding for their work if it is perceived as too risky or uncertain.
• Time-consuming: Conducting research to address gaps can be time-consuming, particularly if the research involves collecting new data or developing new methods.
• Risk of oversimplification: Addressing research gaps may require researchers to simplify complex problems, which can lead to oversimplification and a failure to capture the complexity of the issues.
• Bias : Identifying research gaps can be influenced by researchers’ personal biases or perspectives, which can lead to a skewed understanding of the field.
• Potential for disagreement: Identifying research gaps can be subjective, and different researchers may have different views on what constitutes a gap in the field, leading to disagreements and debate.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

References in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and...

Data Analysis – Process, Methods and Types

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

• Writing Center

Beginner’s Guide to Research

Click here to download a .pdf copy of our Beginner’s Guide to Research !

Last updated : July 18, 2024

Consider keeping a printed copy to have when writing and revising your resume!  If you have any additional questions, make an appointment or email us at [email protected] !

Most professors will require the use of academic (AKA peer-reviewed) sources for student writing. This is because these sources, written for academic audiences of specific fields, are helpful for developing your argument on many topics of interest in the academic realm, from history to biology. While popular sources like news articles also often discuss topics of interest within academic fields, peer-reviewed sources offer a depth of research and expertise that you cannot find in popular sources. Therefore, knowing how to (1) identify popular vs. academic sources, (2) differentiate between primary and secondary sources, and (3) find academic sources is a vital step in writing research. Below are definitions of the two ways scholars categorize types of sources based on when they were created (i.e. time and place) and how (i.e. methodology):

Popular vs. academic sources:

• Popular sources are publicly accessible periodicals–newspapers, magazines, and blogs–such as The Washington Post or The New Yorker . These sources are most often written for non-academic audiences, but can be helpful for finding general information and a variety of opinions on your topic.
• Academic sources , known also as peer reviewed or scholarly articles, are those that have undergone peer review before being published. Typically, these articles are written for other scholars in the field and are published in academic journals, like Feminist Studies or The American Journal of Psychology . Literature reviews, research projects, case studies, and notes from the field are common examples.

Primary vs. secondary sources:

• Primary sources are articles written by people directly involved in what they were writing about, including: News reports and photographs, diaries and novels, films and videos, speeches and autobiographies, as well as original research and statistics.
• Secondary sources , on the other hand, are second hand accounts written about a topic based on primary sources. Whether a journal article or other academic publication is considered a secondary source depends on how you use it.

How to Find Academic Sources

Finding appropriate academic sources from the hundreds of different journal publications can be daunting. Therefore, it is important to find databases –digital collections of articles–relevant to your topic to narrow your search. Albertson’s Library has access to several different databases, which can be located by clicking the “Articles and Databases” tab on the website’s homepage, and navigating to “Databases A-Z” to refine your search. Popular databases include: Academic Search Premier and Proquest Central (non-specific databases which include a wide variety of articles), JSTOR (humanities and social sciences, from literature to history), Web of Science (formal sciences and natural sciences such as biology and chemistry), and Google Scholar (a web search engine that searches scholarly literature and academic sources). If you are unable to access articles from other databases, make sure you’re signed in to Alberton’s Library through Boise State!

Performing a Database Search

Databases include many different types of sources besides academic journals, however, including book reviews and other periodicals. Using the search bar , you can limit search results to those containing specific keywords or phrases like “writing center” or “transfer theory.” Utilizing keywords in your search–names of key concepts, authors, or ideas–rather than questions is the most effective way to find articles in databases. When searching for a specific work by title, placing the title in quotation marks will ensure your search includes only results in that specific word order. In the example below, search terms including the author (“Virginia Woolf”) and subject (“feminism”) are entered into the popular database EBSCOhost:

Refining Your Search Results

Many databases have a bar on the left of the screen where you can further refine your results. For example, if you are only interested in finding complete scholarly articles, or peer-reviewed ones, you can toggle these different options to further limit your search. These options are located under the “Refine Results” bar in EBSCOhost, divided into different sections, with a display of currently selected search filters and filter options to refine your search based on your specific needs, as seen in the figure below:

Search results can also be limited by subject : If you search “Romeo and Juliet” on Academic Search Premier to find literary analysis articles for your English class, you’ll find a lot of other sources that include this search term, such as ones about theater production or ballets based on Shakespeare’s play. However, if you’re writing a literary paper on the text of the play itself, you might limit your search results to “fiction” to see only articles that discuss the play within the field of literature. Alternatively, for a theater class discussing the play, you might limit your search results to “drama.”

The Writing Center

• Open access
• Published: 17 July 2024

Identifying innovations produced by primary health care centers and evaluating their scalability: the SPRINT Occitanie cross-sectional study in France

• Alexis Vandeventer 1 , 2 ,
• Grégoire Mercier 1 , 3 ,
• Christophe Bonnel 3 ,
• Joana Pissarra 4 ,
• Grégory Ninot 1 &
• François Carbonnel 1 , 2 , 5  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  824 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

225 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Practice-based research is one of the levers identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) to strengthen primary health care. The scaling of health and social care innovations has the potential to reduce inequities in health and to expand the benefits of effective innovations. It is now rapidly gaining the attention of decision-makers in health and social care, particularly in high-income countries.

To meet the challenge of declining numbers of primary care physicians in France, Multi-professional Healthcare Centers (MHC) were created to bring together medical and paramedical professionals. They are a source of innovation in meeting the health challenges facing our populations.

Specific methodology exists to identify health innovations and assess their scalability. A working group, including end-users and specialists, has adapted this methodology to the French context and the University department of general practice of Montpellier-Nîmes (France) launched a pilot study in Occitanie, a French region.

To identify and evaluate the scalability of innovations produced in pluri-professional healthcare centers in the Occitanie region.

A pilot, observational, cross-sectional study was carried out. The SPRINT Occitanie study was based on a questionnaire with two sections: MHC information and the modified Innovation Scalability Self-Administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ), version 2020. The study population was all 279 MHC in the Occitanie region.

19.3% (54) of MHC in the Occitanie region, responded fully or incompletely to the questionnaire. Four out of 5 U-MHCs were represented. Five MHC presented multiple innovations. The average per MHC was 1.94 (± 2.4) innovations. 26% of them ( n  = 9) had high scalability, 34% ( n  = 12) medium scalability and 40% ( n  = 14) low scalability. The main innovation represented (86%) were healthcare program, service, and tool.

Conclusions

In our cross-sectional study, a quarter of the innovations were highly scalable. We were able to demonstrate the importance of MHC teams in working on primary care research through the prism of innovations. Primary-care innovations must be detected, evaluated, and extracted to improve their impact on their healthcare system.

Peer Review reports

Primary health care-oriented health systems are organized with the goal to provide the highest attainable level of outpatient healthcare services, while maximizing equity and solidarity [ 1 ]. Primary health care-oriented research is one of the 10 operational levers identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) to strengthen them [ 2 ]. The scaling of health and social care innovations has the potential to reduce inequities in health and to expand the benefits of effective innovations [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. WHO defines health innovations as a new or improved solution with the transformative ability to accelerate positive health impact [ 6 ]. They are now rapidly gaining the attention of decision-makers, particularly in high-income countries [ 7 ]. They are faced with complex health and social care systems, aging populations and limited financial and human resources, justifying the need to prioritize effective scaling of beneficial innovations [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].

The number of French primary care doctors has fallen by 8% between 2012 and 2022 [ 12 ]. Nearly 11% of French people over the age of 17 did not have a general practitioner in 2022, and 30% lived in a "medical desert" [ 13 , 14 ]. The crisis in access to healthcare is a major concern for the French population and other high-income countries [ 15 ]. The healthcare system must be updated to include organizational innovations [ 16 ]. To meet these challenges, the French government enabled the creation of multi-professional health care centers (MHCs) from 2007. An MHC is made up of at least 2 general practitioners and at least one health auxiliary such as a pharmacist, midwife, nurse, physiotherapist, speech therapist or other regulated health profession. In 2023, 2251 MHCs were in activity throughout France [ 17 ] and the goal is to double their number by 2026 [ 18 ].

The dynamics of coordinated care in France are recent. In Quebec, it began in the 1970s with the creation of local community service centers (CLCS) where patients could consult several health professionals, in conjunction with the national social security system [ 19 ].

Canada has launched promising pilot projects that, however, were not scaled [ 17 ]. To mitigate this issue, Quebec's Sustainable Health Research Center has developed a research program aiming at identifying innovations produced by primary care facilities, classify them and evaluate their scalability [ 11 ].

We launched a pilot study to replicate their study in Occitanie, a French region, named SPRINT Occitanie ( Soins PRimaires INnovations et Territoires en Occitanie ). The original study found 25% of innovations were highly scalable (ref 11 again). Considering Quebec’s extensive experience on innovation scale-up, our research hypothesis was that PHCs produce innovations in Occitanie, but in fewer numbers and less scalable in comparison.

Nearly 83% of the region's territory is under-dense in terms of access to general practice [ 20 ]. It counted 279 MHCs in March 2023, including 5 with the “University” label [ 21 ]. This label identifies U-MHCs whose role is to coordinate between care facilities, the regional agency and the medical faculty of the nearest university, to bring together research, innovation and teaching [ 22 ]. Occitanie has three university hospital centers: Toulouse, Montpellier and Nîmes. They have organized a complete ecosystem to support innovation based on Clinical Research and Innovation Delegations, which are integrated into the university hospitals. Montpellier and Nîmes also share an innovation extractor [ 23 ]. Such ecosystems are not accessible to primary care, yet. Designing innovation extractors for primary care, in conjunction with pre-existing innovation ecosystems, could enable to better structure innovations that are more scalable and efficient, and better adapted to local needs. There is, to date, no incentive policy for evaluating and scaling up innovations for MHC. Only U-MHC are invited to do so, without allocating resources for this purpose. No study has identified healthcare innovations in MHCs in the Occitanie region, nor assessed their scalability.

The objective of this pilot study was to identify and assess the scalability of innovations produced in MHCs in the Occitanie region.

Study design

A pilot, observational, cross-sectional study was carried out between January and March 2023.

Questionnaire development

Innovations were defined as what was perceived as new by MHC staff [ 24 , 25 ]. To ensure harmonization, we gave respondents the WHO definition of innovation. Each person was then able to interpret the innovative or non-innovative nature of the initiatives in their MHC.

The SPRINT Occitanie study was based on a questionnaire with two sections (MHC information and the modified ISSaQ questionnaire).

It was reported as per guidelines for internet e-surveys [ 26 ] and in line with the CHERRIES checklist [ 27 ].

The first 16 questions (Additional file 1) were designed to identify the MHCs and respective innovations. These included: name of the MHC, single or multi-site nature, commune, status of the person answering the questionnaire (manager, coordinator, doctor, or other), e-mail address. It also included detailed information on the MHCs: year of creation, number of professionals, number of general practitioners, number of doctors in other specialties, number of university internship supervisors, previous responses to calls for projects (care, teaching or research), collaboration with the inter-regional grouping for clinical research and innovation (GIRCI). Specific information on innovations included were the name and abbreviation, description of the innovation, links with potential partners, communication around the project and purpose of the innovation. To characterize the type of innovation, the MHC correspondent had several modalities: program, model, approach, tool, instrument, indicator, algorithm, service, policy, practice or other, taken from the WHO's International Classification of Health Interventions [ 28 ]. This classification comprises three main axes: the target (entity on which the action was carried out), the action (act carried out by an actor on the target), and the means (processes and methods by which the action was carried out). Finally, the MHC correspondent could opt to have feedback on the scalability assessment.

The second section was adapted from the Innovation Scalability Self-Administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ), version of 2020 [ 11 ]. This questionnaire was adapted to suit the idioms of metropolitan French. The SPRINT Occitanie project team consisted of the questionnaire's end-users (teacher-researchers in general practice and MHC coordinators), a hospital specialist in innovation extraction and a public health physician methodologist. The questionnaire was tested with five MHC coordinators to check comprehension and confirm completion time. Concrete examples clarifying the questions were added following their feedback. The original questionnaire (ISSaQ) and the adapted questionnaire (modified ISSaQ) are presented in Additional file 2.

The ISSaQ assessed data availability for three dimensions (theory, impact and coverage) with 16 closed questions and 6 possible answers: “Yes, No, Not planned, Not applicable or Under evaluation”. If “yes”, the user could complete the answer by mentioning what data or elements were related to the question in free text. The Theory dimension included a question on the conceptual model that may or may not have informed the development of the innovation. The Impact dimension assessed data on six elements: acceptability, feasibility, appropriation, potential effectiveness in an experimental context, effectiveness in a real-life context, and documentation of results. For the last dimension, Coverage , we could have answers on the scope of the innovation, its adoption by the MHC team, fidelity in implementation, sustainability, implementation in another context, compatibility with other similar interventions, conformity with health policy guidelines in the context, and finally, the presence of data on cost-effectiveness and financial and human resource requirements.

This questionnaire was transposed onto LimeSurvey software, licensed by the University of Montpellier, to be self-administered by each MHC correspondent in Occitanie.

It was possible to complete the questionnaire for a single innovation. If the MHC wished to identify more than one, the correspondent could restart the questionnaire at the beginning.

The study population was all 279 MHCs in the Occitanie region that had received the regional health agency label. Health centers and communities of healthcare professionals were not included. In each MHC, a correspondent completed the open survey. This could be the coordinator, the manager, a medical doctor or another active member of the structure. To contact them, several e-mail reminders were sent by the university department of general practice of Montpellier-Nîmes and Toulouse to the university internship supervisor attached to them. Also, the Federation of Pluriprofessional Coordinated Practice [Fédération de l’Exercice Coordonné Pluriprofessionnel] (FECOP) contacted its members on 3 occasions, and the regional health agency of Occitanie, contacted all the MHC in the region. The FECOP is commissioned by regional health agency to support MHCs in project in the region, associated care teams in a network, offer them training and pool their innovations [ 29 ].

Statistical analysis

After collecting the data, three members of our research team proposed a blind classification of the respondent's category. After seeing the four proposals, a consensus was made by two of the three members based on the WHO definitions. The scalability score was calculated, as stipulated by ISSaQ, by summing up only positive responses to the 16 scalability criteria. Responses of "No, not applicable, under evaluation or not planned" were considered null. The score obtained, a maximum of 16, was then classified into 3 categories in accordance with the proposals of Ben Charif et al . [ 30 ]. This hierarchical classification was made according to 3 modalities: "high" (scalability greater than or equal to 10), "low" (scalability less than or equal to 3) and “medium" for the remainder.

Descriptive statistics described demographic characteristics using frequencies with percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations or medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables. Only complete responses (meeting all 16 scalability criteria) were analysed.

Statistical analyses were carried out partly using Microsoft Excel® version 2304 and RStudio® version 2023.03.1 using version R 4.2.3 with the package "stats" version 4.2.3.

Participants

Between January and March 2023, 35 complete responses, i.e., 35 innovations, were collected from 18 different MHCs (Fig.  1 ).

SPRINT Occitanie study flow chart

The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) is in Additional file 3.

19.3% of MHCs in the Occitanie region, i.e. 54 MHCs, responded fully or incompletely to the questionnaire. Among these, 35 questionnaires from 18 MHC were complete and analysed. Five MHCs presented multiple innovations: 11 for the U-MHC in Cabestany (Pyrénées-Orientales), 5 for the U-MHC in Vergèze (Gard), and 2 for the MHC in Mende (Lozère), the MHC in Bessèges (Gard) and the MHC in Pont-St-Esprit (Gard) (Table  1 ). The average per MHC was 1.94 (± 2.4) innovations. The MHC that responded incompletely were contacted to offer support in completing the questionnaire, yet none responded.

The MHCs were recent, mainly multi-site (89%) and mostly located in Eastern Occitanie (83%) (Table  1 ).

Type of innovation

Most innovations (86%) concerned a healthcare program ( n  = 11, 31%), a patient service ( n  = 10, 29%) or a tool ( n  = 9, 26%) (Fig.  2 ). We assessed the scalability levels of the described innovations (Figs.  2 and 3 ).

Scalability ranking by category of innovations

Categories of innovations by scalability ranking

26% of innovations ( n  = 9) had high scalability, 34% ( n  = 12) medium scalability and 40% ( n  = 14) low scalability. Additional file 4 lists the name of the innovation and the MHC that described it, by scalability level group.

Over half of the evaluated innovations (60%) had a high or medium scalability score. Particularly, nine interventions were highly scalable, and mostly pertained to the program category ( n  = 5, 26%) (Fig.  2 ).

Scalability

The results of the number of modified ISSaQ criterion to assess innovation scalability showed the average score for all innovations was 5.86 (± 3.98) (Table  2 ).

On average, 51% of innovations had an assessment for the "theory" dimension, 35% for the "impact" dimension, 38% for the "coverage" dimension and 28% for the "cost" dimension (Table  2 ). Additional file 4 contains a list of all innovations, with all criteria, evaluated or not. The empirical maximum scalability score was 13, and the minimum was 0.

This study aimed at identifying innovations produced in MHCs in the Occitanie region, and evaluating their scalability. To this end, we replicated a previous study that reported 25% of highly scalable innovations among 24 analysed innovations, and we hypothesized lower rates of highly scalable innovations given the more recent nature of our region’s primary care coordinated networks. Our study analyzed 18 PHCs in the Occitanie region, which presented 35 innovations. We identified multiple innovations per MHC, but few MHCs are represented in the results (18 out of 279). We found the average scalability of around 6, arguably low compared with previous studies that reported an average scalability of 11 [ 11 ]. This result was expected, confirming our initial hypothesis, and several factors may explain it. The dynamics of coordinated care in France are recent, particularly when compared with Quebec.It is still difficult for MHC teams to get involved in research projects, as they are not very well structured. Encouragingly, 44% of the MHCs in the study have already received funding through calls for projects.

Between 2012 and 2017, the Ministry of Health and Prevention's objective was to label one U-MHC per department, with the aim of carrying out networked primary care research [ 22 , 31 ]. We note that 4 of the 5 U-MHCs in Occitanie took part in our study, resulting in a high representation. The structuring of a network of U-MHCs is currently underway as part of the F-CRIN project, led by the supervisory ministries in conjunction with the French National Council of Teaching Generalists [ 32 ]. The GIRCIs are responsible for the coordination of regional initiatives and providing support to healthcare establishments, facilities and centers in the field of applied health research and innovation [ 33 ]. They run calls for projects, such as RESPIR (Inter-Regional Primary Care Research) since 2021. Only three MHCs indicated that they had worked with the GIRCI. It should be noted that these were the two oldest U-MHCs in the region, and the MHC where the FECOP manager works. These factors should not obscure the fact that research is at an early stage of maturity for all MHC care teams. Our results reflected this since, despite of predominantly high and medium scalability scores, there was still a substantial number of low scalability innovations, and difficulties in responding to the questionnaire criteria reported by participating teams. There is a risk of a breach of equality between the pilot structures and the others. This shows how important it is to structure a local network, clearly identified by the MHCs' correspondents, to help them design and improve their innovations. Still, these laid foundations will allow the creation of an ecosystem that benefits and reaches all. Altogether, these collective initiatives involving public institutions and university laboratories should provide medium- and long-term opportunities for the creation of health innovations and respective scaling [ 34 ].

Strengths and limitations

The main limitation of this study stems from the study design, as cross-sectional studies imply selection bias. Some MHCs responded several times, leading to a potential desirability bias. We tried to mitigate this by taking care to contact each MHC several times, using several different email addresses senders as well as other communication channels. This was an exploratory study, not intended to be exhaustive. We kept the questionnaire open online for 3 months, to give as many MHC correspondents as possible time to respond. Ranking biases, notably memorization bias, linked to self-administration of the questionnaire, were mitigated by making each scalability criterion explicit via a concrete example that was threaded throughout the questionnaire. We also provided a contact person to help correspondents. In some MHCs, several correspondents answered the questionnaire together, but we did not quantify this, nor do we know the rate at which the questionnaire was reviewed. The ISSaQ was updated in March 2023, implying further refinement. It incorporates Likert scales and new criteria for assessing scalability have been added [ 35 ]. In our scalability analysis, each criterion has the same weight as the others, although some are more relevant to one type of innovation than others.

SPRINT Occitanie was based on a Canadian study in a different and not very comparable healthcare system.

Our success in mobilizing one-fifth of the MHCs in Occitanie is encouraging, but it also shows that most of them are still far removed from the research dimension. Most responses came from MHC with University training supervisors, in conjunction with the Montpellier-Nîmes Faculty of Medicine, which carried out the study.

Perspectives

The exploratory work carried out by the SPRINT Occitanie study is a first step. The creation of a website, considering appropriate scalability questionnaire, could enable us to collect future innovations and build an extractor for primary care in the long term. This site could be the entry and development base for innovations in primary care. The innovation ecosystem of university hospitals and universities should be key partners. This could help creating a virtuous cycle raising questions from practice, conducting experiments, finding results, and producing evidence that can serve the purpose of improving patient care and the health of the population [ 36 ].

Practice-based research supporting the development, implementation, and evaluation of innovations in primary care contributes to the improvement of patient care and the health of the population [ 36 ]. Our study showed there are promising foundations, with numerous and diverse high and medium scalability innovations in the pipeline, and a favorable ecosystem to expand this work.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets generated during and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Local community service centers

Groupement Inter-régional de recherche clinique et d’innovation inter-regional grouping for clinical research and innovation

Innovation Scalability Self-Administered Questionnaire

Multi-professional health care center

Soins PRimaires INnovations et Territoires en Occitanie (Primary Care Innovation and Territories In Occitanie)

University multi-professional health care center

World Health Organization

Peckham S, Exworthy M. Primary care in the UK: Policy, organisation and management. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan; 2003. ISBN: 0333800680

Google Scholar  

World Health Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Operational framework for primary health care: transforming vision into action. World Health Organization; 2020.  https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/337641/9789240017832-eng.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Fixsen D, Blase K, Metz A, Van Dyke M. Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Except Child. 2013;79(3):213–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900206 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Sheridan DJ. Research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9923):1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60556-0 . (PMID: 24679621).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Milat AJ, Newson R, King L, Rissel C, Wolfenden L, Bauman A, Redman S, Giffin M. A guide to scaling up population health interventions. Public Health Res Pract. 2016;26(1): e2611604. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp2611604 . (PMID: 26863167).

World Health Organization. Health innovation for impact. https://www.who.int/teams/digital-health-and-innovation/health-innovation-for-impact# . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Hartmann A, Linn JF. Scaling up: a framework and lessons for development effectiveness from literature and practice. SSRN Electron J. 2008;5:78. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1301625 .

Bloom G, Berdou E, Standing H, Guo Z, Labrique A. ICTs and the challenge of health system transition in low and middle-income countries. Global Health. 2017;13(1):56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0276-y.PMID:28784144;PMCID:PMC5547477 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Maciejewski B, Jaana M, Keely E, Crowe L, Liddy C. Social franchising: scale and spread of innovation in Canada. Health Policy Technol. 2018;7(2):217–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.03.005 .

Syed SB, Dadwal V, Martin G. Reverse innovation in global health systems: towards global innovation flow. Global Health. 2013;30(9):36. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-9-36.PMID:23992598;PMCID:PMC3846449 .

Ben Charif A, Zomahoun HTV, Massougbodji J, Khadhraoui L, Pilon MD, Boulanger E, Gogovor A, Campbell MJ, Poitras MÈ, Légaré F. Assessing the scalability of innovations in primary care: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open. 2020;8(4):E613–8. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20200030 . PMID: 33011682; PMCID: PMC7567510.

Atlas de la démographie médicale au 1 er January 2023 - Conseil National de l'Ordre des Médecins. [medical demography atlas for january 1, 2023 by French national medical association]. https://www.conseil-national.medecin.fr/publications/communiques-presse/publication-latlas-demographie-medicale-2023 . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Sénat français [French Senate]. Rapport d'information n° 589 Rétablir l'équité territoriale en matière d'accès aux soins : agir avant qu'il ne soit trop tard.[ Information report no. 589. Restoring territorial equity in access to healthcare: acting before it's too late]. https://www.senat.fr/notice-rapport/2021/r21-589-notice.html . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Flinterman LE, González-González AI, Seils L, Bes J, Ballester M, Bañeres J, Dan S, Domagala A, Dubas-Jakóbczyk K, Likic R, Kroezen M, Batenburg R. Characteristics of medical deserts and approaches to mitigate their health workforce issues: a scoping review of empirical studies in Western countries. International journal of health policy and management. 2023;12:7454. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7454 .

Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques [French national institute of statistics and economic studies] Préoccupations des Français. [French people's concerns]. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2383052 . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Frédéric Jacquet, Julian Martinez; Crise du système de santé : la question qu’on ne pose pas. [Health system crisis: the question we don't ask] https://aoc.media/opinion/2023/04/05/crise-du-systeme-de-sante-la-question-quon-ne-pose-pas/ Accessed 3 March 2024.

Bégin M, Eggertson L, Macdonald NA. A country of perpetual pilot projects. CMAJ. 2009;180(12):1185, E88-1185, E89. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.090808 .

Ministère de la santé et de la prévention [French ministry of health and prevention.]. 4000 MHC action plan. Juin 2023. https://sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/dp_msp.pdf . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Bozzini L. Local Community Services Centers (CLSCs) in Quebec: Description, Evaluation. Perspectives Journal of Public Health Policy. 1988;9(3):346–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3342640 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Agence régionale de santé Occitanie [Occitanie regional health agency]. Un nouveau zonage médecins élargi en Occitanie. [A new, expanded physician zoning in Occitanie]. https://www.occitanie.paps.sante.fr/un-nouveau-zonage-medecins-elargi-en-occitanie-0 . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Agence régionale de santé Occitanie [Occitanie regional health agency]. Plan régional de santé Occitanie 2023–2028 [2023–2028 regional health project]. https://www.prs-occitanie.ars.sante.fr/media/116049/download?inline . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Gouvernement français [French government]. Arrêté du 18 octobre 2017 fixant les modalités de fonctionnement, d'organisation et d'évaluation des centres de santé pluriprofessionnels universitaires et des maisons de santé pluriprofessionnelles universitaires [Order of October 18, 2017 setting the operating, organizational and assessment procedures for university multiprofessional health centers and university multiprofessional health centers]. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000035871622 . Accessed 3 March 2024.

L’extracteur d’innovations [The innovation extractor]. URL: https://www.chu-montpellier.fr/fileadmin/medias/Pages/Recherche/innovation/Plaquette-Extracteur-Innovation-2020.pdf . Accessed 3 March 2024.

World Health Organization. ExpandNet. Beginning with the end in mind: planning pilot projects and other programmatic research for successful scaling up. 2011. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44708 . ISBN: 9789241502320.

Roger EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press; 2003. ISBN : 0743222091.

Lancaster GA, Thabane L. Guidelines for reporting non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019;6(5):114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0499-1.PMID:31608150;PMCID:PMC6778655 .

Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3) https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 . Erratum.In:doi:10.2196/jmir.2042.PMID:15471760;PMCID:PMC1550605.

World Health Organization. International Classification of Health Interventions https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-health-interventions . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Fédération de l’Exercice Coordonné Pluriprofessionnel en soins primaires [Federation of multi-professional coordinated practice in primary care]. Les Missions de la FECOP [The missions of the FECOP Association]. https://www.fecop.fr/fecop/qui-sommes-nous . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Ben Charif A, Zomahoun HTV, LeBlanc A, Langlois L, Wolfenden L, Yoong SL, Williams CM, Lépine R, Légaré F. Effective strategies for scaling up evidence-based practices in primary care: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0672-y.PMID:29166911;PMCID:PMC5700621 .

Ministère du travail, de la santé et des solidarités [French Ministry of Labour, Health and Solidarity]. Les 10 engagements du pacte territoire santé [The 10 commitments of the health territory pact]. https://sante.gouv.fr/archives/pts/les-10-engagements-du-pacte-territoire-sante/ . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Collège national des généralistes enseignants [French National Council of Teaching Generalists]. La recherche en médecine générale en France [Research in general practice in France]. https://www.cnge.fr/la-recherche/la-recherche-en-medecine-generale/ . Accessed 3 March 2024.

Les groupements inter-régionaux pour la recherche clinique et l’innovation (GIRCI) [The inter-regional clinical research and innovation groups]. https://sante.gouv.fr/systeme-de-sante/innovation-et-recherche/l-innovation-et-la-recherche-clinique/article/groupements-interregionaux-pour-la-recherche-clinique-et-l-innovation-girci . Accessed 3 March 2024.

World Health Organization. Health for All – transforming economies to deliver what matters. Final report of the WHO Council on the Economics of Health for All. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/373122/9789240080973-eng.pdf?sequence=1 . Accessed 3 March 2024. ISBN: ISBN 978–92–4–008097–3.

Roberta DC, Ben Charif A, Plourde K, Gogovor A,Légaré F. ISSaQ 4.0 Tool and user guide. March 2023. https://ssaquebec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Outil_Guide_ISSaQ-4.0__27062023.pdf [accessed 2024–02–04]. Accessed 3 March 2024.

Bonfim D, Belotti L, de Almeida LY, et al. Challenges and strategies for conducting research in primary health care practice: an integrative review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:1380. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10382-1 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Occitanie Regional Health Agency and the Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier-Nîmes for funding the Master 2 Research in Epidemiology and Public Health of AV.  We would like to thank the study participants for their commitment to this pilot study. We would like to thank the University Departments of General Medicine of Montpellier-Nîmes and Toulouse, as well as FECOP, for their support in distributing this questionnaire. We would like to thank the regional college of teaching generalists in Languedoc Roussillon for its help and involvement in the project.

We would also like to thank the innovation extractor of the Montpellier and Nîmes university hospitals, the Clinical Research and Innovation Delegation of the Montpellier University Hospital Centre, and the Innovations and Partnerships Department of the University of Montpellier for their interest in this study.

We thank all the workteam: Pr Michel Amouyal and Pr Béatrice Lognos from the University Department of General Practice of Montpellier-Nîmes, Dr Christine Delonca from the Clinical Research and Innovation Delegation of the Montpellier University Hospital Centre,  Manon Raynal from the FECOP and Mark Oude Engberink from the Avicenne U-PHC.

AV was funded by a research year grant from the Montpellier-Nîmes Faculty of Medicine (University of Montpellier). This grant enables medical residents to carry out a year of research, including a laboratory internship, while being paid as residents.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

IDESP, Univ Montpellier, INSERM, Maison de santé pluriprofessionnelle universitaire Avicenne, 2 rue Ibn Sinaï dit Avicenne 66330 Cabestany, Montpellier, France

Alexis Vandeventer, Grégoire Mercier, Grégory Ninot & François Carbonnel

University Department of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier-Nîmes, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

Alexis Vandeventer & François Carbonnel

CHRU Montpellier - Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France

Grégoire Mercier & Christophe Bonnel

Clinical Research and Epidemiology Unit, CHU Montpellier, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France

Joana Pissarra

Maison de santé pluriprofessionnelle universitaire Avicenne, 2 rue Ibn Sinaï dit Avicenne, Cabestany, 66330, France

François Carbonnel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FC, AV, GM and CB designed the study. AV, FC and GN conducted the study. AV, FC, GM and GN analyzed the data and interpreted the data. AV, FC, GM, GN and CB have drafted the work. JP has substantively revised it. Each author has approved the submitted version and has agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to François Carbonnel .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Informed consent to participate was obtained as, at the start of the questionnaire, it was indicated that, by filling it, the participants were consenting to participate in this study. The Research Ethics Committee of the University of Montpellier has approved this research project (n°2022–013-bis) (Additional file 5).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher ’ s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. questions to identify the mhcs and the innovation described. french and english versions., additional file 2. modified issaq questionnaire. french and english versions., additional file 3. cherries checklist., additional file 4. list of identified innovations produced by mhc, by scalability level group., aadditional file 5. research ethics committee of the university of montpellier approval., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vandeventer, A., Mercier, G., Bonnel, C. et al. Identifying innovations produced by primary health care centers and evaluating their scalability: the SPRINT Occitanie cross-sectional study in France. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 824 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11237-z

Download citation

Received : 08 March 2024

Accepted : 24 June 2024

Published : 17 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11237-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cross-sectional studies
• Diffusion of innovation
• Health promotion / organization & administration
• Health promotion / standards / humans
• Primary Health Care / organization & administration
• Process assessment, Health Care / methods
• Program development
• Surveys and questionnaires
• Multi-professional Healthcare center MHC

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Resilience is the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands.

A number of factors contribute to how well people adapt to adversities, including the ways in which individuals view and engage with the world, the availability and quality of social resources, and specific coping strategies.

Psychological research demonstrates that the resources and skills associated with resilience can be cultivated and practiced.

Adapted from the APA Dictionary of Psychology

Resources from APA

Building your resilience

Resilience for teens: 10 tips to build skills on bouncing back from rough times

Resilience guide for parents and teachers

Nature Meets Nurture

Motivation Myth Busters

The Pain Survival Guide, Rev. Ed.

Building Psychological Resilience in Military Personnel

Magination Press children’s books

Doug’s Dung

The Hugging Tree

New Kid, New Scene

What to Do When Mistakes Make You Quake, Revised

You Are Your Strong

Journal special issues

Somos Latinxs

Psychiatric Rehabilitation for Veterans

Resilience and Trauma

Trauma, Aging, and Well-Being

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Nearly two-thirds of Democrats want Biden to withdraw, new AP-NORC poll finds

Nearly two-thirds of Democrats say President Joe Biden should withdraw from the presidential race and let his party nominate a different candidate, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

President Joe Biden speaks at a 2024 Prosperity Summit, July 16, 2024, in North Las Vegas, Nevada. (AP Photo/Ronda Churchill, File)

• Copy Link copied

FILE - President Joe Biden speaks at a 2024 Prosperity Summit, July 16, 2024, in North Las Vegas, Nev. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats say President Joe Biden should withdraw from the presidential race and let his party select a different candidate, according to a new poll by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. It sharply undercuts his post-debate claim that “average Democrats” are still with him even if some “big names” are turning on him. (AP Photo/Ronda Churchill, File)

Follow AP’s live coverage of the 2024 presidential race.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly two-thirds of Democrats say President Joe Biden should withdraw from the presidential race and let his party nominate a different candidate, according to a new poll, sharply undercutting his post-debate claim that “average Democrats” are still with him even if some “big names” are turning on him.

The new survey by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research , conducted as Biden works to salvage his candidacy two weeks after his debate flop, also found that only about 3 in 10 Democrats are extremely or very confident that he has the mental capability to serve effectively as president, down slightly from 40% in an AP-NORC poll in February .

The findings underscore the challenges the 81-year-old president faces as he tries to silence calls from within his own party to leave the race and tries to convince Democrats that he’s the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump. The poll was conducted mostly before Saturday’s assassination attempt on Trump at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It’s unclear whether the shooting influenced people’s views of Biden, but the small number of poll interviews completed after the shooting provided no early indication that his prospects improved.

Meanwhile, as Vice President Kamala Harris receives additional scrutiny amid the talk about whether Biden should bow out, the poll found that her favorability rating is similar to his — but the share of Americans who have an unfavorable opinion of her is slightly lower.

The poll provides some evidence that Black Democrats are among Biden’s strongest supporters, with roughly half in the survey saying he should continue running, compared to about 3 in 10 white and Hispanic Democrats. Overall, seven in 10 Americans think Biden should drop out, with Democrats only slightly less likely than Republicans and independents to say that he should make way for a new nominee.

“I do have genuine concerns about his ability to hold the office,” said Democrat Andrew Holcomb, 27, of Denver. “I think he’s frankly just too old for the job.”

AP AUDIO: Nearly two-thirds of Democrats want Biden to withdraw, new AP-NORC poll finds

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports a new poll sharply undercuts President Biden’s claim that ‘average Democrats’ are still with him after his debate debacle.

Janie Stapleton, a 50-year-old lifelong Democrat from Walls, Mississippi, held the opposite view, saying Biden is the “best candidate” for president.

People aren’t just sour on Biden on as they size up their choices this election season.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Read the latest: Follow AP’s live coverage of this year’s election .
• We want to hear from you: Lots of people wanted different choices in 2024. Does Harris being atop the Democratic ticket change your thinking ?
• Democracy: American democracy has overcome big stress tests since 2020. More challenges lie ahead in 2024.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.
• Stay informed. Keep your pulse on the news with breaking news email alerts. Sign up here .

About 6 in 10 Americans want Trump to withdraw -- but relatively few Republicans are in that camp.

As for Biden, younger Democrats are especially likely to want to see him bow out – and to say they’re dissatisfied with him. Three-quarters of Democrats under the age of 45 want Biden to drop out, compared to about 6 in 10 of those who are older.

“I just feel like these two individuals are a sad choice,” said Alexi Mitchell, 35, a civil servant who lives in Virginia. She identifies as a Democratic-leaning independent, and while she thinks Biden is probably still mentally up to the job, she worries that the past few weeks’ unraveling of support makes him a weak candidate, no matter what happens next. “If he doesn’t have control over his own party, that’s a fatal flaw,” she said. “He’s put us in a bad position where Trump might win.”

Despite bullish talk from the Biden campaign heading into the debate, the faceoff only left the president in a deeper hole. Democrats are slightly more likely to say they’re dissatisfied with Biden as their nominee now than they were before his halting performance. About half are dissatisfied, an uptick from about 4 in 10 in an AP-NORC poll from June .

By contrast, most Republicans – about 6 in 10 – came out of the debate very or somewhat satisfied with Trump as their candidate. Too few interviews were conducted after the assassination attempt to provide a clear indication of whether Republicans or Americans overall have rallied further around Trump since then.

David Parrott, a Democrat from Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, was willing to give Biden the benefit of the doubt given the president’s age, but he still voiced concerns about a potential second term.

“I don’t know if he can make it another four years or not,” said Parrott, a 58-year-old retiree. “Shouldn’t he be sitting at his beach house taking it easy?”

All of the recent churn has left Americans much more likely to think Trump is capable of winning the 2024 election than is Biden – 42% to 18%. About a quarter thought the the two men equally capable of winning.

Even Democrats are relatively dour about their party’s prospects come November.

Only about a third of Democrats believe Biden is more capable of winning than is Trump. About 3 in 10 think the two are equally capable of winning and 16% say victory is more likely to go to the Republican. By contrast, Republicans are overwhelmingly convinced that Trump is in the best position to win.

Trump also has the edge on Biden when Americans consider who is most capable of handling a crisis, 38% to 28%. And people are about equally divided on which candidate has the better vision for the country, with 35% saying Biden and 34% Trump.

For all of the disenchantment Biden is up against, the president insists it’s not too late to turn things around, saying past presidents have come back from a deficit at this stage in the campaign. In an interview Tuesday with BET News , he said many voters haven’t focused yet, adding, “The point is, we’re just getting down to gametime right now.”

The poll did also offer a bright spot for Biden: 40% of adults say he’s more honest than Trump, while about 2 in 10 think the opposite.

Most Democrats — around 6 in 10 — say that Vice President Harris would make a good president, while 22% think not and 2 in 10 don’t know enough to say. The poll showed that 43% of U.S. adults have a favorable opinion of her, while 48% have an unfavorable opinion. Somewhat more have a negative view of Biden: approximately 6 in 10 Americans.

The survey was conducted before Trump selected freshman Sen. JD Vance of Ohio as his running mate. It showed that for most Americans, Vance is still an unknown. Six in 10 don’t know enough about him to form an opinion, while 17% have a favorable view and 22% view him negatively.

The poll of 1,253 adults was conducted July 11-15, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

• Washington State University
• Go to wsu twitter
• Go to wsu facebook
• Go to wsu linkedin

Movement sensors show promise in identifying horses at injury risk

PULLMAN, Wash. – A small 3-ounce sensor capable of recording 2,400 data points of movement in just one second being tested and refined by researchers at Washington State University could be key in reducing the number of injuries to racehorses.

Led by Dr. Warwick Bayly in WSU’s College of Veterinary Medicine, researchers used the biometric sensors, developed by the company StrideSAFE, to track thoroughbreds as they raced and trained at some of the top racetracks in the country. Using collected data, the team was able to identify miniscule stride changes associated with increased risk of injury, allowing intervention before a catastrophic breakdown. The researchers highlighted three horses flagged in 2023 at Churchill Downs in a case study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association .

“These racehorses get extensive examinations before races, but catastrophic injuries still happen, and not because they stepped in a hole or took a bad step. A large percentage have a pre-existing pathology not readily apparent on clinical examination,” said Dr. Denise Mc Sweeney, an equine surgery resident at WSU who was the first author on the study. “From our sensor data, we know most catastrophic injuries have a distinct stride pattern. Now we can see when there’s something wrong with their strides and step in before a major injury occurs.”

The sensors measure changes in the rate and direction in which a horse moves its legs and body, and generate graphs of its stride pattern. The data is processed by an algorithm and compared against an “ideal stride” derived from high-performing, sound racehorses. Using data from more than 6,500 starts, the algorithm also identifies similarities with strides produced by horses that suffered catastrophic injuries. Based on how far a stride deviates from ideal and how similar it is to a stride associated with an injury, the horse is assigned an injury risk factor ranging from 1 to 5. Horses with a 5 are 950 times more likely to suffer a catastrophic injury than those with a 1, which is close to the ideal stride. Of the horses tracked, 70% have fallen into category 1, with 3.5% in category 5.

“We know there are about 1.25 catastrophic injuries per 1,000 starts, but identifying those horses before such an event occurs is like finding a needle in a haystack, as they are often subjectively sound during a pre-race examination, and many don’t show any decrease in performance,” Mc Sweeney said. “But if you can narrow it down, like the 3.5% we had out of that group, it is a lot easier to intervene and hopefully prevent injuries.”

To test and refine the algorithm, a sensor was placed on horses starting at Churchill Downs and Ellis Park in Kentucky from April 29 to July 2, 2023. Mc Sweeney was responsible for collecting clinical data on the high-risk horses.

In their case study, the team focused on a pair of 3-year-old colts and a 4-year-old stallion flagged as category 5. In each instance, the sensors alerted veterinarians and trainers to potential injury risks, prompting diagnostic imaging that confirmed an increased risk of catastrophic musculoskeletal injuries. Each horse avoided catastrophic injury after being given time to recover before returning to the track.

“These are prime examples of how this technology can prevent horses from breaking,” Mc Sweeney said. “With this information, the trainers and their vets were able to put the brakes on, and now these horses are going on to have longer careers and, hopefully, avoid a catastrophic injury.”

Mc Sweeney is hopeful the sensors will become standard for all thoroughbred racing and training.

 “I believe this is going to make a huge impact,” she said. “The sensors can save the lives of horses and jockeys – they already have.”

WSU has been working with StrideSAFE since 2020 when the sensors were tested at the campus’ Hitchcock Research Racetrack. WSU is the only university in the United States with a dedicated research racetrack. From there the sensors were deployed at Emerald Downs Racetrack in Seattle and have since been used at 10 major tracks across the U.S., including Saratoga, Belmont, Keeneland and Churchill Downs.

The project was supported by a grant from the Kentucky Equine Drug Research Council. In addition to the WSU researchers, co-authors on the study include researchers Dr. Mikael Holmstrom, Kevin Donohue and David Lambert, who are employees and shareholders of StrideSafe. The WSU researchers have no vested interest in the StrideSafe company.

Media Contacts

• Warwick Bayly , WSU College of Veterinary Medicine , 509-432-9832 , [email protected]

WSU ecosystem sciences students to study environmental sustainability at Danish university

Recent news.

Healthy aging for Indigenous Elders requires culturally informed services

Timeline explores the 50‑year journey of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art WSU

Meteor shower will provide stargazers a good show Aug. 11–12

Biochemistry senior receives $20K NIH scholarship

A conversation with Anne McCoy

Dr. Universe: Why do people like cute animals more than ugly ones?