• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Research Method

Home » Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Recommendations

Research Recommendations

Definition:

Research recommendations refer to suggestions or advice given to someone who is looking to conduct research on a specific topic or area. These recommendations may include suggestions for research methods, data collection techniques, sources of information, and other factors that can help to ensure that the research is conducted in a rigorous and effective manner. Research recommendations may be provided by experts in the field, such as professors, researchers, or consultants, and are intended to help guide the researcher towards the most appropriate and effective approach to their research project.

Parts of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations can vary depending on the specific project or area of research, but typically they will include some or all of the following parts:

  • Research question or objective : This is the overarching goal or purpose of the research project.
  • Research methods : This includes the specific techniques and strategies that will be used to collect and analyze data. The methods will depend on the research question and the type of data being collected.
  • Data collection: This refers to the process of gathering information or data that will be used to answer the research question. This can involve a range of different methods, including surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments.
  • Data analysis : This involves the process of examining and interpreting the data that has been collected. This can involve statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a combination of both.
  • Results and conclusions: This section summarizes the findings of the research and presents any conclusions or recommendations based on those findings.
  • Limitations and future research: This section discusses any limitations of the study and suggests areas for future research that could build on the findings of the current project.

How to Write Research Recommendations

Writing research recommendations involves providing specific suggestions or advice to a researcher on how to conduct their study. Here are some steps to consider when writing research recommendations:

  • Understand the research question: Before writing research recommendations, it is important to have a clear understanding of the research question and the objectives of the study. This will help to ensure that the recommendations are relevant and appropriate.
  • Consider the research methods: Consider the most appropriate research methods that could be used to collect and analyze data that will address the research question. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods and how they might apply to the specific research question.
  • Provide specific recommendations: Provide specific and actionable recommendations that the researcher can implement in their study. This can include recommendations related to sample size, data collection techniques, research instruments, data analysis methods, or other relevant factors.
  • Justify recommendations : Justify why each recommendation is being made and how it will help to address the research question or objective. It is important to provide a clear rationale for each recommendation to help the researcher understand why it is important.
  • Consider limitations and ethical considerations : Consider any limitations or potential ethical considerations that may arise in conducting the research. Provide recommendations for addressing these issues or mitigating their impact.
  • Summarize recommendations: Provide a summary of the recommendations at the end of the report or document, highlighting the most important points and emphasizing how the recommendations will contribute to the overall success of the research project.

Example of Research Recommendations

Example of Research Recommendations sample for students:

  • Further investigate the effects of X on Y by conducting a larger-scale randomized controlled trial with a diverse population.
  • Explore the relationship between A and B by conducting qualitative interviews with individuals who have experience with both.
  • Investigate the long-term effects of intervention C by conducting a follow-up study with participants one year after completion.
  • Examine the effectiveness of intervention D in a real-world setting by conducting a field study in a naturalistic environment.
  • Compare and contrast the results of this study with those of previous research on the same topic to identify any discrepancies or inconsistencies in the findings.
  • Expand upon the limitations of this study by addressing potential confounding variables and conducting further analyses to control for them.
  • Investigate the relationship between E and F by conducting a meta-analysis of existing literature on the topic.
  • Explore the potential moderating effects of variable G on the relationship between H and I by conducting subgroup analyses.
  • Identify potential areas for future research based on the gaps in current literature and the findings of this study.
  • Conduct a replication study to validate the results of this study and further establish the generalizability of the findings.

Applications of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations are important as they provide guidance on how to improve or solve a problem. The applications of research recommendations are numerous and can be used in various fields. Some of the applications of research recommendations include:

  • Policy-making: Research recommendations can be used to develop policies that address specific issues. For example, recommendations from research on climate change can be used to develop policies that reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability.
  • Program development: Research recommendations can guide the development of programs that address specific issues. For example, recommendations from research on education can be used to develop programs that improve student achievement.
  • Product development : Research recommendations can guide the development of products that meet specific needs. For example, recommendations from research on consumer behavior can be used to develop products that appeal to consumers.
  • Marketing strategies: Research recommendations can be used to develop effective marketing strategies. For example, recommendations from research on target audiences can be used to develop marketing strategies that effectively reach specific demographic groups.
  • Medical practice : Research recommendations can guide medical practitioners in providing the best possible care to patients. For example, recommendations from research on treatments for specific conditions can be used to improve patient outcomes.
  • Scientific research: Research recommendations can guide future research in a specific field. For example, recommendations from research on a specific disease can be used to guide future research on treatments and cures for that disease.

Purpose of Research Recommendations

The purpose of research recommendations is to provide guidance on how to improve or solve a problem based on the findings of research. Research recommendations are typically made at the end of a research study and are based on the conclusions drawn from the research data. The purpose of research recommendations is to provide actionable advice to individuals or organizations that can help them make informed decisions, develop effective strategies, or implement changes that address the issues identified in the research.

The main purpose of research recommendations is to facilitate the transfer of knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders who can benefit from the research findings. Recommendations can help bridge the gap between research and practice by providing specific actions that can be taken based on the research results. By providing clear and actionable recommendations, researchers can help ensure that their findings are put into practice, leading to improvements in various fields, such as healthcare, education, business, and public policy.

Characteristics of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations are a key component of research studies and are intended to provide practical guidance on how to apply research findings to real-world problems. The following are some of the key characteristics of research recommendations:

  • Actionable : Research recommendations should be specific and actionable, providing clear guidance on what actions should be taken to address the problem identified in the research.
  • Evidence-based: Research recommendations should be based on the findings of the research study, supported by the data collected and analyzed.
  • Contextual: Research recommendations should be tailored to the specific context in which they will be implemented, taking into account the unique circumstances and constraints of the situation.
  • Feasible : Research recommendations should be realistic and feasible, taking into account the available resources, time constraints, and other factors that may impact their implementation.
  • Prioritized: Research recommendations should be prioritized based on their potential impact and feasibility, with the most important recommendations given the highest priority.
  • Communicated effectively: Research recommendations should be communicated clearly and effectively, using language that is understandable to the target audience.
  • Evaluated : Research recommendations should be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in addressing the problem identified in the research, and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Advantages of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations have several advantages, including:

  • Providing practical guidance: Research recommendations provide practical guidance on how to apply research findings to real-world problems, helping to bridge the gap between research and practice.
  • Improving decision-making: Research recommendations help decision-makers make informed decisions based on the findings of research, leading to better outcomes and improved performance.
  • Enhancing accountability : Research recommendations can help enhance accountability by providing clear guidance on what actions should be taken, and by providing a basis for evaluating progress and outcomes.
  • Informing policy development : Research recommendations can inform the development of policies that are evidence-based and tailored to the specific needs of a given situation.
  • Enhancing knowledge transfer: Research recommendations help facilitate the transfer of knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders who can benefit from the research findings.
  • Encouraging further research : Research recommendations can help identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further research, encouraging continued exploration and discovery.
  • Promoting innovation: Research recommendations can help identify innovative solutions to complex problems, leading to new ideas and approaches.

Limitations of Research Recommendations

While research recommendations have several advantages, there are also some limitations to consider. These limitations include:

  • Context-specific: Research recommendations may be context-specific and may not be applicable in all situations. Recommendations developed in one context may not be suitable for another context, requiring adaptation or modification.
  • I mplementation challenges: Implementation of research recommendations may face challenges, such as lack of resources, resistance to change, or lack of buy-in from stakeholders.
  • Limited scope: Research recommendations may be limited in scope, focusing only on a specific issue or aspect of a problem, while other important factors may be overlooked.
  • Uncertainty : Research recommendations may be uncertain, particularly when the research findings are inconclusive or when the recommendations are based on limited data.
  • Bias : Research recommendations may be influenced by researcher bias or conflicts of interest, leading to recommendations that are not in the best interests of stakeholders.
  • Timing : Research recommendations may be time-sensitive, requiring timely action to be effective. Delayed action may result in missed opportunities or reduced effectiveness.
  • Lack of evaluation: Research recommendations may not be evaluated to determine their effectiveness or impact, making it difficult to assess whether they are successful or not.

About the author

' src=

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Research Report

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Delimitations

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Scope of the Research

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Enago Academy

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

' src=

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of exploration. In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and an ever-expanding knowledge base, refining the process of generating research recommendations becomes imperative.

But, what is a research recommendation?

Research recommendations are suggestions or advice provided to researchers to guide their study on a specific topic . They are typically given by experts in the field. Research recommendations are more action-oriented and provide specific guidance for decision-makers, unlike implications that are broader and focus on the broader significance and consequences of the research findings. However, both are crucial components of a research study.

Difference Between Research Recommendations and Implication

Although research recommendations and implications are distinct components of a research study, they are closely related. The differences between them are as follows:

Difference between research recommendation and implication

Types of Research Recommendations

Recommendations in research can take various forms, which are as follows:

These recommendations aim to assist researchers in navigating the vast landscape of academic knowledge.

Let us dive deeper to know about its key components and the steps to write an impactful research recommendation.

Key Components of Research Recommendations

The key components of research recommendations include defining the research question or objective, specifying research methods, outlining data collection and analysis processes, presenting results and conclusions, addressing limitations, and suggesting areas for future research. Here are some characteristics of research recommendations:

Characteristics of research recommendation

Research recommendations offer various advantages and play a crucial role in ensuring that research findings contribute to positive outcomes in various fields. However, they also have few limitations which highlights the significance of a well-crafted research recommendation in offering the promised advantages.

Advantages and limitations of a research recommendation

The importance of research recommendations ranges in various fields, influencing policy-making, program development, product development, marketing strategies, medical practice, and scientific research. Their purpose is to transfer knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or stakeholders, facilitating informed decision-making and improving outcomes in different domains.

How to Write Research Recommendations?

Research recommendations can be generated through various means, including algorithmic approaches, expert opinions, or collaborative filtering techniques. Here is a step-wise guide to build your understanding on the development of research recommendations.

1. Understand the Research Question:

Understand the research question and objectives before writing recommendations. Also, ensure that your recommendations are relevant and directly address the goals of the study.

2. Review Existing Literature:

Familiarize yourself with relevant existing literature to help you identify gaps , and offer informed recommendations that contribute to the existing body of research.

3. Consider Research Methods:

Evaluate the appropriateness of different research methods in addressing the research question. Also, consider the nature of the data, the study design, and the specific objectives.

4. Identify Data Collection Techniques:

Gather dataset from diverse authentic sources. Include information such as keywords, abstracts, authors, publication dates, and citation metrics to provide a rich foundation for analysis.

5. Propose Data Analysis Methods:

Suggest appropriate data analysis methods based on the type of data collected. Consider whether statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a mixed-methods approach is most suitable.

6. Consider Limitations and Ethical Considerations:

Acknowledge any limitations and potential ethical considerations of the study. Furthermore, address these limitations or mitigate ethical concerns to ensure responsible research.

7. Justify Recommendations:

Explain how your recommendation contributes to addressing the research question or objective. Provide a strong rationale to help researchers understand the importance of following your suggestions.

8. Summarize Recommendations:

Provide a concise summary at the end of the report to emphasize how following these recommendations will contribute to the overall success of the research project.

By following these steps, you can create research recommendations that are actionable and contribute meaningfully to the success of the research project.

Download now to unlock some tips to improve your journey of writing research recommendations.

Example of a Research Recommendation

Here is an example of a research recommendation based on a hypothetical research to improve your understanding.

Research Recommendation: Enhancing Student Learning through Integrated Learning Platforms

Background:

The research study investigated the impact of an integrated learning platform on student learning outcomes in high school mathematics classes. The findings revealed a statistically significant improvement in student performance and engagement when compared to traditional teaching methods.

Recommendation:

In light of the research findings, it is recommended that educational institutions consider adopting and integrating the identified learning platform into their mathematics curriculum. The following specific recommendations are provided:

  • Implementation of the Integrated Learning Platform:

Schools are encouraged to adopt the integrated learning platform in mathematics classrooms, ensuring proper training for teachers on its effective utilization.

  • Professional Development for Educators:

Develop and implement professional programs to train educators in the effective use of the integrated learning platform to address any challenges teachers may face during the transition.

  • Monitoring and Evaluation:

Establish a monitoring and evaluation system to track the impact of the integrated learning platform on student performance over time.

  • Resource Allocation:

Allocate sufficient resources, both financial and technical, to support the widespread implementation of the integrated learning platform.

By implementing these recommendations, educational institutions can harness the potential of the integrated learning platform and enhance student learning experiences and academic achievements in mathematics.

This example covers the components of a research recommendation, providing specific actions based on the research findings, identifying the target audience, and outlining practical steps for implementation.

Using AI in Research Recommendation Writing

Enhancing research recommendations is an ongoing endeavor that requires the integration of cutting-edge technologies, collaborative efforts, and ethical considerations. By embracing data-driven approaches and leveraging advanced technologies, the research community can create more effective and personalized recommendation systems. However, it is accompanied by several limitations. Therefore, it is essential to approach the use of AI in research with a critical mindset, and complement its capabilities with human expertise and judgment.

Here are some limitations of integrating AI in writing research recommendation and some ways on how to counter them.

1. Data Bias

AI systems rely heavily on data for training. If the training data is biased or incomplete, the AI model may produce biased results or recommendations.

How to tackle: Audit regularly the model’s performance to identify any discrepancies and adjust the training data and algorithms accordingly.

2. Lack of Understanding of Context:

AI models may struggle to understand the nuanced context of a particular research problem. They may misinterpret information, leading to inaccurate recommendations.

How to tackle: Use AI to characterize research articles and topics. Employ them to extract features like keywords, authorship patterns and content-based details.

3. Ethical Considerations:

AI models might stereotype certain concepts or generate recommendations that could have negative consequences for certain individuals or groups.

How to tackle: Incorporate user feedback mechanisms to reduce redundancies. Establish an ethics review process for AI models in research recommendation writing.

4. Lack of Creativity and Intuition:

AI may struggle with tasks that require a deep understanding of the underlying principles or the ability to think outside the box.

How to tackle: Hybrid approaches can be employed by integrating AI in data analysis and identifying patterns for accelerating the data interpretation process.

5. Interpretability:

Many AI models, especially complex deep learning models, lack transparency on how the model arrived at a particular recommendation.

How to tackle: Implement models like decision trees or linear models. Provide clear explanation of the model architecture, training process, and decision-making criteria.

6. Dynamic Nature of Research:

Research fields are dynamic, and new information is constantly emerging. AI models may struggle to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape and may not be able to adapt to new developments.

How to tackle: Establish a feedback loop for continuous improvement. Regularly update the recommendation system based on user feedback and emerging research trends.

The integration of AI in research recommendation writing holds great promise for advancing knowledge and streamlining the research process. However, navigating these concerns is pivotal in ensuring the responsible deployment of these technologies. Researchers need to understand the use of responsible use of AI in research and must be aware of the ethical considerations.

Exploring research recommendations plays a critical role in shaping the trajectory of scientific inquiry. It serves as a compass, guiding researchers toward more robust methodologies, collaborative endeavors, and innovative approaches. Embracing these suggestions not only enhances the quality of individual studies but also contributes to the collective advancement of human understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

The purpose of recommendations in research is to provide practical and actionable suggestions based on the study's findings, guiding future actions, policies, or interventions in a specific field or context. Recommendations bridges the gap between research outcomes and their real-world application.

To make a research recommendation, analyze your findings, identify key insights, and propose specific, evidence-based actions. Include the relevance of the recommendations to the study's objectives and provide practical steps for implementation.

Begin a recommendation by succinctly summarizing the key findings of the research. Clearly state the purpose of the recommendation and its intended impact. Use a direct and actionable language to convey the suggested course of action.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

what is the recommendation in research paper

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

How to Cite a Website in MLA, APA & Chicago Styles

  • Reporting Research

Digital Citations: A comprehensive guide to citing of websites in APA, MLA, and CMOS style

In today’s digital age, the internet serves as an invaluable resource for researchers across all…

ResearchSummary

  • Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

Journals Combat Image Manipulation with AI

  • Industry News

Science under Surveillance: Journals adopt advanced AI to uncover image manipulation

Journals are increasingly turning to cutting-edge AI tools to uncover deceitful images published in manuscripts.…

Content Analysis vs Thematic Analysis: What's the difference?

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Diverse Opinion in STM

  • Expert Interviews

Diverse Voices, Inclusive Publishing – Author perspectives on equitable research and entrepreneurship ecosystem

In our steadfast dedication to championing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), we engaged in an…

Digital Citations: A comprehensive guide to citing of websites in APA, MLA, and CMOS…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Beyond the Podium: Understanding the differences in conference and academic…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right…

what is the recommendation in research paper

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:

what is the recommendation in research paper

When should AI tools be used in university labs?

Implications or Recommendations in Research: What's the Difference?

  • Peer Review

High-quality research articles that get many citations contain both implications and recommendations. Implications are the impact your research makes, whereas recommendations are specific actions that can then be taken based on your findings, such as for more research or for policymaking.

Updated on August 23, 2022

yellow sign reading opportunity ahead

That seems clear enough, but the two are commonly confused.

This confusion is especially true if you come from a so-called high-context culture in which information is often implied based on the situation, as in many Asian cultures. High-context cultures are different from low-context cultures where information is more direct and explicit (as in North America and many European cultures).

Let's set these two straight in a low-context way; i.e., we'll be specific and direct! This is the best way to be in English academic writing because you're writing for the world.

Implications and recommendations in a research article

The standard format of STEM research articles is what's called IMRaD:

  • Introduction
  • Discussion/conclusions

Some journals call for a separate conclusions section, while others have the conclusions as the last part of the discussion. You'll write these four (or five) sections in the same sequence, though, no matter the journal.

The discussion section is typically where you restate your results and how well they confirmed your hypotheses. Give readers the answer to the questions for which they're looking to you for an answer.

At this point, many researchers assume their paper is finished. After all, aren't the results the most important part? As you might have guessed, no, you're not quite done yet.

The discussion/conclusions section is where to say what happened and what should now happen

The discussion/conclusions section of every good scientific article should contain the implications and recommendations.

The implications, first of all, are the impact your results have on your specific field. A high-impact, highly cited article will also broaden the scope here and provide implications to other fields. This is what makes research cross-disciplinary.

Recommendations, however, are suggestions to improve your field based on your results.

These two aspects help the reader understand your broader content: How and why your work is important to the world. They also tell the reader what can be changed in the future based on your results.

These aspects are what editors are looking for when selecting papers for peer review.

how to write the conclusion section of a research manuscript

Implications and recommendations are, thus, written at the end of the discussion section, and before the concluding paragraph. They help to “wrap up” your paper. Once your reader understands what you found, the next logical step is what those results mean and what should come next.

Then they can take the baton, in the form of your work, and run with it. That gets you cited and extends your impact!

The order of implications and recommendations also matters. Both are written after you've summarized your main findings in the discussion section. Then, those results are interpreted based on ongoing work in the field. After this, the implications are stated, followed by the recommendations.

Writing an academic research paper is a bit like running a race. Finish strong, with your most important conclusion (recommendation) at the end. Leave readers with an understanding of your work's importance. Avoid generic, obvious phrases like "more research is needed to fully address this issue." Be specific.

The main differences between implications and recommendations (table)

 the differences between implications and recommendations

Now let's dig a bit deeper into actually how to write these parts.

What are implications?

Research implications tell us how and why your results are important for the field at large. They help answer the question of “what does it mean?” Implications tell us how your work contributes to your field and what it adds to it. They're used when you want to tell your peers why your research is important for ongoing theory, practice, policymaking, and for future research.

Crucially, your implications must be evidence-based. This means they must be derived from the results in the paper.

Implications are written after you've summarized your main findings in the discussion section. They come before the recommendations and before the concluding paragraph. There is no specific section dedicated to implications. They must be integrated into your discussion so that the reader understands why the results are meaningful and what they add to the field.

A good strategy is to separate your implications into types. Implications can be social, political, technological, related to policies, or others, depending on your topic. The most frequently used types are theoretical and practical. Theoretical implications relate to how your findings connect to other theories or ideas in your field, while practical implications are related to what we can do with the results.

Key features of implications

  • State the impact your research makes
  • Helps us understand why your results are important
  • Must be evidence-based
  • Written in the discussion, before recommendations
  • Can be theoretical, practical, or other (social, political, etc.)

Examples of implications

Let's take a look at some examples of research results below with their implications.

The result : one study found that learning items over time improves memory more than cramming material in a bunch of information at once .

The implications : This result suggests memory is better when studying is spread out over time, which could be due to memory consolidation processes.

The result : an intervention study found that mindfulness helps improve mental health if you have anxiety.

The implications : This result has implications for the role of executive functions on anxiety.

The result : a study found that musical learning helps language learning in children .

The implications : these findings suggest that language and music may work together to aid development.

What are recommendations?

As noted above, explaining how your results contribute to the real world is an important part of a successful article.

Likewise, stating how your findings can be used to improve something in future research is equally important. This brings us to the recommendations.

Research recommendations are suggestions and solutions you give for certain situations based on your results. Once the reader understands what your results mean with the implications, the next question they need to know is "what's next?"

Recommendations are calls to action on ways certain things in the field can be improved in the future based on your results. Recommendations are used when you want to convey that something different should be done based on what your analyses revealed.

Similar to implications, recommendations are also evidence-based. This means that your recommendations to the field must be drawn directly from your results.

The goal of the recommendations is to make clear, specific, and realistic suggestions to future researchers before they conduct a similar experiment. No matter what area your research is in, there will always be further research to do. Try to think about what would be helpful for other researchers to know before starting their work.

Recommendations are also written in the discussion section. They come after the implications and before the concluding paragraphs. Similar to the implications, there is usually no specific section dedicated to the recommendations. However, depending on how many solutions you want to suggest to the field, they may be written as a subsection.

Key features of recommendations

  • Statements about what can be done differently in the field based on your findings
  • Must be realistic and specific
  • Written in the discussion, after implications and before conclusions
  • Related to both your field and, preferably, a wider context to the research

Examples of recommendations

Here are some research results and their recommendations.

A meta-analysis found that actively recalling material from your memory is better than simply re-reading it .

  • The recommendation: Based on these findings, teachers and other educators should encourage students to practice active recall strategies.

A medical intervention found that daily exercise helps prevent cardiovascular disease .

  • The recommendation: Based on these results, physicians are recommended to encourage patients to exercise and walk regularly. Also recommended is to encourage more walking through public health offices in communities.

A study found that many research articles do not contain the sample sizes needed to statistically confirm their findings .

The recommendation: To improve the current state of the field, researchers should consider doing power analysis based on their experiment's design.

What else is important about implications and recommendations?

When writing recommendations and implications, be careful not to overstate the impact of your results. It can be tempting for researchers to inflate the importance of their findings and make grandiose statements about what their work means.

Remember that implications and recommendations must be coming directly from your results. Therefore, they must be straightforward, realistic, and plausible.

Another good thing to remember is to make sure the implications and recommendations are stated clearly and separately. Do not attach them to the endings of other paragraphs just to add them in. Use similar example phrases as those listed in the table when starting your sentences to clearly indicate when it's an implication and when it's a recommendation.

When your peers, or brand-new readers, read your paper, they shouldn't have to hunt through your discussion to find the implications and recommendations. They should be clear, visible, and understandable on their own.

That'll get you cited more, and you'll make a greater contribution to your area of science while extending the life and impact of your work.

The AJE Team

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

Writing the parts of scientific reports

22 Writing the conclusion & recommendations

There are probably some overlaps between the Conclusion and the Discussion section. Nevertheless, this section gives you the opportunity to highlight the most important points in your report, and is sometimes the only section read. Think about what your research/ study has achieved, and the most important findings and ideas you want the reader to know. As all studies have limitations also think about what you were not able to cover (this shows that you are able to evaluate your own work objectively).

Possible structure of this section:

what is the recommendation in research paper

Use present perfect to sum up/ evaluate:

This study has explored/ has attempted …

Use past tense to state what your aim was and to refer to actions you carried out:

  • This study was intended to analyse …
  • The aim of this study was to …

Use present tense to evaluate your study and to state the generalizations and implications that you draw from your findings.

  • The results add to the knowledge of …
  • These findings s uggest that …

You can either use present tense or past tense to summarize your results.

  • The findings reveal …
  • It was found that …

Achievements of this study (positive)

  • This study provides evidence that …
  • This work has contributed to a number of key issues in the field such as …

Limitations of the study (negative)

  • Several limitations should be noted. First …

Combine positive and negative remarks to give a balanced assessment:

  • Although this research is somewhat limited in scope, its findings can provide a basis for future studies.
  • Despite the limitations, findings from the present study can help us understand …

Use more cautious language (modal verbs may, can, could)

  • There are a number of possible extensions of this research …
  • The findings suggest the possibility for future research on …
  • These results may be important for future studies on …
  • Examining a wider context could/ would lead …

Or indicate that future research is needed

  • There is still a need for future research to determine …
  • Further studies should be undertaken to discover…
  • It would be worthwhile to investigate …

what is the recommendation in research paper

Academic Writing in a Swiss University Context Copyright © 2018 by Irene Dietrichs. All Rights Reserved.

  • - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

  • Access provided by Google Indexer
  • My email alerts
  • BMA member login
  • Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Home

Search form

  • Advanced search
  • Search responses
  • Search blogs
  • How to formulate...

How to formulate research recommendations

  • Related content
  • Peer review
  • Polly Brown ( pbrown{at}bmjgroup.com ) , publishing manager 1 ,
  • Klara Brunnhuber , clinical editor 1 ,
  • Kalipso Chalkidou , associate director, research and development 2 ,
  • Iain Chalmers , director 3 ,
  • Mike Clarke , director 4 ,
  • Mark Fenton , editor 3 ,
  • Carol Forbes , reviews manager 5 ,
  • Julie Glanville , associate director/information service manager 5 ,
  • Nicholas J Hicks , consultant in public health medicine 6 ,
  • Janet Moody , identification and prioritisation manager 6 ,
  • Sara Twaddle , director 7 ,
  • Hazim Timimi , systems developer 8 ,
  • Pamela Young , senior programme manager 6
  • 1 BMJ Publishing Group, London WC1H 9JR,
  • 2 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London WC1V 6NA,
  • 3 Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments, James Lind Alliance Secretariat, James Lind Initiative, Oxford OX2 7LG,
  • 4 UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford OX2 7LG,
  • 5 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD,
  • 6 National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX,
  • 7 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Edinburgh EH2 1EN,
  • 8 Update Software, Oxford OX2 7LG
  • Correspondence to: PBrown
  • Accepted 22 September 2006

“More research is needed” is a conclusion that fits most systematic reviews. But authors need to be more specific about what exactly is required

Long awaited reports of new research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines are too often a disappointing anticlimax for those wishing to use them to direct future research. After many months or years of effort and intellectual energy put into these projects, authors miss the opportunity to identify unanswered questions and outstanding gaps in the evidence. Most reports contain only a less than helpful, general research recommendation. This means that the potential value of these recommendations is lost.

Current recommendations

In 2005, representatives of organisations commissioning and summarising research, including the BMJ Publishing Group, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the UK Cochrane Centre, met as members of the development group for the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (see bmj.com for details on all participating organisations). Our aim was to discuss the state of research recommendations within our organisations and to develop guidelines for improving the presentation of proposals for further research. All organisations had found weaknesses in the way researchers and authors of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines stated the need for further research. As part of the project, a member of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination under-took a rapid literature search to identify information on research recommendation models, which found some individual methods but no group initiatives to attempt to standardise recommendations.

Suggested format for research recommendations on the effects of treatments

Core elements.

E Evidence (What is the current state of the evidence?)

P Population (What is the population of interest?)

I Intervention (What are the interventions of interest?)

C Comparison (What are the comparisons of interest?)

O Outcome (What are the outcomes of interest?)

T Time stamp (Date of recommendation)

Optional elements

d Disease burden or relevance

t Time aspect of core elements of EPICOT

s Appropriate study type according to local need

In January 2006, the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment presented the findings of an initial comparative analysis of how different organisations currently structure their research recommendations. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment request authors to present recommendations in a four component format for formulating well built clinical questions around treatments: population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO). 1 In addition, the research recommendation is dated and authors are asked to provide the current state of the evidence to support the proposal.

Clinical Evidence , although not directly standardising its sections for research recommendations, presents gaps in the evidence using a slightly extended version of the PICO format: evidence, population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and time (EPICOT). Clinical Evidence has used this inherent structure to feed research recommendations on interventions categorised as “unknown effectiveness” back to the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment and for inclusion in the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments ( http://www.duets.nhs.uk/ ).

We decided to propose the EPICOT format as the basis for its statement on formulating research recommendations and tested this proposal through discussion and example. We agreed that this set of components provided enough context for formulating research recommendations without limiting researchers. In order for the proposed framework to be flexible and more widely applicable, the group discussed using several optional components when they seemed relevant or were proposed by one or more of the group members. The final outcome of discussions resulted in the proposed EPICOT+ format (box).

A recent BMJ article highlighted how lack of research hinders the applicability of existing guidelines to patients in primary care who have had a stroke or transient ischaemic attack. 2 Most research in the area had been conducted in younger patients with a recent episode and in a hospital setting. The authors concluded that “further evidence should be collected on the efficacy and adverse effects of intensive blood pressure lowering in representative populations before we implement this guidance [from national and international guidelines] in primary care.” Table 1 outlines how their recommendations could be formulated using the EPICOT+ format. The decision on whether additional research is indeed clinically and ethically warranted will still lie with the organisation considering commissioning the research.

Research recommendation based on gap in the evidence identified by a cross sectional study of clinical guidelines for management of patients who have had a stroke

  • View inline

Table 2 shows the use of EPICOT+ for an unanswered question on the effectiveness of compliance therapy in people with schizophrenia, identified by the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments.

Research recommendation based on a gap in the evidence on treatment of schizophrenia identified by the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments

Discussions around optional elements

Although the group agreed that the PICO elements should be core requirements for a research recommendation, intense discussion centred on the inclusion of factors defining a more detailed context, such as current state of evidence (E), appropriate study type (s), disease burden and relevance (d), and timeliness (t).

Initially, group members interpreted E differently. Some viewed it as the supporting evidence for a research recommendation and others as the suggested study type for a research recommendation. After discussion, we agreed that E should be used to refer to the amount and quality of research supporting the recommendation. However, the issue remained contentious as some of us thought that if a systematic review was available, its reference would sufficiently identify the strength of the existing evidence. Others thought that adding evidence to the set of core elements was important as it provided a summary of the supporting evidence, particularly as the recommendation was likely to be abstracted and used separately from the review or research that led to its formulation. In contrast, the suggested study type (s) was left as an optional element.

A research recommendation will rarely have an absolute value in itself. Its relative priority will be influenced by the burden of ill health (d), which is itself dependent on factors such as local prevalence, disease severity, relevant risk factors, and the priorities of the organisation considering commissioning the research.

Similarly, the issue of time (t) could be seen to be relevant to each of the core elements in varying ways—for example, duration of treatment, length of follow-up. The group therefore agreed that time had a subsidiary role within each core item; however, T as the date of the recommendation served to define its shelf life and therefore retained individual importance.

Applicability and usability

The proposed statement on research recommendations applies to uncertainties of the effects of any form of health intervention or treatment and is intended for research in humans rather than basic scientific research. Further investigation is required to assess the applicability of the format for questions around diagnosis, signs and symptoms, prognosis, investigations, and patient preference.

When the proposed format is applied to a specific research recommendation, the emphasis placed on the relevant part(s) of the EPICOT+ format may vary by author, audience, and intended purpose. For example, a recommendation for research into treatments for transient ischaemic attack may or may not define valid outcome measures to assess quality of life or gather data on adverse effects. Among many other factors, its implementation will also depend on the strength of current findings—that is, strong evidence may support a tightly focused recommendation whereas a lack of evidence would result in a more general recommendation.

The controversy within the group, especially around the optional components, reflects the different perspectives of the participating organisations—whether they were involved in commissioning, undertaking, or summarising research. Further issues will arise during the implementation of the proposed format, and we welcome feedback and discussion.

Summary points

No common guidelines exist for the formulation of recommendations for research on the effects of treatments

Major organisations involved in commissioning or summarising research compared their approaches and agreed on core questions

The essential items can be summarised as EPICOT+ (evidence, population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time)

Further details, such as disease burden and appropriate study type, should be considered as required

We thank Patricia Atkinson and Jeremy Wyatt.

Contributors and sources All authors contributed to manuscript preparation and approved the final draft. NJH is the guarantor.

Competing interests None declared.

  • Richardson WS ,
  • Wilson MC ,
  • Nishikawa J ,
  • Hayward RSA
  • McManus RJ ,
  • Leonardi-Bee J ,
  • PROGRESS Collaborative Group
  • Warburton E
  • Rothwell P ,
  • McIntosh AM ,
  • Lawrie SM ,
  • Stanfield AC
  • O'Donnell C ,
  • Donohoe G ,
  • Sharkey L ,
  • Jablensky A ,
  • Sartorius N ,
  • Ernberg G ,

what is the recommendation in research paper

msevans3’s Site

How to write recommendations in a research paper

Many students put in a lot of effort and write a good report however they are not able to give proper recommendations. Recommendations in the research paper should be included in your research. As a researcher, you display a deep understanding of the topic of research. Therefore you should be able to give recommendations. Here are a few tips that will help you to give appropriate recommendations. 

Recommendations in the research paper should be the objective of the research. Therefore at least one of your objectives of the paper is to provide recommendations to the parties associated or the parties that will benefit from your research. For example, to encourage higher employee engagement HR department should make strategies that invest in the well-being of employees. Additionally, the HR department should also collect regular feedback through online surveys.

Recommendations in the research paper should come from your review and analysis For example It was observed that coaches interviewed were associated with the club were working with the club from the past 2-3 years only. This shows that the attrition rate of coaches is high and therefore clubs should work on reducing the turnover of coaches.

Recommendations in the research paper should also come from the data you have analysed. For example, the research found that people over 65 years of age are at greater risk of social isolation. Therefore, it is recommended that policies that are made for combating social isolation should target this specific group.

Recommendations in the research paper should also come from observation. For example, it is observed that Lenovo’s income is stable and gross revenue has displayed a negative turn. Therefore the company should analyse its marketing and branding strategy.

Recommendations in the research paper should be written in the order of priority. The most important recommendations for decision-makers should come first. However, if the recommendations are of equal importance then it should come in the sequence in which the topic is approached in the research. 

Recommendations in a research paper if associated with different categories then you should categorize them. For example, you have separate recommendations for policymakers, educators, and administrators then you can categorize the recommendations. 

Recommendations in the research paper should come purely from your research. For example, you have written research on the impact on HR strategies on motivation. However, nowhere you have discussed Reward and recognition. Then you should not give recommendations for using rewards and recognition measures to boost employee motivation.

The use of bullet points offers better clarity rather than using long paragraphs. For example this paragraph “ It is recommended  that Britannia Biscuit should launch and promote sugar-free options apart from the existing product range. Promotion efforts should be directed at creating a fresh and healthy image. A campaign that conveys a sense of health and vitality to the consumer while enjoying biscuit  is recommended” can be written as:

  • The company should launch and promote sugar-free options
  • The company should work towards creating s fresh and healthy image
  • The company should run a campaign to convey its healthy image

The inclusion of an action plan along with recommendation adds more weightage to your recommendation. Recommendations should be clear and conscience and written using actionable words. Recommendations should display a solution-oriented approach and in some cases should highlight the scope for further research. 

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

  • PLOS Biology
  • PLOS Climate
  • PLOS Complex Systems
  • PLOS Computational Biology
  • PLOS Digital Health
  • PLOS Genetics
  • PLOS Global Public Health
  • PLOS Medicine
  • PLOS Mental Health
  • PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
  • PLOS Pathogens
  • PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
  • PLOS Collections
  • How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

What makes an effective discussion?

When you’re ready to write your discussion, you’ve already introduced the purpose of your study and provided an in-depth description of the methodology. The discussion informs readers about the larger implications of your study based on the results. Highlighting these implications while not overstating the findings can be challenging, especially when you’re submitting to a journal that selects articles based on novelty or potential impact. Regardless of what journal you are submitting to, the discussion section always serves the same purpose: concluding what your study results actually mean.

A successful discussion section puts your findings in context. It should include:

  • the results of your research,
  • a discussion of related research, and
  • a comparison between your results and initial hypothesis.

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

You can apply the advice in this article to the conclusion, results or discussion sections of your manuscript.

Our Early Career Researcher community tells us that the conclusion is often considered the most difficult aspect of a manuscript to write. To help, this guide provides questions to ask yourself, a basic structure to model your discussion off of and examples from published manuscripts. 

what is the recommendation in research paper

Questions to ask yourself:

  • Was my hypothesis correct?
  • If my hypothesis is partially correct or entirely different, what can be learned from the results? 
  • How do the conclusions reshape or add onto the existing knowledge in the field? What does previous research say about the topic? 
  • Why are the results important or relevant to your audience? Do they add further evidence to a scientific consensus or disprove prior studies? 
  • How can future research build on these observations? What are the key experiments that must be done? 
  • What is the “take-home” message you want your reader to leave with?

How to structure a discussion

Trying to fit a complete discussion into a single paragraph can add unnecessary stress to the writing process. If possible, you’ll want to give yourself two or three paragraphs to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of your study as a whole. Here’s one way to structure an effective discussion:

what is the recommendation in research paper

Writing Tips

While the above sections can help you brainstorm and structure your discussion, there are many common mistakes that writers revert to when having difficulties with their paper. Writing a discussion can be a delicate balance between summarizing your results, providing proper context for your research and avoiding introducing new information. Remember that your paper should be both confident and honest about the results! 

What to do

  • Read the journal’s guidelines on the discussion and conclusion sections. If possible, learn about the guidelines before writing the discussion to ensure you’re writing to meet their expectations. 
  • Begin with a clear statement of the principal findings. This will reinforce the main take-away for the reader and set up the rest of the discussion. 
  • Explain why the outcomes of your study are important to the reader. Discuss the implications of your findings realistically based on previous literature, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the research. 
  • State whether the results prove or disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis was disproved, what might be the reasons? 
  • Introduce new or expanded ways to think about the research question. Indicate what next steps can be taken to further pursue any unresolved questions. 
  • If dealing with a contemporary or ongoing problem, such as climate change, discuss possible consequences if the problem is avoided. 
  • Be concise. Adding unnecessary detail can distract from the main findings. 

What not to do

Don’t

  • Rewrite your abstract. Statements with “we investigated” or “we studied” generally do not belong in the discussion. 
  • Include new arguments or evidence not previously discussed. Necessary information and evidence should be introduced in the main body of the paper. 
  • Apologize. Even if your research contains significant limitations, don’t undermine your authority by including statements that doubt your methodology or execution. 
  • Shy away from speaking on limitations or negative results. Including limitations and negative results will give readers a complete understanding of the presented research. Potential limitations include sources of potential bias, threats to internal or external validity, barriers to implementing an intervention and other issues inherent to the study design. 
  • Overstate the importance of your findings. Making grand statements about how a study will fully resolve large questions can lead readers to doubt the success of the research. 

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

  • How to Write a Great Title
  • How to Write an Abstract
  • How to Write Your Methods
  • How to Report Statistics
  • How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base
  • Research paper

How to Write a Research Paper | A Beginner's Guide

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research.

Research papers are similar to academic essays , but they are usually longer and more detailed assignments, designed to assess not only your writing skills but also your skills in scholarly research. Writing a research paper requires you to demonstrate a strong knowledge of your topic, engage with a variety of sources, and make an original contribution to the debate.

This step-by-step guide takes you through the entire writing process, from understanding your assignment to proofreading your final draft.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

Understand the assignment, choose a research paper topic, conduct preliminary research, develop a thesis statement, create a research paper outline, write a first draft of the research paper, write the introduction, write a compelling body of text, write the conclusion, the second draft, the revision process, research paper checklist, free lecture slides.

Completing a research paper successfully means accomplishing the specific tasks set out for you. Before you start, make sure you thoroughly understanding the assignment task sheet:

  • Read it carefully, looking for anything confusing you might need to clarify with your professor.
  • Identify the assignment goal, deadline, length specifications, formatting, and submission method.
  • Make a bulleted list of the key points, then go back and cross completed items off as you’re writing.

Carefully consider your timeframe and word limit: be realistic, and plan enough time to research, write, and edit.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

  • Missing commas and periods
  • Incorrect usage of “et al.”
  • Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
  • Missing reference entries

what is the recommendation in research paper

There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.

You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.

You can also gain inspiration from other research. The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

Once you have a broad subject area, narrow it down to choose a topic that interests you, m eets the criteria of your assignment, and i s possible to research. Aim for ideas that are both original and specific:

  • A paper following the chronology of World War II would not be original or specific enough.
  • A paper on the experience of Danish citizens living close to the German border during World War II would be specific and could be original enough.

Note any discussions that seem important to the topic, and try to find an issue that you can focus your paper around. Use a variety of sources , including journals, books, and reliable websites, to ensure you do not miss anything glaring.

Do not only verify the ideas you have in mind, but look for sources that contradict your point of view.

  • Is there anything people seem to overlook in the sources you research?
  • Are there any heated debates you can address?
  • Do you have a unique take on your topic?
  • Have there been some recent developments that build on the extant research?

In this stage, you might find it helpful to formulate some research questions to help guide you. To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: “I want to know how/what/why…”

A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it. It should also show what evidence and reasoning you’ll use to support that answer.

The thesis statement should be concise, contentious, and coherent. That means it should briefly summarize your argument in a sentence or two, make a claim that requires further evidence or analysis, and make a coherent point that relates to every part of the paper.

You will probably revise and refine the thesis statement as you do more research, but it can serve as a guide throughout the writing process. Every paragraph should aim to support and develop this central claim.

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

what is the recommendation in research paper

A research paper outline is essentially a list of the key topics, arguments, and evidence you want to include, divided into sections with headings so that you know roughly what the paper will look like before you start writing.

A structure outline can help make the writing process much more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating some time to create one.

Your first draft won’t be perfect — you can polish later on. Your priorities at this stage are as follows:

  • Maintaining forward momentum — write now, perfect later.
  • Paying attention to clear organization and logical ordering of paragraphs and sentences, which will help when you come to the second draft.
  • Expressing your ideas as clearly as possible, so you know what you were trying to say when you come back to the text.

You do not need to start by writing the introduction. Begin where it feels most natural for you — some prefer to finish the most difficult sections first, while others choose to start with the easiest part. If you created an outline, use it as a map while you work.

Do not delete large sections of text. If you begin to dislike something you have written or find it doesn’t quite fit, move it to a different document, but don’t lose it completely — you never know if it might come in useful later.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs are the basic building blocks of research papers. Each one should focus on a single claim or idea that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper.

Example paragraph

George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” has had an enduring impact on thought about the relationship between politics and language. This impact is particularly obvious in light of the various critical review articles that have recently referenced the essay. For example, consider Mark Falcoff’s 2009 article in The National Review Online, “The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited,” in which he analyzes several common words (“activist,” “civil-rights leader,” “diversity,” and more). Falcoff’s close analysis of the ambiguity built into political language intentionally mirrors Orwell’s own point-by-point analysis of the political language of his day. Even 63 years after its publication, Orwell’s essay is emulated by contemporary thinkers.

Citing sources

It’s also important to keep track of citations at this stage to avoid accidental plagiarism . Each time you use a source, make sure to take note of where the information came from.

You can use our free citation generators to automatically create citations and save your reference list as you go.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

The research paper introduction should address three questions: What, why, and how? After finishing the introduction, the reader should know what the paper is about, why it is worth reading, and how you’ll build your arguments.

What? Be specific about the topic of the paper, introduce the background, and define key terms or concepts.

Why? This is the most important, but also the most difficult, part of the introduction. Try to provide brief answers to the following questions: What new material or insight are you offering? What important issues does your essay help define or answer?

How? To let the reader know what to expect from the rest of the paper, the introduction should include a “map” of what will be discussed, briefly presenting the key elements of the paper in chronological order.

The major struggle faced by most writers is how to organize the information presented in the paper, which is one reason an outline is so useful. However, remember that the outline is only a guide and, when writing, you can be flexible with the order in which the information and arguments are presented.

One way to stay on track is to use your thesis statement and topic sentences . Check:

  • topic sentences against the thesis statement;
  • topic sentences against each other, for similarities and logical ordering;
  • and each sentence against the topic sentence of that paragraph.

Be aware of paragraphs that seem to cover the same things. If two paragraphs discuss something similar, they must approach that topic in different ways. Aim to create smooth transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and sections.

The research paper conclusion is designed to help your reader out of the paper’s argument, giving them a sense of finality.

Trace the course of the paper, emphasizing how it all comes together to prove your thesis statement. Give the paper a sense of finality by making sure the reader understands how you’ve settled the issues raised in the introduction.

You might also discuss the more general consequences of the argument, outline what the paper offers to future students of the topic, and suggest any questions the paper’s argument raises but cannot or does not try to answer.

You should not :

  • Offer new arguments or essential information
  • Take up any more space than necessary
  • Begin with stock phrases that signal you are ending the paper (e.g. “In conclusion”)

There are four main considerations when it comes to the second draft.

  • Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, more importantly, that your paper still answers the assignment.
  • Identify any assumptions that might require (more substantial) justification, keeping your reader’s perspective foremost in mind. Remove these points if you cannot substantiate them further.
  • Be open to rearranging your ideas. Check whether any sections feel out of place and whether your ideas could be better organized.
  • If you find that old ideas do not fit as well as you anticipated, you should cut them out or condense them. You might also find that new and well-suited ideas occurred to you during the writing of the first draft — now is the time to make them part of the paper.

The goal during the revision and proofreading process is to ensure you have completed all the necessary tasks and that the paper is as well-articulated as possible. You can speed up the proofreading process by using the AI proofreader .

Global concerns

  • Confirm that your paper completes every task specified in your assignment sheet.
  • Check for logical organization and flow of paragraphs.
  • Check paragraphs against the introduction and thesis statement.

Fine-grained details

Check the content of each paragraph, making sure that:

  • each sentence helps support the topic sentence.
  • no unnecessary or irrelevant information is present.
  • all technical terms your audience might not know are identified.

Next, think about sentence structure , grammatical errors, and formatting . Check that you have correctly used transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas. Look for typos, cut unnecessary words, and check for consistency in aspects such as heading formatting and spellings .

Finally, you need to make sure your paper is correctly formatted according to the rules of the citation style you are using. For example, you might need to include an MLA heading  or create an APA title page .

Scribbr’s professional editors can help with the revision process with our award-winning proofreading services.

Discover our paper editing service

Checklist: Research paper

I have followed all instructions in the assignment sheet.

My introduction presents my topic in an engaging way and provides necessary background information.

My introduction presents a clear, focused research problem and/or thesis statement .

My paper is logically organized using paragraphs and (if relevant) section headings .

Each paragraph is clearly focused on one central idea, expressed in a clear topic sentence .

Each paragraph is relevant to my research problem or thesis statement.

I have used appropriate transitions  to clarify the connections between sections, paragraphs, and sentences.

My conclusion provides a concise answer to the research question or emphasizes how the thesis has been supported.

My conclusion shows how my research has contributed to knowledge or understanding of my topic.

My conclusion does not present any new points or information essential to my argument.

I have provided an in-text citation every time I refer to ideas or information from a source.

I have included a reference list at the end of my paper, consistently formatted according to a specific citation style .

I have thoroughly revised my paper and addressed any feedback from my professor or supervisor.

I have followed all formatting guidelines (page numbers, headers, spacing, etc.).

You've written a great paper. Make sure it's perfect with the help of a Scribbr editor!

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

  • Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide
  • Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide
  • Research Paper Format | APA, MLA, & Chicago Templates

More interesting articles

  • Academic Paragraph Structure | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
  • Checklist: Writing a Great Research Paper
  • How to Create a Structured Research Paper Outline | Example
  • How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
  • How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
  • How to Write Topic Sentences | 4 Steps, Examples & Purpose
  • Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
  • Research Paper Damage Control | Managing a Broken Argument
  • What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

What is your plagiarism score?

U.S. flag

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
  • Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.)

Cover of Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation.

Chapter 9 conclusions and recommendations for future research.

  • How well have we achieved our original aim and objectives?

The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8 . We have developed and tested this theory of public involvement in research in eight diverse case studies; this has highlighted important contextual factors, in particular PI leadership, which had not previously been prominent in the literature. We have identified how this critical contextual factor shapes key mechanisms of public involvement, including the identification of a senior lead for involvement, resource allocation for involvement and facilitation of research partners. These mechanisms then lead to specific outcomes in improving the quality of research, notably recruitment strategies and materials and data collection tools and methods. We have identified a ‘virtuous circle’ of feedback to research partners on their contribution leading to their improved confidence and motivation, which facilitates their continued contribution. Following feedback from the HS&DR Board on our original application we did not seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of different mechanisms of public involvement but we did cost the different types of public involvement as discussed in Chapter 7 . A key finding is that many research projects undercost public involvement.

In our original proposal we emphasised our desire to include case studies involving young people and families with children in the research process. We recruited two studies involving parents of young children aged under 5 years, and two projects involving ‘older’ young people in the 18- to 25-years age group. We recognise that in doing this we missed studies involving children and young people aged under 18 years; in principle we would have liked to have included studies involving such children and young people, but, given the resources at our disposal and the additional resource, ethical and governance issues this would have entailed, we regretfully concluded that this would not be feasible for our study. In terms of the four studies with parental and young persons’ involvement that we did include, we have not done a separate analysis of their data, but the themes emerging from those case studies were consistent with our other case studies and contributed to our overall analysis.

In terms of the initial objectives, we successfully recruited the sample of eight diverse case studies and collected and analysed data from them (objective 1). As intended, we identified the outcomes of involvement from multiple stakeholders‘ perspectives, although we did not get as many research partners‘ perspectives as we would have liked – see limitations below (objective 2). It was more difficult than expected to track the impact of public involvement from project inception through to completion (objective 3), as all of our projects turned out to have longer time scales than our own. Even to track involvement over a stage of a case study research project proved difficult, as the research usually did not fall into neatly staged time periods and one study had no involvement activity over the study period.

Nevertheless, we were able to track seven of the eight case studies prospectively and in real time over time periods of up to 9 months, giving us an unusual window on involvement processes that have previously mainly been observed retrospectively. We were successful in comparing the contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes associated with public involvement from different stakeholders‘ perspectives and costing the different mechanisms for public involvement (objective 4). We only partly achieved our final objective of undertaking a consensus exercise among stakeholders to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach and our approach to the measurement and valuation of economic costs of public involvement in research (objective 5). A final consensus event was held, where very useful discussion and amendment of our theory of public involvement took place, and the economic approach was discussed and helpfully critiqued by participants. However, as our earlier discussions developed more fully than expected, we decided to let them continue rather than interrupt them in order to run the final exercise to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach. We did, however, test our analysis with all our case study participants by sending a draft of this final report for comment. We received a number of helpful comments and corrections but no disagreement with our overall analysis.

  • What were the limitations of our study?

Realist evaluation is a relatively new approach and we recognise that there were a number of limitations to our study. We sought to follow the approach recommended by Pawson, but we acknowledge that we were not always able to do so. In particular, our theory of public involvement in research evolved over time and initially was not as tightly framed in terms of a testable hypothesis as Pawson recommends. In his latest book Pawson strongly recommends that outcomes should be measured with quantitative data, 17 but we did not do so; we were not aware of the existence of quantitative data or tools that would enable us to collect such data to answer our research questions. Even in terms of qualitative data, we did not capture as much information on outcomes as we initially envisaged. There were several reasons for this. The most important was that capturing outcomes in public involvement is easier the more operational the focus of involvement, and more difficult the more strategic the involvement. Thus, it was relatively easy to see the impact of a patient panel on the redesign of a recruitment leaflet but harder to capture the impact of research partners in a multidisciplinary team discussion of research design.

We also found it was sometimes more difficult to engage research partners as participants in our research than researchers or research managers. On reflection this is not surprising. Research partners are generally motivated to take part in research relevant to their lived experience of a health condition or situation, whereas our research was quite detached from their lived experience; in addition people had many constraints on their time, so getting involved in our research as well as their own was likely to be a burden too far for some. Researchers clearly also face significant time pressures but they had a more direct interest in our research, as they are obliged to engage with public involvement to satisfy research funders such as the NIHR. Moreover, researchers were being paid by their employers for their time during interviews with us, while research partners were not paid by us and usually not paid by their research teams. Whatever the reasons, we had less response from research partners than researchers or research managers, particularly for the third round of data collection; thus we have fewer data on outcomes from research partners‘ perspectives and we need to be aware of a possible selection bias towards more engaged research partners. Such a bias could have implications for our findings; for example payment might have been a more important motivating factor for less engaged advisory group members.

There were a number of practical difficulties we encountered. One challenge was when to recruit the case studies. We recruited four of our eight case studies prior to the full application, but this was more than 1 year before our project started and 15 months or more before data collection began. In this intervening period, we found that the time scales of some of the case studies were no longer ideal for our project and we faced the choice of whether to continue with them, although this timing was not ideal, or seek at a late moment to recruit alternative ones. One of our case studies ultimately undertook no involvement activity over the study period, so we obtained fewer data from it, and it contributed relatively little to our analysis. Similarly, one of the four case studies we recruited later experienced some delays itself in beginning and so we had a more limited period for data collection than initially envisaged. Research governance approvals took much longer than expected, particularly as we had to take three of our research partners, who were going to collect data within NHS projects, through the research passport process, which essentially truncated our data collection period from 1 year to 9 months. Even if we had had the full year initially envisaged for data collection, our conclusion with hindsight was that this was insufficiently long. To compare initial plans and intentions for involvement with the reality of what actually happened required a longer time period than a year for most of our case studies.

In the light of the importance we have placed on the commitment of PIs, there is an issue of potential selection bias in the recruitment of our sample. As our sampling strategy explicitly involved a networking approach to PIs of projects where we thought some significant public involvement was taking place, we were likely (as we did) to recruit enthusiasts and, at worst, those non-committed who were at least open to the potential value of public involvement. There were, unsurprisingly, no highly sceptical PIs in our sample. We have no data therefore on how public involvement may work in research where the PI is sceptical but may feel compelled to undertake involvement because of funder requirements or other factors.

  • What would we do differently next time?

If we were to design this study again, there are a number of changes we would make. Most importantly we would go for a longer time period to be able to capture involvement through the whole research process from initial design through to dissemination. We would seek to recruit far more potential case studies in principle, so that we had greater choice of which to proceed with once our study began in earnest. We would include case studies from the application stage to capture the important early involvement of research partners in the initial design period. It might be preferable to research a smaller number of case studies, allowing a more in-depth ethnographic approach. Although challenging, it would be very informative to seek to sample sceptical PIs. This might require a brief screening exercise of a larger group of PIs on their attitudes to and experience of public involvement.

The economic evaluation was challenging in a number of ways, particularly in seeking to obtain completed resource logs from case study research partners. Having a 2-week data collection period was also problematic in a field such as public involvement, where activity may be very episodic and infrequent. Thus, collecting economic data alongside other case study data in a more integrated way, and particularly with interviews and more ethnographic observation of case study activities, might be advantageous. The new budgeting tool developed by INVOLVE and the MHRN may provide a useful resource for future economic evaluations. 23

We have learned much from the involvement of research partners in our research team and, although many aspects of our approach worked well, there are some things we would do differently in future. Even though we included substantial resources for research partner involvement in all aspects of our study, we underestimated how time-consuming such full involvement would be. We were perhaps overambitious in trying to ensure such full involvement with the number of research partners and the number and complexity of the case studies. We were also perhaps naive in expecting all the research partners to play the same role in the team; different research partners came with different experiences and skills, and, like most of our case studies, we might have been better to be less prescriptive and allow the roles to develop more organically within the project.

  • Implications for research practice and funding

If one of the objectives of R&D policy is to increase the extent and effectiveness of public involvement in research, then a key implication of this research is the importance of influencing PIs to value public involvement in research or to delegate to other senior colleagues in leading on involvement in their research. Training is unlikely to be the key mechanism here; senior researchers are much more likely to be influenced by peers or by their personal experience of the benefits of public involvement. Early career researchers may be shaped by training but again peer learning and culture may be more influential. For those researchers sceptical or agnostic about public involvement, the requirement of funders is a key factor that is likely to make them engage with the involvement agenda. Therefore, funders need to scrutinise the track record of research teams on public involvement to ascertain whether there is any evidence of commitment or leadership on involvement.

One of the findings of the economic analysis was that PIs have consistently underestimated the costs of public involvement in their grant applications. Clearly the field will benefit from the guidance and budgeting tool recently disseminated by MHRN and INVOLVE. It was also notable that there was a degree of variation in the real costs of public involvement and that effective involvement is not necessarily costly. Different models of involvement incur different costs and researchers need to be made aware of the costs and benefits of these different options.

One methodological lesson we learned was the impact that conducting this research had on some participants’ reflection on the impact of public involvement. Particularly for research staff, the questions we asked sometimes made them reflect upon what they were doing and change aspects of their approach to involvement. Thus, the more the NIHR and other funders can build reporting, audit and other forms of evaluation on the impact of public involvement directly into their processes with PIs, the more likely such questioning might stimulate similar reflection.

  • Recommendations for further research

There are a number of gaps in our knowledge around public involvement in research that follow from our findings, and would benefit from further research, including realist evaluation to extend and further test the theory we have developed here:

  • In-depth exploration of how PIs become committed to public involvement and how to influence agnostic or sceptical PIs would be very helpful. Further research might compare, for example, training with peer-influencing strategies in engendering PI commitment. Research could explore the leadership role of other research team members, including research partners, and how collective leadership might support effective public involvement.
  • More methodological work is needed on how to robustly capture the impact and outcomes of public involvement in research (building as well on the PiiAF work of Popay et al. 51 ), including further economic analysis and exploration of impact when research partners are integral to research teams.
  • Research to develop approaches and carry out a full cost–benefit analysis of public involvement in research would be beneficial. Although methodologically challenging, it would be very useful to conduct some longer-term studies which sought to quantify the impact of public involvement on such key indicators as participant recruitment and retention in clinical trials.
  • It would also be helpful to capture qualitatively the experiences and perspectives of research partners who have had mixed or negative experiences, since they may be less likely than enthusiasts to volunteer to participate in studies of involvement in research such as ours. Similarly, further research might explore the (relatively rare) experiences of marginalised and seldom-heard groups involved in research.
  • Payment for public involvement in research remains a contested issue with strongly held positions for and against; it would be helpful to further explore the value research partners and researchers place on payment and its effectiveness for enhancing involvement in and impact on research.
  • A final relatively narrow but important question that we identified after data collection had finished is: what is the impact of the long periods of relative non-involvement following initial periods of more intense involvement for research partners in some types of research, particularly clinical trials?

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

  • Cite this Page Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.) Chapter 9, Conclusions and recommendations for future research.
  • PDF version of this title (4.3M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

  • Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

  • Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in rese... Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

statistics

How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

The conclusion of a research paper is a crucial section that plays a significant role in the overall impact and effectiveness of your research paper. However, this is also the section that typically receives less attention compared to the introduction and the body of the paper. The conclusion serves to provide a concise summary of the key findings, their significance, their implications, and a sense of closure to the study. Discussing how can the findings be applied in real-world scenarios or inform policy, practice, or decision-making is especially valuable to practitioners and policymakers. The research paper conclusion also provides researchers with clear insights and valuable information for their own work, which they can then build on and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

The research paper conclusion should explain the significance of your findings within the broader context of your field. It restates how your results contribute to the existing body of knowledge and whether they confirm or challenge existing theories or hypotheses. Also, by identifying unanswered questions or areas requiring further investigation, your awareness of the broader research landscape can be demonstrated.

Remember to tailor the research paper conclusion to the specific needs and interests of your intended audience, which may include researchers, practitioners, policymakers, or a combination of these.

Table of Contents

What is a conclusion in a research paper, summarizing conclusion, editorial conclusion, externalizing conclusion, importance of a good research paper conclusion, how to write a conclusion for your research paper, research paper conclusion examples, frequently asked questions.

A conclusion in a research paper is the final section where you summarize and wrap up your research, presenting the key findings and insights derived from your study. The research paper conclusion is not the place to introduce new information or data that was not discussed in the main body of the paper. When working on how to conclude a research paper, remember to stick to summarizing and interpreting existing content. The research paper conclusion serves the following purposes: 1

  • Warn readers of the possible consequences of not attending to the problem.
  • Recommend specific course(s) of action.
  • Restate key ideas to drive home the ultimate point of your research paper.
  • Provide a “take-home” message that you want the readers to remember about your study.

what is the recommendation in research paper

Types of conclusions for research papers

In research papers, the conclusion provides closure to the reader. The type of research paper conclusion you choose depends on the nature of your study, your goals, and your target audience. I provide you with three common types of conclusions:

A summarizing conclusion is the most common type of conclusion in research papers. It involves summarizing the main points, reiterating the research question, and restating the significance of the findings. This common type of research paper conclusion is used across different disciplines.

An editorial conclusion is less common but can be used in research papers that are focused on proposing or advocating for a particular viewpoint or policy. It involves presenting a strong editorial or opinion based on the research findings and offering recommendations or calls to action.

An externalizing conclusion is a type of conclusion that extends the research beyond the scope of the paper by suggesting potential future research directions or discussing the broader implications of the findings. This type of conclusion is often used in more theoretical or exploratory research papers.

The conclusion in a research paper serves several important purposes:

  • Offers Implications and Recommendations : Your research paper conclusion is an excellent place to discuss the broader implications of your research and suggest potential areas for further study. It’s also an opportunity to offer practical recommendations based on your findings.
  • Provides Closure : A good research paper conclusion provides a sense of closure to your paper. It should leave the reader with a feeling that they have reached the end of a well-structured and thought-provoking research project.
  • Leaves a Lasting Impression : Writing a well-crafted research paper conclusion leaves a lasting impression on your readers. It’s your final opportunity to leave them with a new idea, a call to action, or a memorable quote.

what is the recommendation in research paper

Writing a strong conclusion for your research paper is essential to leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here’s a step-by-step process to help you create and know what to put in the conclusion of a research paper: 2

  • Research Statement : Begin your research paper conclusion by restating your research statement. This reminds the reader of the main point you’ve been trying to prove throughout your paper. Keep it concise and clear.
  • Key Points : Summarize the main arguments and key points you’ve made in your paper. Avoid introducing new information in the research paper conclusion. Instead, provide a concise overview of what you’ve discussed in the body of your paper.
  • Address the Research Questions : If your research paper is based on specific research questions or hypotheses, briefly address whether you’ve answered them or achieved your research goals. Discuss the significance of your findings in this context.
  • Significance : Highlight the importance of your research and its relevance in the broader context. Explain why your findings matter and how they contribute to the existing knowledge in your field.
  • Implications : Explore the practical or theoretical implications of your research. How might your findings impact future research, policy, or real-world applications? Consider the “so what?” question.
  • Future Research : Offer suggestions for future research in your area. What questions or aspects remain unanswered or warrant further investigation? This shows that your work opens the door for future exploration.
  • Closing Thought : Conclude your research paper conclusion with a thought-provoking or memorable statement. This can leave a lasting impression on your readers and wrap up your paper effectively. Avoid introducing new information or arguments here.
  • Proofread and Revise : Carefully proofread your conclusion for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Ensure that your ideas flow smoothly and that your conclusion is coherent and well-structured.

Remember that a well-crafted research paper conclusion is a reflection of the strength of your research and your ability to communicate its significance effectively. It should leave a lasting impression on your readers and tie together all the threads of your paper. Now you know how to start the conclusion of a research paper and what elements to include to make it impactful, let’s look at a research paper conclusion sample.

what is the recommendation in research paper

The research paper conclusion is a crucial part of your paper as it provides the final opportunity to leave a strong impression on your readers. In the research paper conclusion, summarize the main points of your research paper by restating your research statement, highlighting the most important findings, addressing the research questions or objectives, explaining the broader context of the study, discussing the significance of your findings, providing recommendations if applicable, and emphasizing the takeaway message. The main purpose of the conclusion is to remind the reader of the main point or argument of your paper and to provide a clear and concise summary of the key findings and their implications. All these elements should feature on your list of what to put in the conclusion of a research paper to create a strong final statement for your work.

A strong conclusion is a critical component of a research paper, as it provides an opportunity to wrap up your arguments, reiterate your main points, and leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here are the key elements of a strong research paper conclusion: 1. Conciseness : A research paper conclusion should be concise and to the point. It should not introduce new information or ideas that were not discussed in the body of the paper. 2. Summarization : The research paper conclusion should be comprehensive enough to give the reader a clear understanding of the research’s main contributions. 3 . Relevance : Ensure that the information included in the research paper conclusion is directly relevant to the research paper’s main topic and objectives; avoid unnecessary details. 4 . Connection to the Introduction : A well-structured research paper conclusion often revisits the key points made in the introduction and shows how the research has addressed the initial questions or objectives. 5. Emphasis : Highlight the significance and implications of your research. Why is your study important? What are the broader implications or applications of your findings? 6 . Call to Action : Include a call to action or a recommendation for future research or action based on your findings.

The length of a research paper conclusion can vary depending on several factors, including the overall length of the paper, the complexity of the research, and the specific journal requirements. While there is no strict rule for the length of a conclusion, but it’s generally advisable to keep it relatively short. A typical research paper conclusion might be around 5-10% of the paper’s total length. For example, if your paper is 10 pages long, the conclusion might be roughly half a page to one page in length.

In general, you do not need to include citations in the research paper conclusion. Citations are typically reserved for the body of the paper to support your arguments and provide evidence for your claims. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule: 1. If you are drawing a direct quote or paraphrasing a specific source in your research paper conclusion, you should include a citation to give proper credit to the original author. 2. If your conclusion refers to or discusses specific research, data, or sources that are crucial to the overall argument, citations can be included to reinforce your conclusion’s validity.

The conclusion of a research paper serves several important purposes: 1. Summarize the Key Points 2. Reinforce the Main Argument 3. Provide Closure 4. Offer Insights or Implications 5. Engage the Reader. 6. Reflect on Limitations

Remember that the primary purpose of the research paper conclusion is to leave a lasting impression on the reader, reinforcing the key points and providing closure to your research. It’s often the last part of the paper that the reader will see, so it should be strong and well-crafted.

  • Makar, G., Foltz, C., Lendner, M., & Vaccaro, A. R. (2018). How to write effective discussion and conclusion sections. Clinical spine surgery, 31(8), 345-346.
  • Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters.  Journal of English for academic purposes ,  4 (3), 207-224.

Paperpal is an AI academic writing assistant that helps authors write better and faster with real-time writing suggestions and in-depth checks for language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of published scholarly articles and 20+ years of STM experience, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.    

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to Paperpal Copilot and premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks, submission readiness and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!  

Related Reads:

  • 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
  • Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects

7 Ways to Improve Your Academic Writing Process

  • Chemistry Terms: 7 Commonly Confused Words in Chemistry Manuscripts

Preflight For Editorial Desk: The Perfect Hybrid (AI + Human) Assistance Against Compromised Manuscripts

You may also like, how to make translating academic papers less challenging, self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how..., 6 tips for post-doc researchers to take their..., presenting research data effectively through tables and figures, ethics in science: importance, principles & guidelines , jenni ai review: top features, pricing, and alternatives, 8 most effective ways to increase motivation for..., how to make your thesis supervision work for..., publish or perish – understanding the importance of..., what next after manuscript rejection 5 options for....

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Consensus Statement
  • Published: 29 February 2024

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment

  • Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9122-8251 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ,
  • Samantha Cruz Rivera 1 , 5 ,
  • Jessica Roydhouse 6 , 7 ,
  • Paul Kamudoni 8 ,
  • Yvonne Alder 1 ,
  • Nicola Anderson 1 , 2 , 3 , 9 ,
  • Robert Mitchell Baldwin 10 ,
  • Vishal Bhatnagar 11 ,
  • Jennifer Black 10 ,
  • Andrew Bottomley 12 ,
  • Michael Brundage 13 ,
  • David Cella 14 ,
  • Philip Collis 1 ,
  • Elin-Haf Davies 15 ,
  • Alastair K. Denniston   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7849-0087 2 , 9 ,
  • Fabio Efficace 16 ,
  • Adrian Gardner 17 , 18 ,
  • Ari Gnanasakthy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9176-3983 19 ,
  • Robert M. Golub 20 ,
  • Sarah E. Hughes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5656-1198 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ,
  • Flic Jeyes 1 ,
  • Scottie Kern 21 ,
  • Bellinda L. King-Kallimanis 22 ,
  • Antony Martin 23 ,
  • Christel McMullan 1 , 4 ,
  • Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber 24 ,
  • Joao Monteiro 25 ,
  • John Devin Peipert 14 ,
  • Juan Carlos Quijano-Campos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9892-5084 26 , 27 , 28 ,
  • Chantal Quinten 29 ,
  • Khadija Rerhou Rantell 30 ,
  • Antoine Regnault 31 ,
  • Maxime Sasseville 10 ,
  • Liv Marit Valen Schougaard 32 ,
  • Roya Sherafat-Kazemzadeh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1909-5527 33 ,
  • Claire Snyder 34 ,
  • Angela M. Stover 35 , 36 ,
  • Rav Verdi 1 ,
  • Roger Wilson 1 , 37 &
  • Melanie J. Calvert   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1856-837X 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  

Nature Medicine ( 2024 ) Cite this article

897 Accesses

29 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Health services
  • Outcomes research
  • Quality of life
  • Clinical trial design

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Similar content being viewed by others

what is the recommendation in research paper

Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Jessica Roydhouse, … Melanie Calvert

what is the recommendation in research paper

Applications of the experience sampling method (ESM) in paediatric healthcare: a systematic review

Marije van Dalen, Anne Snijders, … Jeroen S. Legerstee

what is the recommendation in research paper

Evidence and reporting standards in N-of-1 medical studies: a systematic review

Prathiba Natesan Batley, Erica B. McClure, … Stephanie Chin

Millions of individuals provide PRO data regularly in a variety of settings 1 . The substantial benefits of utilizing PRO data for various purposes, including healthcare research, clinical practice, regulatory purposes and value-based healthcare decisions have been demonstrated and extensively documented 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ; however, the completion of PROs places a potential burden on respondents (patients), especially if responses are requested on a regular basis 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 . Respondent burden is the degree to which a respondent perceives their participation in a task as difficult, time consuming or emotionally stressful 15 .

With regard to the completion of PRO measures, there are several factors that may influence respondent burden, including patient characteristics (such as literacy levels and cognitive impairment) and features of the chosen measure (including length, wording, content, sensitivity of items and formatting) 1 , 11 , 12 . Response burden could also be linked to the mode of administration of PROs (whether electronic, paper or any other format) and frequency of collection in both healthcare research and clinical practice settings 16 , 17 ; however, these factors are likely to be inter-related and their associations with respondent burden may be nuanced and context-specific. For instance, recent studies have shown that the administration of longer PRO measures may not necessarily be associated with a perception of increased respondent burden, especially if respondents have a clear understanding of the purpose of collection and how their data would be utilized 1 , 17 , 18 .

Failure to address respondent burden may lead to poor PRO completion rates, missing PRO data or trial participant withdrawal 17 . The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advises that sponsors should consider missing data and poor PRO completion rates as possible indicators of inappropriate respondent burden, item content or response options 11 . The implication of such missing data is that poor quality or nonrepresentative PRO information could be deemed as not sufficiently robust to evaluate treatment benefit, inform clinical care or regulatory decision-making. Therefore, to optimize PRO assessments, it is important that the potential benefits of PRO collection are weighed against the potential burden on respondents 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 .

Given that there are no international guidelines that address this critical issue, the aim of this international effort was to develop consensus-based recommendations to facilitate the minimization of respondent burden for individuals completing PROs in both healthcare research and clinical practice.

The recommendations were developed through an international Delphi and consensus process as described in the COMET Handbook v.1.0 (ref. 23 ). The steering group (O.L.A., S.C.R., J.R., P.K. and M.J.C.) oversaw the design and conduct of the study.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Birmingham Ethical Review Board (ERN_ 22-0276). Study information was electronically provided to participants before survey completion and before the consensus meeting. Delphi participants provided electronic informed consent and written consent was obtained from consensus meeting delegates.

Generation of candidate recommendations

Twenty-six candidate recommendations were initially generated based on the findings of a comprehensive literature review conducted and published in 2022 by members of the steering group 1 . In brief, PubMed was searched on the 22 November 2021 to identify eligible studies (further details are provided in Supplementary Information ). There were no restrictions on study design or language of publication. Title, abstract and full-text screening was conducted independently by two reviewers. Analysis of the qualitative data was performed using the framework method 24 .

International Delphi process

The stakeholders for this project consisted of trialists, PRO-focused clinical researchers and statisticians, patient partners and advocates, healthcare professionals, journal editors, policymakers, industry experts and other professionals who are involved in the implementation of PROs for healthcare research, drug approvals and clinical practice. These individuals were identified through personal networks and suggestions from known experts.

In 2023, the steering group sent invitations to 168 international stakeholders to participate in an online Delphi process to vote on the candidate recommendations and propose additional recommendations. Stakeholder grouping and characteristics are described in the Supplementary Information .

The two online Delphi surveys were delivered using the DelphiManager software (v.5.0) developed and maintained by the COMET initiative. The invitation emails provided information about the study, who to contact for further information and a link to the consent form and survey for those who wished to take part. Voting on the importance of the 26 candidate recommendations was anonymous and scored using a nine-point scale (1–3, not important; 4–6, important but not critical; and 7–9, important and critical). A total of 127 responses were received for Round 1 of the Delphi survey and 106 responses (83% of participants from Round 1) were received for Round 2. The Delphi participants had the option in Round 1 to provide qualitative feedback on the suitability of each recommendation, suggest modifications and propose additional recommendations. The feedback was reviewed and seven additional recommendations were proposed and taken forward to Round 2. Participants were subsequently sent a document detailing how the feedback from Round 1 was addressed by the steering group. Anonymized item-level Round 1 ratings by stakeholder group were also shared with the Delphi participants for their consideration before voting in Round 2. The participants were informed that their Round 1 responses would be retained if they did not complete Round 2. Delphi participants who agreed to be named are listed in Supplementary Information .

Prespecified threshold for inclusion of recommendations

For inclusion, a recommendation was required to meet the prespecified threshold of ≥70% of the Round 2 Delphi participants rating it as ‘important and critical’ (7–9) and ≤15% rating it as ‘not important’ (1–3). Recommendations that achieved consensus were reviewed and ratified at the consensus meeting. Recommendations that did not achieve overall consensus but were rated by ≥70% of any stakeholder group as ‘important and critical’ (7–9) were discussed at the consensus meeting. A summary of qualitative feedback from the Delphi participants on these recommendations was presented at the meeting. Recommendations that did not meet any of the above criteria were proposed for exclusion.

International consensus meeting

The aim of the meeting was to reach consensus on the content of the recommendations. Following Round 2, the steering group collated and reviewed the ratings and the qualitative feedback from the Delphi participants. They proposed the inclusion or exclusion of recommendations based on the Delphi data and sent these to the consensus meeting delegates ahead of the meeting ( Supplementary Information ).

A consensus meeting was hosted online via Zoom by the University of Birmingham, UK, in September 2023. The meeting was attended by 36 international delegates who had participated in the Delphi study. The delegates were selected in a manner that ensured good representation across stakeholder groups. There were 28 voters and 8 nonvoters. The nonvoters were members of the steering group and experts from institutions already represented. The delegates consisted of 12 trialists/academic researchers/statisticians, 7 industry experts, 6 regulators/policymakers, 5 healthcare professionals, 5 patients/patient advocates and members of the public and 1 journal editor ( Supplementary Information ).

Delegates discussed the importance of the recommendations that met the prespecified threshold for consensus (overall) as well as the recommendations that only reached consensus in one or more stakeholder groups. The wording and explanatory text of recommendations were also discussed as required. Following group discussion, delegates were invited to vote anonymously on the candidate recommendations using the Zoom Poll tool. The voting options were to include or exclude with response options of ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘further discussion required’. Supplementary Information provides further details of how the voting was conducted specifically for each recommendation.

Final consultation

Following the consensus meeting, delegates were sent the draft recommendations for their comments and suggestions on the wording and approval of the final version. Supplementary Information provides further information on the methods.

Following the Delphi surveys, 19 recommendations achieved overall consensus and were proposed by the steering group for inclusion; 8 recommendations only achieved consensus in one or more stakeholder groups and required discussion at the consensus meeting; and 6 recommendations did not reach consensus in any stakeholder group and were proposed for exclusion. Further details of the voting and decisions at the consensus meeting can be found in Fig. 1 and Supplementary Information . The 19 recommendations were ratified for inclusion during the consensus meeting (there was consensus to merge two of these recommendations). Of the eight recommendations that were individually discussed, two were voted in for inclusion as standalone recommendations; and there was consensus to merge two other recommendations with recommendations that had been ratified. Two recommendations were merged based on suggestions received on the initial draft of the manuscript. Further details are provided in Supplementary Information .

figure 1

The flow chart illustrates the process, which culminated in 19 recommendations on how to address respondent burden associated with PRO assessment.

The final consensus statement provides 19 recommendations for consideration by anyone involved in designing and implementing PRO assessment strategies for healthcare research and clinical practice (Table 1 ). An elaboration describing each recommendation with supporting evidence is presented below. The recommendations are presented in accordance with the categories from the published review 1 , namely (1) rationale and schedule for PRO assessment; (2) measure selection; and (3) measure delivery.

Rationale and schedule for PRO assessment

Recommendation 1: involve patients, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders in the formulation of the pro research question(s) or clinical objectives to ensure that they are important and relevant.

Effective involvement of patients, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders in the formulation of PRO research question(s) and clinical objectives can help ensure the assessment of outcomes that are relevant and valued by all stakeholders in healthcare research and clinical practice 25 , 26 , 27 . Stakeholder involvement will vary depending on the context of PRO use. For example, patients, caregivers and clinicians can provide valuable perspectives both in healthcare research and in clinical practice settings, while early input from regulatory agencies may be particularly useful in clinical trials of investigational medicinal products. PRO assessments may be perceived as less burdensome if the research questions or clinical objectives are considered relevant and important by patients and other relevant stakeholders 28 , 29 .

Recommendation 2: consider the degree of burden that any data collection may impose on respondents and carefully balance this with the quantity and quality of data required

The rationale for collecting PRO data for healthcare research and clinical practice should be evidence-based and should demonstrate that the data collection justifies the burden and potential risks of data collection, such as the time required, emotional angst, distress or fatigue 30 .

Recommendation 3: ensure that patients, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders are involved in decisions about the PRO assessment schedule and the frequency of assessment

Consultation with patients, clinicians and other relevant stakeholders will help ensure that the PRO assessment schedule captures clinically relevant periods during treatment or clinical management 25 . The schedule of PRO assessments, including overall duration of assessment, will depend on the research or clinical objective; however, the potential respondent burden should be considered, while maximizing the collection of clinically relevant data 31 . The assessment schedule may not necessarily be tied to clinic visits; considerations for the mode of administration are described in Recommendation 16 (ref. 25 ).

The frequency of PRO administration should consider disease trajectory and balance this with respondent burden. Data should only be collected if they are essential to addressing the research objective or informing patient care. In a clinical practice setting, patients with a stable disease/condition may require less frequent PRO administration. Long-term monitoring may be burdensome and may lead to reduced PRO completion rates, but may be warranted in some instances (for example, for chronic disease monitoring or real-world evidence generation) 32 .

Consider the time points for assessing PRO measures within an allowable window and their relationship to clinical events (for example, treatment, clinical assessments and other assessments). Depending on the research or clinical objective, it may not be necessary to deliver all PRO measures at every time point 28 . A modular approach could be taken, in which different assessment frequencies are selected to reduce patient burden 9 . For example, more general quality-of-life aspects (for example, social or emotional well-being) may be assessed less frequently than the presence and severity of symptoms.

Measure selection

Recommendation 4: review the literature to identify relevant concept(s) of interest.

To minimize burden, the concept(s) measured by the PRO measure should be relevant to the target population, disease setting and context of use (healthcare research or clinical practice). A literature review and/or surveys or qualitative work (Recommendation 5) can be conducted to identify concept(s) of interest.

Recommendation 5: qualitative and quantitative methods may be used to obtain input from patients and clinicians on selecting or developing PRO measures so that they are fit for purpose

Patient, clinician and other stakeholder input may be obtained using qualitative and/or quantitative methods, including interviews, focus groups and surveys 28 , 33 . Patient engagement and involvement is helpful to inform selection of PRO measures that capture meaningful outcomes, while reducing burden 26 , 34 . This may help avoid overly paternalistic approaches that are clinician- or researcher-driven 35 .

Recommendation 6: consider the complexity of the format of PRO measures and their instructions

PRO measures with greater complexity that require more cognitive effort to understand, such as those with complicated instructions, phrasing and reverse response options, may be more burdensome for respondents 11 , 17 , 33 . Discussions with patients from the target population may be used to explore these issues and ascertain the level of burden that may be associated with the PRO measures being considered 33 . The use of multiple measures with different formats may further increase complexity and should be avoided if possible.

Recommendation 7: consider the literacy level of respondents

Where possible, promote inclusion of individuals with all levels of reading, writing and problem-solving abilities 11 , 35 . Ensure that PRO content and training is easy to understand for respondents with different literacy levels and educational experience by conducting relevant readability assessments (for example, Flesch–Kincaid grade level or SMOG (simple measure of gobbledygook) index score) 35 . It is recommended that PRO items be at the reading level of 11–12 years of age or lower; however, this criterion should be contextualized to the intended target population and justified 16 .

Recommendation 8: ensure that the selected PRO measures are culturally and linguistically relevant for the target population

If PRO measures are translated into other languages, ensure that they have undergone linguistic validation with cognitive debriefing 27 , 36 . Linguistic validation is the testing of translated PRO measures with patients or lay individuals who are representative of the cultural group intending to use the measure to check understandability, interpretation and cultural relevance of the translation 37 .

Recommendation 9: consider the length of PRO measures and decide whether the use of a relatively longer measure is justified

Measure length is often considered as a contributing factor to PRO respondent burden; however, measure length should be balanced with patient and clinician input on what outcomes are most relevant to the population and context 30 . Relatively shorter measures may reduce respondent burden and increase patients’ willingness to complete forms 38 ; however, brevity should not outweigh the utilization of PRO measures with appropriate measurement properties (reliability and validity) to assess outcomes that are relevant to key stakeholders, the research question(s)/PRO objectives and purpose of collection 30 , 39 , 40 .

There is evidence that the length of a PRO measure may not necessarily be associated with respondent burden 16 , 18 , 30 and high response rates could be achieved with administration of relatively longer PRO measures if they are meaningful to respondents 41 . Furthermore, patients may prefer longer forms to shorter versions if they capture concepts that matter to them and can meaningfully inform care 1 , 17 , 18 . Ultimately, evaluations of PRO measure length should consider the context of use of the data, the views of those living with the condition and those responsible for using the data. Early patient involvement in selection of the measures is crucial (Recommendation 5).

Linked to the issue of PRO measure length is estimated completion time. The needs of the target population (for example, age, disease severity and comorbid conditions) and aspects of design (for example, mode and place of PRO measure administration), may impact overall completion times. Relevant stakeholder input should be sought on the anticipated completion time and its appropriateness in terms of the research or clinical context and the patient population. For instance, a PRO measure that generally requires more time to complete might not be suitable for use in a busy outpatient clinic. The same PRO measure might be appropriate for use if completed remotely, before clinical appointments. In terms of patient population, a PRO measure that requires less time to complete may be preferable for patients with osteoarthritis of the hand. In a research context it has been suggested that completion time of baseline PRO assessments should ideally be limited to 20 min and 10–15 min for subsequent assessments 10 , 22 .

Recommendation 10: if selecting more than one PRO measure, avoid overlapping constructs

The use of more than one PRO measure requires careful consideration to avoid duplication, overlap or redundancy of constructs 9 , 42 . The administration of several PRO measures may lead to respondent burden and a higher likelihood of missing data in those measures administered later, particularly if the constructs overlap. For research purposes, it is advisable that measures to support the primary and/or secondary outcomes are prioritized over those supporting exploratory outcomes.

Recommendation 11: consider the recall periods for measures, as longer timeframes may be burdensome for some respondents

When selecting PRO measures, it is important to consider the recall period (for example, ‘In the last 7 days…’) and whether characteristics of the disease/condition will affect the respondents’ ability to recall the information easily and correctly 11 , 43 . The majority of PRO measures will often have a specified validated recall period, which should not be changed without consultation and approval from the instrument developer. If multiple recall periods have been validated by developers for a particular measure, then input from relevant stakeholders, including clinicians and patients, is recommended to decide which is most appropriate for respondents and the disease/condition of interest 43 .

Measure delivery

Recommendation 12: ensure that respondents understand why the data are being collected, who will have access, how it will be used and why it is important for them to complete the pro measures.

It is important to inform patients about why PRO data are being collected, making it clear how the data they report could help improve their own care in clinical practice and the future treatment of patients in healthcare research 10 , 26 , 44 . Perceptions of the intrusiveness of items and their usefulness may influence respondents’ perception of burden 14 . Explanations of the importance of PRO collection and the challenge of missing PRO data, may encourage respondents to complete PROs on a regular basis 26 . This recommendation applies not only in healthcare research settings, where informed consent is formally obtained, but also in clinical practice where PROs are being used as part of standard care (and patients typically do not sign consent forms).

Recommendation 13: provide clear instructions, training and support for respondents on the completion of PROs as needed

It is important that patients are provided with clear instructions on how to provide their PRO responses and be given ongoing support as needed. This may enhance the quality and completeness of the data collected.

Recommendation 14: provide training and guidance for research staff and clinicians in clinical practice so that they understand the value of PROs and respondent burden

PROs may be perceived to be burdensome by research personnel, clinical teams and research ethics committees, particularly if there are numerous measures or participants are very ill 12 , 26 . Qualitative interviews suggest that trialists may be reluctant to collect PROs due to the perceived respondent burden, even when participants may be willing to complete them 26 . Appropriate training for staff might help alleviate their concerns and avoid an overly paternalistic approach, and may help them address any questions raised by participants regarding PRO collection. It may also help them provide information on the importance and value of data collection, which may motivate participants to complete PRO measures.

For clinical trials, site manuals or protocols should provide specific guidance on PRO administration and management and highlight the importance of facilitating adherence and completeness of data 31 .

Recommendation 15: specify the level or type of support that can be provided to respondents to facilitate the completion of PRO measures

For respondents unable to complete PRO measures on their own, consider and specify what help can be provided to support completion by the respondent (for example, holding a pen, assistance with a telephone or computer keyboard, scrolling/turning pages or reading out text) 11 . Responses to the PRO questions should be decided by the patient and not an assisting person.

Recommendation 16: offer flexible modes of administration to meet the needs of target populations and underserved groups

Modes of PRO administration may include paper, mobile device applications (apps), web-based completion, telephone interviews, interactive voice response, audio-computer-assisted interviews and other modes 10 , 28 , 36 . The needs of the target population and their individual preferences should be considered, such as paper or electronic delivery and whether multiple modes are needed to reach all respondent groups 36 . For example, in older people or respondents with low literacy or visual impairment, interactive voice response, provision of grip-pens or interviewer-administered PRO measures could be considered to reduce the burden 10 . Patients can also provide feedback on the acceptability of a bring-your-own device versus provisioned devices and additional options such as tablets or paper versions in the waiting room for those who cannot complete PROs electronically at home. Practical ways to reduce the burden at clinic or study visits should be considered 28 .

Consider the implications of using different modalities when preparing data for analyses. If multiple modes are used for data collection to minimize burden and facilitate diversity and adherence, consider how data from different sources will be integrated. For more information on measurement comparability, see the updated recommendations from The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on measurement comparability between modes of data collection for PRO measures 45 .

Recommendation 17: where possible, consider the use of ePROs, which may help reduce respondent burden, but must be balanced with the needs and preferences of the target population

With patient populations who have access to and are comfortable with electronic devices, the use of electronic PROs (ePROs) may offer additional functionality, which could help reduce burden and improve adherence in healthcare research and clinical practice 46 . This could include allowing completion on their own devices, with real-time reminders, notifications and responses from the research or clinical team, either to thank them for completion or to respond to issues identified on the PRO, depending on the context of use. Furthermore, ePROs make the use of innovations such as computerized adaptive testing possible. ePROs may also facilitate symptom monitoring between visits 12 ; however, patients may face barriers to using digital services, including a lack of digital skills/low computer literacy or lack of access to reliable information technology infrastructure. Estimates suggest that 37% of the world’s 7.8 billion population are digitally excluded, with older people, people on low incomes and other marginalized groups most likely to be affected 35 . It is important that these potential barriers and the preferences of the patient population in terms of mode of collection (as described Recommendation 16) are carefully considered with patient input when developing PRO strategies, to ensure that PRO assessments are as inclusive and equitable as possible 35 .

Recommendation 18: if developing new ePRO systems or modifying an existing one for a new context of use, involve patients and clinicians in the co-design of the ePRO system

Ensure that the patients providing input to the development or modification of the ePRO system include representatives from the target population and are diverse in terms of computer literacy and internet access, considering attributes as appropriate to the research question or clinical context 47 . Examples may include but are not limited to: sex; gender; socioeconomic background; race/ethnicity; age; health literacy; computer literacy and internet access; and disease characteristics. There may be country-specific regulatory expectations and requirements that may also need to be considered when developing ePRO systems 48 . The Electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment Consortium has published best practices for the electronic implementation and migration of paper PRO measures to ePROs 49 .

Recommendation 19: explore the functionality of ePROs with diverse representatives from the target population where possible

Several ePRO features may facilitate completion and help to minimize burden 46 . Patient involvement in the study co-design and usability testing with the target population can be used to identify appropriate formats 50 , 51 . Depending on the context and where permissible, consider providing the following elements in the platform: estimated completion time, progress tracker, graphical results that are easy to interpret, positive messaging/reminders, completion rate and a thank you message after completion 42 , 46 . In terms of the format consider using underlining and capitalization where appropriate, easy-to-read fonts and font sizes, one question per screen, back/next buttons and location, branching logic and adaptive web design (where multiple versions of a web page are created to fit different devices) 11 , 42 , 49 . Seek patient preferences on how they receive requests and reminders to complete ePRO measures (for example, emails and/or text messages).

Discussions about respondent burden frequently arise when health researchers, trialists and clinical teams are considering the use of PROs for healthcare research or clinical practice. This consensus statement provides accessible information in the form of consensus-based recommendations for addressing PRO-related respondent burden. The 19 recommendations are organized into three categories: rationale and schedule of assessments, measure selection and measure delivery.

The use of these recommendations by stakeholders such as trialists, researchers, clinicians and healthcare providers may facilitate the identification of factors that could influence PRO-related respondent burden and support the formulation of mitigating efforts appropriate for the context of use. Research and clinical teams are encouraged to seek input from PRO experts and utilize these recommendations, as well as the resources we have highlighted in Table 2 , when considering the implementation of PROs for healthcare research or clinical practice.

While the recommendations are nonmandatory and not all may be relevant to every context, stakeholders are urged to use and reference this consensus statement to demonstrate explicitly how they have considered and addressed the issue of respondent burden. The consensus statement may also be a useful reference for those involved in scientific and ethical review of protocols and supporting materials such as peer reviewers, funding panels and ethics committees.

Although the recommendations focus on PROs in adult patients within healthcare research and clinical practice, they could be considered for use in other settings or populations such as pediatric populations and measures such as patient-reported experience measures; however, further considerations may be relevant in these contexts beyond the scope of the present work.

These recommendations have some limitations. First, while the initial review that informed the generation of the candidate recommendations was comprehensive (with 89 articles included 1 ), only one database (PubMed) was searched. There is a possibility that some relevant articles might have been missed and that some potential recommendations were not identified; however, the international Delphi participants had the opportunity to provide qualitative feedback and propose additional recommendations not identified by the review during Round 1 of the Delphi process.

Second, these recommendations do not consider burden from the perspective of research or clinical staff; separate recommendations are needed to address burden concerns for these stakeholders.

Addressing PRO respondent burden could help to ensure the collection of more representative and high-quality PRO data to inform regulatory decisions and patient care. This work is complementary to existing resources to support the collection of high-quality PROs in healthcare research and clinical care. These include the resources available on the PROTEUS trials and practice website 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , equity, diversity and inclusion in the collection and utilization of PROs 35 , PRO ethics guidelines 22 , the US FDA guidance 11 and European Medicines Agency guidance 10 (Table 2 ).

The use of the recommendations in this consensus statement and related guidance could lead to high-quality PRO data collection that carefully considers the needs of respondents, promoting inclusive data collection. The impact of these recommendations, when implemented in different clinical contexts, should be evaluated in future research.

Aiyegbusi, O. L. et al. Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection. Nat. Commun. 13 , 6026 (2022).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Aiyegbusi, O. L., Nair, D., Peipert, J. D., Schick-Makaroff, K. & Mucsi, I. A narrative review of current evidence supporting the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of chronic diseases. Ther. Adv. Chronic Dis. 12 , 20406223211015958 (2021).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cruz Rivera, S. et al. The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 17 , 156 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Cruz Rivera, S. et al. Patient-reported outcomes in the regulatory approval of medical devices. Nat. Med. 27 , 2067–2068 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Price, G., Valderas, J. M. & Hjollund, N. H. Maximising the impact of patient-reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ 364 , k5267 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Calvert, M. J., O’Connor, D. J. & Basch, E. M. Harnessing the patient voice in real-world evidence: the essential role of patient-reported outcomes. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 18 , 731–732 (2019).

Denis, F. et al. Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA 321 , 306–307 (2019).

Basch, E. et al. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 318 , 197–198 (2017).

US Food and Drug Administration. Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials. Guidance for Industry https://www.fda.gov/media/149994/download (2021).

European Medicines Agency. The Use of Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) Measures in Oncology Studies https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/reflection-paper-regulatory-guidance-use-healthrelated-quality-life-hrql-measures-evaluation_en.pdf (2016).

US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medicinal Product Development to Support Labeling Claims https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf (2009).

Aiyegbusi, O. L. et al. Patient and clinician perspectives on electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of advanced CKD: a qualitative study. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 74 , 167–178 (2019).

Snyder, C. F., Jensen, R. E., Geller, G., Carducci, M. A. & Wu, A. W. Relevant content for a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for use in oncology clinical practice: putting doctors and patients on the same page. Qual. Life Res. 19 , 1045–1055 (2010).

Bingham, C. O. 3rd et al. Montreal accord on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) use series. Paper 4: patient-reported outcomes can inform clinical decision making in chronic care. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 89 , 136–141 (2017).

Lavrakas, P. J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods (Sage Publications, 2008).

Francis, D. O., McPheeters, M. L., Noud, M., Penson, D. F. & Feurer, I. D. Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures. Syst. Rev. 5 , 129–129 (2016).

Atkinson, T. M. et al. Perceptions of response burden associated with completion of patient-reported outcome assessments in oncology. Value Health 22 , 225–230 (2019).

Rolstad, S., Adler, J. & Rydén, A. Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health 14 , 1101–1108 (2011).

World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310 , 2191–2194 (2013).

National Health and Medical Research Council. National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2018).

NIH. Guiding Principles for Ethical Research https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research (2016).

Cruz Rivera, S. et al. Ethical considerations for the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical research: the PRO ethics guidelines. JAMA 327 , 1910–1919 (2022).

Williamson, P. R. et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials 18 , 280 (2017).

Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S. & Redwood, S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med. Res. Method. 13 , 117 (2013).

King-Kallimanis, B. L. et al. Patient-reported outcomes after treatment discontinuation: commercial clinical trial data from four cancer types. Value Health 24 , 1302–1307 (2021).

Retzer, A. et al. International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study. Cancer Med. 10 , 5475–5487 (2021).

Skevington, S. M. & McCrate, F. M. Expecting a good quality of life in health: assessing people with diverse diseases and conditions using the WHOQOL-BREF. Health Expect. 15 , 49–62 (2012).

Turner, R. R., Quittner, A. L., Parasuraman, B. M., Kallich, J. D. & Cleeland, C. S. Patient-reported outcomes: instrument development and selection issues. Value Health 10 , S86–S93 (2007).

Lawrance, R., Skaltsa, K., Regnault, A. & Floden, L. Reflections on estimands for patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials. J. Biopharm. Stat. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2023.2280628 (2023).

Ettridge, K. et al. A randomised online experimental study to compare responses to brief and extended surveys of health-related quality of life and psychosocial outcomes among women with breast cancer. Qual. Life Res. 30 , 407–423 (2021).

Biber, J. et al. Patient-reported outcomes: experiences with implementation in a university health care setting. J. Patient-Rep. Outcomes 2 , 34–34 (2018).

Low, C. A. et al. Estimation of symptom severity during chemotherapy from passively sensed data: exploratory study. J. Med. Internet Res. 19 , e420 (2017).

Ploughman, M., Austin, M., Stefanelli, M. & Godwin, M. Applying cognitive debriefing to pre-test patient-reported outcomes in older people with multiple sclerosis. Qual. Life Res. 19 , 483–487 (2010).

US Food and Drug Administration. Patient-Focused Drug Development: Selecting, Developing, or Modifying Fit-for-Purpose Clinical Outcome Assessments: Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders https://www.fda.gov/media/159500/download (2022).

Calvert, M. J. et al. Patient-reported outcome assessment must be inclusive and equitable. Nat. Med. 28 , 1120–1124 (2022).

Trick, W. E., Deamant, C., Smith, J., Garcia, D. & Angulo, F. Implementation of an audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) system in a general medicine clinic: patient response burden. Appl Clin. Inf. 6 , 148–162 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wild, D. et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 8 , 94–104 (2005).

Shetty, P. N., Hawken, J., Sanghavi, K. K. & Giladi, A. M. Correlation of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system questionnaires with the brief michigan hand questionnaire in patients with 5 common hand conditions. J. Hand Surg. Am. 46 , 709 (2021).

Kroenke, K., Monahan, P. O. & Kean, J. Pragmatic characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures are important for use in clinical practice. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68 , 1085–1092 (2015).

Allen, M. J. & Yen, W. M. Introduction to Measurement Theory (Waveland Press, 2001).

Shepshelovich, D. et al. Feasibility assessment of using the complete patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) item library. Oncologist 24 , e146–e148 (2019).

Mercieca-Bebber, R. et al. Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review. BMJ Open 6 , e010938 (2016).

Norquist, J. M., Girman, C., Fehnel, S., DeMuro-Mercon, C. & Santanello, N. Choice of recall period for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: criteria for consideration. Qual. Life Res. 21 , 1013–1020 (2012).

Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H. & Calvert, M. Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of UK trial staff and management. BMJ Open 6 , e012281 (2016).

O’Donohoe, P. et al. Updated recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement comparability among modes of data collection for patient-reported outcome measures: a good practices report of an ISPOR Task Force. Value Health 26 , 623–633 (2023).

Dumais, K. M. et al. Preferences for use and design of electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patient 12 , 621–629 (2019).

Kyte, D. et al. Development of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system to aid the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. J. Patient-Rep. Outcomes 4 , 55 (2020).

Walker, P. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Inspectorate: ePRO – An Inspector’s Perspective https://mhrainspectorate.blog.gov.uk/2016/07/07/epro-an-inspectors-perspective/ (2016).

Mowlem, F. D. et al. Best practices for the electronic implementation and migration of patient-reported outcome measures. Value Health https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.10.007 (2024).

Aiyegbusi, O. L. Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems. Qual. Life Res. 29 , 325–333 (2020).

McMullan, C., Hughes, S. E., Aiyegbusi, O. L. & Calvert, M. Usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome system linked to an electronic chemotherapy prescribing and patient management system for patients with cancer. Heliyon 9 , e16453 (2023).

Reeve, B. B. et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual. Life Res. 22 , 1889–1905 (2013).

Calvert, M. et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA 319 , 483–494 (2018).

Proteus Consortium. SPIRIT-PRO PROtocol Reporting Template: A Template Based on Recommendations for Writing Clinical Trial Protocols with Patient-reported Outcomes https://theproteusconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/230220-SPIRIT-PRO-PROtocol-template.pdf (2021).

Crossnohere N, B. M., Snyder C. & the Advisory Group. The PROTEUS Guide to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice: A Synthesis of Resources (PROTEUS Consortium, 2023).

Calvert, M. et al. SPIRIT-PRO extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials. BMJ Open 11 , e045105 (2021).

Cruz Rivera, S. et al. ‘Give us the tools!’: development of knowledge transfer tools to support the involvement of patient partners in the development of clinical trial protocols with patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in accordance with SPIRIT-PRO extension. BMJ Open 11 , e046450 (2021).

Snyder, C. et al. Recommendations for including or reviewing patient-reported outcome endpoints in grant applications. BMJ 373 , n1367 (2021).

US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders: Patient-Focused Drug Development: Methods to Identify What Is Important to Patients. https://www.fda.gov/media/131230/download (2019).

US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders: Patient-Focused Drug Development: Collecting Comprehensive and Representative Input https://www.fda.gov/media/139088/download (2020).

US Food and Drug Administration. Patient-Focused Drug Development: Incorporating Clinical Outcome Assessments into Endpoints For Regulatory Decision-Making. Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders https://www.fda.gov/media/166830/download (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the participants who were involved in the Delphi study ( Supplementary Information ). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and Delphi participants and may not represent the views of the broader stakeholder group or host institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research (CPROR), Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Samantha Cruz Rivera, Yvonne Alder, Nicola Anderson, Philip Collis, Sarah E. Hughes, Flic Jeyes, Christel McMullan, Rav Verdi, Roger Wilson & Melanie J. Calvert

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), University Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Nicola Anderson, Alastair K. Denniston, Sarah E. Hughes & Melanie J. Calvert

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Nicola Anderson, Sarah E. Hughes & Melanie J. Calvert

NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Sarah E. Hughes, Christel McMullan & Melanie J. Calvert

Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Samantha Cruz Rivera & Melanie J. Calvert

Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Jessica Roydhouse

Department of Health Services Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA

Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

Paul Kamudoni

University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK

Nicola Anderson & Alastair K. Denniston

Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Robert Mitchell Baldwin, Jennifer Black & Maxime Sasseville

Oncology Center of Excellence, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Vishal Bhatnagar

Bottomley Consulting Group, Belgium, Belgium

Andrew Bottomley

Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Michael Brundage

Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

David Cella & John Devin Peipert

Aparito, Wrexham, UK

Elin-Haf Davies

Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA), Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy

Fabio Efficace

The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK

Adrian Gardner

Aston University, Birmingham, UK

RTI Health Solutions, Durham, NC, USA

Ari Gnanasakthy

Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

Robert M. Golub

Critical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA

Scottie Kern

LUNGevity Foundation, Bethesda, MD, USA

Bellinda L. King-Kallimanis

QC Medica, Liverpool, UK

Antony Martin

The NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber

Nature Medicine, New York, NY, USA

Joao Monteiro

William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Juan Carlos Quijano-Campos

St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK

Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK

European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Chantal Quinten

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, London, UK

Khadija Rerhou Rantell

Modus Outcomes, Lyon, France

Antoine Regnault

AmbuFlex, Centre for Patient-reported Outcomes, Gødstrup Hospital, Herning, Denmark

Liv Marit Valen Schougaard

Mapi Research Trust, Lyon, France

Roya Sherafat-Kazemzadeh

Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Claire Snyder

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Angela M. Stover

Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Cancer Research Advocacy Forum, London, UK

Roger Wilson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

O.L.A., M.J.C., S.C.R., J.R. and P.K. were responsible for concept and design, acquisition and data analysis. O.L.A. and M.J.C. had full access to the data in the study and are responsible for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors were responsible for interpretation of data. O.L.A. and M.J.C. were responsible for drafting the manuscript. All authors were responsible for critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

O.L.A. receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), Health Foundation, Merck, Gilead, Anthony Nolan, Sarcoma UK and GSK. He declares personal fees from Gilead Sciences Ltd, Merck and GSK outside the submitted work. S.C.R. receives funding from UK SPINE, Merck and declares personal fees from Merck. M.J.C. is Director of the Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Director of the Centre for the Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. M.J.C. receives funding from the NIHR, UKRI, NIHR Birmingham BRC, the NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, NIHR ARC West Midlands, UK SPINE, European Regional Development Fund – Demand Hub and Health Data Research UK at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Innovate UK (part of UKRI), Macmillan Cancer Support, UCB Pharma, Janssen, GSK and Gilead. M.C. has received personal fees from Astellas, Aparito, CIS Oncology, Takeda, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaukos, GSK, Pfizer, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and Vertex outside the submitted work. In addition, a family member owns shares in GSK. J.R., through her institution, has received consultancy fees from the University of Birmingham Enterprise. Through her institution, she is supported by an unrelated Select Foundation Fellowship and has received unrelated research funding from Pfizer, the EuroQol Foundation, PCORI, the Royal Hobart Hospital Research Foundation and the US FDA. In addition, she is Chair of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group and the ISOQOL Australia and New Zealand Special Interest Group and Associate Editor for the Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. N.A. receives funding from NIHR ARC West Midlands. S.E.H. receives funding from the NIHR, NIHR BTRU in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, NIHR Birmingham BRC, NIHR (ARC) West Midlands, UKRI and UK SPINE. She declares personal fees from Cochlear, Pfizer, Rinri Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Aparito and CIS Oncology outside the submitted work. J.D.P. has received unrelated research funding from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the ECOG-ACRIN Medical Research Foundation, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Veloxis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and the Northwestern University George M. O’Brien Kidney Core Center. He has received unrelated personal fees from AstraZeneca, IMPAQ International and FACIT.org. In addition, he is part of the ISOQOL, Psychometric Special Interest Group Chair. F.E. received personal fees from AbbVie, Incyte, Syros and Novartis, outside the submitted work. C.M. receives funding from NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, UKRI, NIHR, NIHR BTRU in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics and declares personal fees from Aparito outside the submitted work. E.H.D. owns an ePRO software platform called Atom5 through Aparito. A.B. is the founder of Bottomley Consulting Group. He has received fees, payments from Sevier, Pfizer, Ferring, Bayer, GSK, Merck, BMS, EMD Serano, Mirati, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vertex, FWA, European Commission and MD Anderson and is a Board member of the PROTEUS consortium and receives bursary from John Hopkins University. He is a member of ISOQOL and ISPOR. B.K.K. received unrelated research funding from grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Jazz Pharma, Genentech, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Takeda, Dachii Sankyo, Blueprint Medicines, Janssen, Amgen and Seagen. She also served as a paid consultant to Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead outside of the submitted work. A.M. is partner of QC Medica, a health economics and outcomes research consultancy company. C.S. receives research funding from Pfizer (current) and Genentech (previous) through her institution and personal fees from Janssen (previous) and Shionogi (current). A.M.S. receives unrelated research funding through her institution from the National Institutes of Health, PCORI, AHRQ, Pfizer, UroGen Pharma and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. She has received past funding from Sivan Innovation, Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association and the Cancer and Aging Research Group. She also served as a paid consultant to Navigating Cancer (personal fees). M.B. receives research funding from Pfizer through another institution. A.D. is Deputy Director of the Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. He receives funding from the NIHR, UKRI and NIHR Birmingham BRC. No other disclosures are reported. J.M. is chief editor at Nature Medicine and has not taken part in the peer review and editorial process of this consensus statement. This work was funded by Merck Healthcare and along with the study sponsor, the University of Birmingham, had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Several authors are employees of this organization; however, beyond the declared author contributions, the sponsor had no additional role. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, US FDA, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, European Medicines Agency and Health Canada.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Aaron Hansen, Thomas Atkinson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Karen O’Leary, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Information.

Supplementary Data

Pre-meeting information: consensus meeting.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aiyegbusi, O.L., Cruz Rivera, S., Roydhouse, J. et al. Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment. Nat Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02827-9

Download citation

Received : 05 December 2023

Accepted : 23 January 2024

Published : 29 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02827-9

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

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

what is the recommendation in research paper

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Information Retrieval

Title: bivrec: bidirectional view-based multimodal sequential recommendation.

Abstract: The integration of multimodal information into sequential recommender systems has attracted significant attention in recent research. In the initial stages of multimodal sequential recommendation models, the mainstream paradigm was ID-dominant recommendations, wherein multimodal information was fused as side information. However, due to their limitations in terms of transferability and information intrusion, another paradigm emerged, wherein multimodal features were employed directly for recommendation, enabling recommendation across datasets. Nonetheless, it overlooked user ID information, resulting in low information utilization and high training costs. To this end, we propose an innovative framework, BivRec, that jointly trains the recommendation tasks in both ID and multimodal views, leveraging their synergistic relationship to enhance recommendation performance bidirectionally. To tackle the information heterogeneity issue, we first construct structured user interest representations and then learn the synergistic relationship between them. Specifically, BivRec comprises three modules: Multi-scale Interest Embedding, comprehensively modeling user interests by expanding user interaction sequences with multi-scale patching; Intra-View Interest Decomposition, constructing highly structured interest representations using carefully designed Gaussian attention and Cluster attention; and Cross-View Interest Learning, learning the synergistic relationship between the two recommendation views through coarse-grained overall semantic similarity and fine-grained interest allocation similarity BiVRec achieves state-of-the-art performance on five datasets and showcases various practical advantages.

Submission history

Access paper:.

  • Download PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • Other Formats

References & Citations

  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

BibSonomy logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

  • Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

IMAGES

  1. Research Recommendation Sample Pdf

    what is the recommendation in research paper

  2. (PDF) Technical Paper Recommendation: A Study in Combining Multiple

    what is the recommendation in research paper

  3. 43 FREE Letter of Recommendation Templates & Samples

    what is the recommendation in research paper

  4. 💋 Example of recommendation in research paper. Chapter 5 Summary

    what is the recommendation in research paper

  5. (PDF) CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0 Introduction

    what is the recommendation in research paper

  6. 🏆 Example of recommendation in research paper. Example Of Policy

    what is the recommendation in research paper

VIDEO

  1. Mastering Research: Choosing a Winning Dissertation or Thesis Topic

  2. Choosing A Research Topic

  3. Procrastinating On Your Research Papers? How To Fix It TODAY

  4. Research Paper Methodology

  5. How to write a research paper conclusion

  6. Choosing the Best Research Topic

COMMENTS

  1. How to Write Recommendations in Research

    Recommendations for future research should be: Concrete and specific. Supported with a clear rationale. Directly connected to your research. Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.

  2. Research Recommendations

    For example, recommendations from research on climate change can be used to develop policies that reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability. Program development: Research recommendations can guide the development of programs that address specific issues. For example, recommendations from research on education can be used to develop ...

  3. How to Write Recommendations in Research

    Here is a step-wise guide to build your understanding on the development of research recommendations. 1. Understand the Research Question: Understand the research question and objectives before writing recommendations. Also, ensure that your recommendations are relevant and directly address the goals of the study. 2.

  4. What are Implications and Recommendations in Research? How to Write It

    Basic differences between implications and recommendations in research. Implications and recommendations in research are two important aspects of a research paper or your thesis or dissertation. Implications discuss the importance of the research findings, while recommendations offer specific actions to solve a problem.

  5. How to Write Recommendations in Research Paper

    Recommendations in a research paper: meaning and goals Before you start learning how to write recommendations in a research paper, the first thing is to clarify the meaning of this term. It is a significant element in the research paper structure, as it is critical to your discussion section and conclusion. While conducting research and ...

  6. Implications or Recommendations in Research: What's the Difference

    High-quality research articles that get many citations contain both implications and recommendations. Implications are the impact your research makes, whereas recommendations are specific actions that can then be taken based on your findings, such as for more research or for policymaking. That seems clear enough, but the two are commonly confused.

  7. 22 Writing the conclusion & recommendations

    Suggest how your work reported in this paper opens new research possibilities. Implications of the study: Place the study in a wider context of research in the discipline and/ or a situation in the real world. (positive) Applications of the research: Indicate how the research may be practically useful in real-world situations: Recommendations

  8. How to formulate research recommendations

    How to formulate research recommendations. "More research is needed" is a conclusion that fits most systematic reviews. But authors need to be more specific about what exactly is required. Long awaited reports of new research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines are too often a disappointing anticlimax for those wishing to use them ...

  9. How to Write Conclusions and Recommendations in a Research Paper

    The best structure for a conclusion in a research paper is to draft your conclusion in such a way that it links back to your introduction and your introduction links back to it, just like a perfect cycle. This can be done by restating the question asked in the introduction. But in this section, you would be providing an answer that your readers ...

  10. How to write recommendations in a research paper

    Recommendations in the research paper should come from your review and analysis For example It was observed that coaches interviewed were associated with the club were working with the club from the past 2-3 years only. This shows that the attrition rate of coaches is high and therefore clubs should work on reducing the turnover of coaches.

  11. Writing a Research Paper Conclusion

    In a more empirical paper, you can close by either making recommendations for practice (for example, in clinical or policy papers), or suggesting directions for future research. Whatever the scope of your own research, there will always be room for further investigation of related topics, and you'll often discover new questions and problems ...

  12. In research, what is the difference between implication and ...

    88. Comment. Answer: Research implications basically refer to impact that your research might have on future research or policy decision or the relevant field of interest of your study. 'How will your research affect the targeted community or subject field' is the question that implications will answer. Recommendations are based on the results ...

  13. Health research: How to formulate research recommendations

    The proposed statement on research recommendations applies to uncertainties of the effects of any form of health intervention or treatment and is intended for research in humans rather than basic scientific research. Further investigation is required to assess the applicability of the format for questions around diagnosis, signs and symptoms ...

  14. How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

    Begin with a clear statement of the principal findings. This will reinforce the main take-away for the reader and set up the rest of the discussion. Explain why the outcomes of your study are important to the reader. Discuss the implications of your findings realistically based on previous literature, highlighting both the strengths and ...

  15. How to Write a Research Paper

    A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research. ... The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

  16. How to Write a Strong Recommendation Section for Your Research Paper

    A recommendation section is a vital part of your research paper, as it shows how your findings can be applied, extended, or improved in future studies or practice. It also demonstrates your ...

  17. Conclusions and recommendations

    The following recommendations for research are based on the study findings: Limited and variable access to services in the wider health and social care system is a significant barrier to reducing inappropriate conveyance to A&E. More research is needed to identify effective ways of improving the delivery of care across service boundaries ...

  18. (Pdf) Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations

    Research Question 1 identified the words and phrases that reflected values subscribed by 5 participants during written communication (online) and spoken communication (face- to -face) which was ...

  19. Conclusions and recommendations for future research

    The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8. We have developed and ...

  20. How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

    When working on how to conclude a research paper, remember to stick to summarizing and interpreting existing content. The research paper conclusion serves the following purposes: 1. Warn readers of the possible consequences of not attending to the problem. Recommend specific course (s) of action.

  21. [2201.00682] Scientific Paper Recommendation Systems: a Literature

    Scientific Paper Recommendation Systems: a Literature Review of recent Publications. Christin Katharina Kreutz, Ralf Schenkel. Scientific writing builds upon already published papers. Manual identification of publications to read, cite or consider as related papers relies on a researcher's ability to identify fitting keywords or initial papers ...

  22. Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with ...

    Second, these recommendations do not consider burden from the perspective of research or clinical staff; separate recommendations are needed to address burden concerns for these stakeholders.

  23. Book Recommendation System: a Systematic Review and Research Issues

    Book Recommendation System (BRS) recommends a set of books to users based on their previous ratings. The current work focuses on content-based filtering, collaborative filtering, and hybrid ...

  24. BiVRec: Bidirectional View-based Multimodal Sequential Recommendation

    The integration of multimodal information into sequential recommender systems has attracted significant attention in recent research. In the initial stages of multimodal sequential recommendation models, the mainstream paradigm was ID-dominant recommendations, wherein multimodal information was fused as side information. However, due to their limitations in terms of transferability and ...

  25. UA Innovate on Instagram: "International Paper is sponsoring this year

    10 likes, 0 comments - uainnovate on February 27, 2024: "International Paper is sponsoring this year's Social Innovation category! Participants can expect..." UA Innovate on Instagram: "International Paper is sponsoring this year's Social Innovation category!

  26. Movie and Music Recommendation System based on Facial Expressions

    This paper depicts a novel approach of recommendation system created to extract user's facial expressions and analyze it using Convolutional Neural Network. CNN is a type of artificial neural network which primarily is used for image recognition and processing by recognizing patterns in images.