recommendation in a research project

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 Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on September 15, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on July 18, 2023.

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyze the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic. Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

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.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

• Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
• Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
• Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

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

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question   conclusion  recommendation. Here’s an example.

Conclusion An important condition for controlling many social skills is mastering language. If children have a better command of language, they can express themselves better and are better able to understand their peers. Opportunities to practice social skills are thus dependent on the development of language skills.

As a rule of thumb, try to limit yourself to only the most relevant future recommendations: ones that stem directly from your work. While you can have multiple recommendations for each research conclusion, it is also acceptable to have one recommendation that is connected to more than one conclusion.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar subjects to your paper or dissertation topic . They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Survivorship bias
• Self-serving bias
• Availability heuristic
• Halo effect
• Hindsight bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the discussion section and results section
• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion …”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g., “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2023, July 18). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved July 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/recommendations-in-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

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

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Dissertation vs Thesis – Key Differences

Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and...

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing...

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

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

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:

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:

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.

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.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Career Corner
• Reporting Research

How to Create a Poster That Stands Out: Tips for a smooth poster presentation

It was the conference season. Judy was excited to present her first poster! She had…

• Diversity and Inclusion
• Industry News

6 Reasons Why There is a Decline in Higher Education Enrollment: Action plan to overcome this crisis

Over the past decade, colleges and universities across the globe have witnessed a concerning trend…

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• Publishing News

Unified AI Guidelines Crucial as Academic Writing Embraces Generative Tools

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT are advancing at an accelerating pace, their…

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

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 would be most effective in reducing research misconduct?

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on 15 September 2022 by Tegan George .

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyse the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic . Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

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.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

• Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
• Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
• Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question   conclusion  recommendation. Here’s an example.

Conclusion An important condition for controlling many social skills is mastering language. If children have a better command of language, they can express themselves better and are better able to understand their peers. Opportunities to practice social skills are thus dependent on the development of language skills.

As a rule of thumb, try to limit yourself to only the most relevant future recommendations: ones that stem directly from your work. While you can have multiple recommendations for each research conclusion, it is also acceptable to have one recommendation that is connected to more than one conclusion.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar topics to yours. They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

The current study can be interpreted as a first step in the research on COPD speech characteristics. However, the results of this study should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the lack of details regarding the participants’ characteristics.

Future research could further examine the differences in speech characteristics between exacerbated COPD patients, stable COPD patients, and healthy controls. It could also contribute to a deeper understanding of the acoustic measurements suitable for e-health measurements.

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion…”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g. “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2022, September 15). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 4 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/research-recommendations/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

The Ultimate Guide to Crafting Impactful Recommendations in Research

Are you ready to take your research to the next level? Crafting impactful recommendations is the key to unlocking the full potential of your study. By providing clear, actionable suggestions based on your findings, you can bridge the gap between research and real-world application.

In this ultimate guide, we'll show you how to write recommendations that make a difference in your research report or paper.

You'll learn how to craft specific, actionable recommendations that connect seamlessly with your research findings. Whether you're a student, writer, teacher, or journalist, this guide will help you master the art of writing recommendations in research. Let's get started and make your research count!

Understanding the Purpose of Recommendations

Recommendations in research serve as a vital bridge between your findings and their real-world applications. They provide specific, action-oriented suggestions to guide future studies and decision-making processes. Let's dive into the key purposes of crafting effective recommendations:

Guiding Future Research

Research recommendations play a crucial role in steering scholars and researchers towards promising avenues of exploration. By highlighting gaps in current knowledge and proposing new research questions, recommendations help advance the field and drive innovation.

Influencing Decision-Making

Well-crafted recommendations have the power to shape policies, programs, and strategies across various domains, such as:

• Policy-making
• Product development
• Marketing strategies
• Medical practice

By providing clear, evidence-based suggestions, recommendations facilitate informed decision-making and improve outcomes.

Connecting Research to Practice

Recommendations act as a conduit for transferring knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders. They bridge the gap between academic findings and their practical applications, ensuring that research insights are effectively translated into real-world solutions.

Enhancing Research Impact

By crafting impactful recommendations, you can amplify the reach and influence of your research, attracting attention from peers, funding agencies, and decision-makers.

Addressing Limitations

Recommendations provide an opportunity to acknowledge and address the limitations of your study. By suggesting concrete and actionable possibilities for future research, you demonstrate a thorough understanding of your work's scope and potential areas for improvement.

Identifying Areas for Future Research

Discovering research gaps is a crucial step in crafting impactful recommendations. It involves reviewing existing studies and identifying unanswered questions or problems that warrant further investigation. Here are some strategies to help you identify areas for future research:

Explore Research Limitations

Take a close look at the limitations section of relevant studies. These limitations often provide valuable insights into potential areas for future research. Consider how addressing these limitations could enhance our understanding of the topic at hand.

Critically Analyze Discussion and Future Research Sections

When reading articles, pay special attention to the discussion and future research sections. These sections often highlight gaps in the current knowledge base and propose avenues for further exploration. Take note of any recurring themes or unanswered questions that emerge across multiple studies.

Utilize Targeted Search Terms

To streamline your search for research gaps, use targeted search terms such as "literature gap" or "future research" in combination with your subject keywords. This approach can help you quickly identify articles that explicitly discuss areas for future investigation.

Seek Guidance from Experts

Don't hesitate to reach out to your research advisor or other experts in your field. Their wealth of knowledge and experience can provide valuable insights into potential research gaps and emerging trends.

By employing these strategies, you'll be well-equipped to identify research gaps and craft recommendations that push the boundaries of current knowledge. Remember, the goal is to refine your research questions and focus your efforts on areas where more understanding is needed.

Structuring Your Recommendations

When it comes to structuring your recommendations, it's essential to keep them concise, organized, and tailored to your audience. Here are some key tips to help you craft impactful recommendations:

Prioritize and Organize

• Limit your recommendations to the most relevant and targeted suggestions for your peers or colleagues in the field.
• Place your recommendations at the end of the report, as they are often top of mind for readers.
• Write your recommendations in order of priority, with the most important ones for decision-makers coming first.

Use a Clear and Actionable Format

• Write recommendations in a clear, concise manner using actionable words derived from the data analyzed in your research.
• Use bullet points instead of long paragraphs for clarity and readability.
• Ensure that your recommendations are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely (SMART).

Connect Recommendations to Research

By following this simple formula, you can ensure that your recommendations are directly connected to your research and supported by a clear rationale.

Tailor to Your Audience

• Consider the needs and interests of your target audience when crafting your recommendations.
• Explain how your recommendations can solve the issues explored in your research.
• Acknowledge any limitations or constraints of your study that may impact the implementation of your recommendations.

Avoid Common Pitfalls

• Don't undermine your own work by suggesting incomplete or unnecessary recommendations.
• Avoid using recommendations as a place for self-criticism or introducing new information not covered in your research.
• Ensure that your recommendations are achievable and comprehensive, offering practical solutions for the issues considered in your paper.

By structuring your recommendations effectively, you can enhance the reliability and validity of your research findings, provide valuable strategies and suggestions for future research, and deliver impactful solutions to real-world problems.

Crafting Actionable and Specific Recommendations

Crafting actionable and specific recommendations is the key to ensuring your research findings have a real-world impact. Here are some essential tips to keep in mind:

Embrace Flexibility and Feasibility

Your recommendations should be open to discussion and new information, rather than being set in stone. Consider the following:

• Be realistic and considerate of your team's capabilities when making recommendations.
• Prioritize recommendations based on impact and reach, but be prepared to adjust based on team effort levels.
• Focus on solutions that require the fewest changes first, adopting an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) approach.

Provide Detailed and Justified Recommendations

To avoid vagueness and misinterpretation, ensure your recommendations are:

• Detailed, including photos, videos, or screenshots whenever possible.
• Justified based on research findings, providing alternatives when findings don't align with expectations or business goals.

Use this formula when writing recommendations:

Observed problem/pain point/unmet need + consequence + potential solution

Adopt a Solution-Oriented Approach

Foster Collaboration and Participation

• Promote staff education on current research and create strategies to encourage adoption of promising clinical protocols.
• Include representatives from the treatment community in the development of the research initiative and the review of proposals.
• Require active, early, and permanent participation of treatment staff in the development, implementation, and interpretation of the study.

Tailor Recommendations to the Opportunity

When writing recommendations for a specific opportunity or program:

• Highlight the strengths and qualifications of the researcher.
• Provide specific examples of their work and accomplishments.
• Explain how their research has contributed to the field.
• Emphasize the researcher's potential for future success and their unique contributions.

By following these guidelines, you'll craft actionable and specific recommendations that drive meaningful change and showcase the value of your research.

Connecting Recommendations with Research Findings

Connecting your recommendations with research findings is crucial for ensuring the credibility and impact of your suggestions. Here's how you can seamlessly link your recommendations to the evidence uncovered in your study:

Grounding Recommendations in Research

Your recommendations should be firmly rooted in the data and insights gathered during your research process. Avoid including measures or suggestions that were not discussed or supported by your study findings. This approach ensures that your recommendations are evidence-based and directly relevant to the research at hand.

Highlighting the Significance of Collaboration

Research collaborations offer a wealth of benefits that can enhance an agency's competitive position. Consider the following factors when discussing the importance of collaboration in your recommendations:

• Organizational Development: Participation in research collaborations depends on an agency's stage of development, compatibility with its mission and culture, and financial stability.
• Trust-Building: Long-term collaboration success often hinges on a history of increasing involvement and trust between partners.
• Infrastructure: A permanent infrastructure that facilitates long-term development is key to successful collaborative programs.

Emphasizing Commitment and Participation

Fostering Quality Improvement and Organizational Learning

In your recommendations, highlight the importance of enhancing quality improvement strategies and fostering organizational learning. Show sensitivity to the needs and constraints of community-based programs, as this understanding is crucial for effective collaboration and implementation.

Addressing Limitations and Implications

If not already addressed in the discussion section, your recommendations should mention the limitations of the study and their implications. Examples of limitations include:

• Sample size or composition
• Participant attrition
• Study duration

By acknowledging these limitations, you demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of your research and its potential impact.

By connecting your recommendations with research findings, you provide a solid foundation for your suggestions, emphasize the significance of collaboration, and showcase the potential for future research and practical applications.

Crafting impactful recommendations is a vital skill for any researcher looking to bridge the gap between their findings and real-world applications. By understanding the purpose of recommendations, identifying areas for future research, structuring your suggestions effectively, and connecting them to your research findings, you can unlock the full potential of your study. Remember to prioritize actionable, specific, and evidence-based recommendations that foster collaboration and drive meaningful change.

As you embark on your research journey, embrace the power of well-crafted recommendations to amplify the impact of your work. By following the guidelines outlined in this ultimate guide, you'll be well-equipped to write recommendations that resonate with your audience, inspire further investigation, and contribute to the advancement of your field. So go forth, make your research count, and let your recommendations be the catalyst for positive change.

Q: What are the steps to formulating recommendations in research? A: To formulate recommendations in research, you should first gain a thorough understanding of the research question. Review the existing literature to inform your recommendations and consider the research methods that were used. Identify which data collection techniques were employed and propose suitable data analysis methods. It's also essential to consider any limitations and ethical considerations of your research. Justify your recommendations clearly and finally, provide a summary of your recommendations.

Q: Why are recommendations significant in research studies? A: Recommendations play a crucial role in research as they form a key part of the analysis phase. They provide specific suggestions for interventions or strategies that address the problems and limitations discovered during the study. Recommendations are a direct response to the main findings derived from data collection and analysis, and they can guide future actions or research.

Q: Can you outline the seven steps involved in writing a research paper? A: Certainly. The seven steps to writing an excellent research paper include:

• Allowing yourself sufficient time to complete the paper.
• Defining the scope of your essay and crafting a clear thesis statement.
• Conducting a thorough yet focused search for relevant research materials.
• Reading the research materials carefully and taking detailed notes.
• Writing your paper based on the information you've gathered and analyzed.
• Editing your paper to ensure clarity, coherence, and correctness.
• Submitting your paper following the guidelines provided.

Q: What tips can help make a research paper more effective? A: To enhance the effectiveness of a research paper, plan for the extensive process ahead and understand your audience. Decide on the structure your research writing will take and describe your methodology clearly. Write in a straightforward and clear manner, avoiding the use of clichés or overly complex language.

Sign up for more like this.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What are Implications and Recommendations in Research? How to Write It, with Examples

Highly cited research articles often contain both implications and recommendations , but there is often some confusion around the difference between implications and recommendations in research. Implications of a study are the impact your research makes in your chosen area; they discuss how the findings of the study may be important to justify further exploration of your research topic. Research recommendations suggest future actions or subsequent steps supported by your research findings. It helps to improve your field of research or cross-disciplinary fields through future research or provides frameworks for decision-makers or policymakers. Recommendations are the action plan you propose based on the outcome.

In this article, we aim to simplify these concepts for researchers by providing key insights on the following:  

• what are implications in research 
• what is recommendation in research 
• differences between implications and recommendations 
• how to write implications in research 
• how to write recommendation in research 
• sample recommendation in research 

Table of Contents

What are implications in research

The implications in research explain what the findings of the study mean to researchers or to certain subgroups or populations beyond the basic interpretation of results. Even if your findings fail to bring radical or disruptive changes to existing ways of doing things, they might have important implications for future research studies. For example, your proposed method for operating remote-controlled robots could be more precise, efficient, or cheaper than existing methods, or the remote-controlled robot could be used in other application areas. This could enable more researchers to study a specific problem or open up new research opportunities.   

Implications in research inform how the findings, drawn from your results, may be important for and impact policy, practice, theory, and subsequent research. Implications may be theoretical or practical. 1  

• Practical implications are potential values of the study with practical or real outcomes . Determining the practical implications of several solutions can aid in identifying optimal solution results. For example, clinical research or research on classroom learning mostly has practical implications in research . If you developed a new teaching method, the implication would be how teachers can use that method based on your findings.  
• Theoretical implications in research constitute additions to existing theories or establish new theories. These types of implications in research characterize the ability of research to influence society in apparent ways. It is, at most, an educated guess (theoretical) about the possible implication of action and need not be as absolute as practical implications in research . If your study supported the tested theory, the theoretical implication would be that the theory can explain the investigated phenomenon. Else, your study may serve as a basis for modifying the theory. Theories may be partially supported as well, implying further study of the theory or necessary modifications are required.  

What are recommendations in research?

Recommendations in research can be considered an important segment of the analysis phase. Recommendations allow you to suggest specific interventions or strategies to address the issues and constraints identified through your study. It responds to key findings arrived at through data collection and analysis. A process of prioritization can help you narrow down important findings for which recommendations are developed.  

Recommendations in research examples

Recommendations in research may vary depending on the purpose or beneficiary as seen in the table below.  

Table: Recommendations in research examples based on purpose and beneficiary  

If you’re wondering how to make recommendations in research . You can use the simple  recommendation in research example below as a handy template.  

Table: Sample recommendation in research template  

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. So, the basic difference between the two is in their function and the questions asked to achieve it. The following table highlights the main differences between implications and recommendations in research .  

Table: Differences between implications and recommendations in research  

Where do implications go in your research paper

Because the implications and recommendations of the research are based on study findings, both are usually written after the completion of a study. There is no specific section dedicated to implications in research ; they are usually integrated into the discussion section adding evidence as to why the results are meaningful and what they add to the field. Implications can be written after summarizing your main findings and before the recommendations and conclusion.   

Implications can also be presented in the conclusion section after a short summary of the study results.   

How to write implications in research

Implication means something that is inferred. The implications of your research are derived from the importance of your work and how it will impact future research. It is based on how previous studies have advanced your field and how your study can add to that.   

When figuring out how to write implications in research , a good strategy is to separate it into the different types of implications in research , such as social, political, technological, policy-related, or others. As mentioned earlier, the most frequently used are the theoretical and practical implications.   

Next, you need to ask, “Who will benefit the most from reading my paper?” Is it policymakers, physicians, the public, or other researchers? Once you know your target population, explain how your findings can help them.  

The implication section can include a paragraph or two that asserts the practical or managerial implications and links it to the study findings. A discussion can then follow, demonstrating that the findings can be practically implemented or how they will benefit a specific audience. The writer is given a specific degree of freedom when writing research implications , depending on the type of implication in research you want to discuss: practical or theoretical. Each is discussed differently, using different words or in separate sections. The implications can be based on how the findings in your study are similar or dissimilar to that in previous studies. Your study may reaffirm or disprove the results of other studies, which has important implications in research . You can also suggest future research directions in the light of your findings or require further research to confirm your findings, which are all crucial implications. Most importantly, ensure the implications in research are specific and that your tone reflects the strength of your findings without exaggerating your results.   

Implications in research can begin with the following specific sentence structures:  

• These findings suggest that…
• These results build on existing body of evidence of…
• These results should be considered when…
• While previous research focused on x, our results show that y…

What should recommendations in research look like?

Recommendations for future research should be:  

• Directly related to your research question or findings  
• Concrete and specific  
• Supported by a clear reasoning  

The recommendations in research can be based on the following factors:  

1. Beneficiary: A paper’s research contribution may be aimed at single or multiple beneficiaries, based on which recommendations can vary. For instance, if your research is about the quality of care in hospitals, the research recommendation to different beneficiaries might be as follows:  

• Nursing staff: Staff should undergo training to enhance their understanding of what quality of care entails.  
• Health science educators: Educators must design training modules that address quality-related issues in the hospital.  
• Hospital management: Develop policies that will increase staff participation in training related to health science.  

2. Limitations: The best way to figure out what to include in your research recommendations is to understand the limitations of your study. It could be based on factors that you have overlooked or could not consider in your present study. Accordingly, the researcher can recommend that other researchers approach the problem from a different perspective, dimension, or methodology. For example, research into the quality of care in hospitals can be based on quantitative data. The researcher can then recommend a qualitative study of factors influencing the quality of care, or they can suggest investigating the problem from the perspective of patients rather than the healthcare providers.   

3. Theory or Practice: Your recommendations in research could be implementation-oriented or further research-oriented.   

4. Your research: Research recommendations can be based on your topic, research objectives, literature review, and analysis, or evidence collected. For example, if your data points to the role of faculty involvement in developing effective programs, recommendations in research can include developing policies to increase faculty participation. Take a look at the evidence-based recommendation in research example s provided below.   

Table: Example of evidence-based research recommendation  

Avoid making the following mistakes when writing research recommendations :  

• Don’t undermine your own work: Recommendations in research should offer suggestions on how future studies can be built upon the current study as a natural extension of your work and not as an entirely new field of research.  
• Support your study arguments: Ensure that your research findings stand alone on their own merits to showcase the strength of your research paper.   

How to write recommendations in research

When writing research recommendations , your focus should be on highlighting what additional work can be done in that field. It gives direction to researchers, industries, or governments about changes or developments possible in this field. For example, recommendations in research can include practical and obtainable strategies offering suggestions to academia to address problems. It can also be a framework that helps government agencies in developing strategic or long-term plans for timely actions against disasters or aid nation-building.  

There are a few SMART 2 things to remember when writing recommendations in research. Your recommendations must be: 

• S pecific: Clearly state how challenges can be addressed for better outcomes and include an action plan that shows what can be achieved. 
• M easurable: Use verbs denoting measurable outcomes, such as identify, analyze, design, compute, assess, evaluate, revise, plan, etc., to strengthen recommendations in research .   
• A ttainable: Recommendations should offer a solution-oriented approach to problem-solving and must be written in a way that is easy to follow.  
• R elevant: Research recommendations should be reasonable, realistic, and result-based. Make sure to suggest future possibilities for your research field.  
• T imely: Time-based or time-sensitive recommendations in research help divide the action plan into long-term or short-term (immediate) goals. A timeline can also inform potential readers of what developments should occur over time.  

If you are wondering how many words to include in your research recommendation , a general rule of thumb would be to set aside 5% of the total word count for writing research recommendations . Finally, when writing the research implications and recommendations , stick to the facts and avoid overstating or over-generalizing the study findings. Both should be supported by evidence gathered through your data analysis.  

References:  

• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.  Psychological bulletin ,  124 (2), 262.
• Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.  Manag Rev ,  70 (11), 35-36.

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Researcher.Life All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month !    

Related Posts

What is a Case Study in Research? Definition, Methods, and Examples

How to Write an Academic Biography

Research Implications & Recommendations

A Plain-Language Explainer With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | May 2024

The research implications and recommendations are closely related but distinctly different concepts that often trip students up. Here, we’ll unpack them using plain language and loads of examples , so that you can approach your project with confidence.

Overview: Implications & Recommendations

• What are research implications ?
• What are research recommendations ?
• Examples of implications and recommendations
• The “ Big 3 ” categories
• How to write the implications and recommendations
• Template sentences for both sections
• Key takeaways

Implications & Recommendations 101

Let’s start with the basics and define our terms.

At the simplest level, research implications refer to the possible effects or outcomes of a study’s findings. More specifically, they answer the question, “ What do these findings mean?” . In other words, the implications section is where you discuss the broader impact of your study’s findings on theory, practice and future research.

This discussion leads us to the recommendations section , which is where you’ll propose specific actions based on your study’s findings and answer the question, “ What should be done next?” . In other words, the recommendations are practical steps that stakeholders can take to address the key issues identified by your study.

In a nutshell, then, the research implications discuss the broader impact and significance of a study’s findings, while recommendations provide specific actions to take, based on those findings. So, while both of these components are deeply rooted in the findings of the study, they serve different functions within the write up.

Need a helping hand?

Examples: Implications & Recommendations

The distinction between research implications and research recommendations might still feel a bit conceptual, so let’s look at one or two practical examples:

Let’s assume that your study finds that interactive learning methods significantly improve student engagement compared to traditional lectures. In this case, one of your recommendations could be that schools incorporate more interactive learning techniques into their curriculums to enhance student engagement.

Let’s imagine that your study finds that patients who receive personalised care plans have better health outcomes than those with standard care plans. One of your recommendations might be that healthcare providers develop and implement personalised care plans for their patients.

Now, these are admittedly quite simplistic examples, but they demonstrate the difference (and connection ) between the research implications and the recommendations. Simply put, the implications are about the impact of the findings, while the recommendations are about proposed actions, based on the findings.

The “Big 3” Categories

Now that we’ve defined our terms, let’s dig a little deeper into the implications – specifically, the different types or categories of research implications that exist.

Broadly speaking, implications can be divided into three categories – theoretical implications, practical implications and implications for future research .

Theoretical implications relate to how your study’s findings contribute to or challenge existing theories. For example, if a study on social behaviour uncovers new patterns, it might suggest that modifications to current psychological theories are necessary.

Practical implications , on the other hand, focus on how your study’s findings can be applied in real-world settings. For example, if your study demonstrated the effectiveness of a new teaching method, this would imply that educators should consider adopting this method to improve learning outcomes.

Practical implications can also involve policy reconsiderations . For example, if a study reveals significant health benefits from a particular diet, an implication might be that public health guidelines be re-evaluated.

Last but not least, there are the implications for future research . As the name suggests, this category of implications highlights the research gaps or new questions raised by your study. For example, if your study finds mixed results regarding a relationship between two variables, it might imply the need for further investigation to clarify these findings.

To recap then, the three types of implications are the theoretical, the practical and the implications on future research. Regardless of the category, these implications feed into and shape the recommendations , laying the foundation for the actions you’ll propose.

How To Write The  Sections

Now that we’ve laid the foundations, it’s time to explore how to write up the implications and recommendations sections respectively.

Let’s start with the “ where ” before digging into the “ how ”. Typically, the implications will feature in the discussion section of your document, while the recommendations will be located in the conclusion . That said, layouts can vary between disciplines and institutions, so be sure to check with your university what their preferences are.

For the implications section, a common approach is to structure the write-up based on the three categories we looked at earlier – theoretical, practical and future research implications. In practical terms, this discussion will usually follow a fairly formulaic sentence structure – for example:

This research provides new insights into [theoretical aspect], indicating that…

The study’s outcomes highlight the potential benefits of adopting [specific practice] in..

This study raises several questions that warrant further investigation, such as…

Moving onto the recommendations section, you could again structure your recommendations using the three categories. Alternatively, you could structure the discussion per stakeholder group – for example, policymakers, organisations, researchers, etc.

Again, you’ll likely use a fairly formulaic sentence structure for this section. Here are some examples for your inspiration: 

Based on the findings, [specific group] should consider adopting [new method] to improve…

To address the issues identified, it is recommended that legislation should be introduced to…

Researchers should consider examining [specific variable] to build on the current study’s findings.

Remember, you can grab a copy of our tried and tested templates for both the discussion and conclusion sections over on the Grad Coach blog. You can find the links to those, as well as loads of other free resources, in the description 🙂

FAQs: Implications & Recommendations

How do i determine the implications of my study.

To do this, you’ll need to consider how your findings address gaps in the existing literature, how they could influence theory, practice, or policy, and the potential societal or economic impacts.

When thinking about your findings, it’s also a good idea to revisit your introduction chapter, where you would have discussed the potential significance of your study more broadly. This section can help spark some additional ideas about what your findings mean in relation to your original research aims. 

Should I discuss both positive and negative implications?

Absolutely. You’ll need to discuss both the positive and negative implications to provide a balanced view of how your findings affect the field and any limitations or potential downsides.

Can my research implications be speculative?

Yes and no. While implications are somewhat more speculative than recommendations and can suggest potential future outcomes, they should be grounded in your data and analysis. So, be careful to avoid overly speculative claims.

How do I formulate recommendations?

Ideally, you should base your recommendations on the limitations and implications of your study’s findings. So, consider what further research is needed, how policies could be adapted, or how practices could be improved – and make proposals in this respect.

How specific should my recommendations be?

Your recommendations should be as specific as possible, providing clear guidance on what actions or research should be taken next. As mentioned earlier, the implications can be relatively broad, but the recommendations should be very specific and actionable. Ideally, you should apply the SMART framework to your recommendations.

Can I recommend future research in my recommendations?

Absolutely. Highlighting areas where further research is needed is a key aspect of the recommendations section. Naturally, these recommendations should link to the respective section of your implications (i.e., implications for future research).

Wrapping Up: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered quite a bit of ground here, so let’s quickly recap.

• Research implications refer to the possible effects or outcomes of a study’s findings.
• The recommendations section, on the other hand, is where you’ll propose specific actions based on those findings.
• You can structure your implications section based on the three overarching categories – theoretical, practical and future research implications.
• You can carry this structure through to the recommendations as well, or you can group your recommendations by stakeholder.

Remember to grab a copy of our tried and tested free dissertation template, which covers both the implications and recommendations sections. If you’d like 1:1 help with your research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service, where we hold your hand throughout the research journey, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

I am taking a Research Design and Statistical Methods class. I am wondering if I can get tutors to help me with my homework to understand more about research and statistics. I want to pass this class. I searched on YouTube and watched some videos but I still need more clarification.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > How to Do Research
• > Draw conclusions and make recommendations

Book contents

• Frontmatter
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Types of research
• Part 1 The research process
• 1 Develop the research objectives
• 2 Design and plan the study
• 3 Write the proposal
• 4 Obtain financial support for the research
• 5 Manage the research
• 6 Draw conclusions and make recommendations
• 7 Write the report
• 8 Disseminate the results
• Part 2 Methods
• Appendix The market for information professionals: A proposal from the Policy Studies Institute

6 - Draw conclusions and make recommendations

from Part 1 - The research process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2018

This is the point everything has been leading up to. Having carried out the research and marshalled all the evidence, you are now faced with the problem of making sense of it all. Here you need to distinguish clearly between three different things: results, conclusions and recommendations.

Results are what you have found through the research. They are more than just the raw data that you have collected. They are the processed findings of the work – what you have been analysing and striving to understand. In total, the results form the picture that you have uncovered through your research. Results are neutral. They clearly depend on the nature of the questions asked but, given a particular set of questions, the results should not be contentious – there should be no debate about whether or not 63 per cent of respondents said ‘yes’ to question 16.

When you consider the results you can draw conclusions based on them. These are less neutral as you are putting your interpretation on the results and thus introducing a degree of subjectivity. Some research is simply descriptive – the final report merely presents the results. In most cases, though, you will want to interpret them, saying what they mean for you – drawing conclusions.

These conclusions might arise from a comparison between your results and the findings of other studies. They will, almost certainly, be developed with reference to the aim and objectives of the research. While there will be no debate over the results, the conclusions could well be contentious. Someone else might interpret the results differently, arriving at different conclusions. For this reason you need to support your conclusions with structured, logical reasoning.

Having drawn your conclusions you can then make recommendations. These should flow from your conclusions. They are suggestions about action that might be taken by people or organizations in the light of the conclusions that you have drawn from the results of the research. Like the conclusions, the recommendations may be open to debate. You may feel that, on the basis of your conclusions, the organization you have been studying should do this, that or the other.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Draw conclusions and make recommendations
• Book: How to Do Research
• Online publication: 09 June 2018
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049825.007

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

How to Write Recommendations in a Research Paper Correctly and Appropriately

Updated 04 Jul 2024

Completing a research paper can be daunting, but it becomes more manageable if you delve deeper into the process. Academic papers adhere to specific formats that must be followed to ensure high-quality content.

The conclusion and recommendations sections are crucial components of a research paper. They mark the end of your research, leave a lasting impression on your readers, and should be approached with great care. No wonder many students search for information about how to write recommendations in research papers. Explore this comprehensive guide to infuse your content with thoughtfulness and coherence, thereby elevating the impact of your research paper. Crafting clear and actionable recommendations in a research paper is essential, and a personal statement writing service can provide the expertise needed to present your findings and suggestions convincingly.

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 analyzing gathered data, you may come across ideas or results that only partially align with the scope of your research topic. Alternatively, your findings offer possible implications or causal relationships between the aspects not covered in existing research.

Based on your conclusions and findings, this section will provide practical solutions for further research. The particular goals of this section depend on the research nature and usually include the following:

• Providing strategies to address the issues considered in the paper;
• Delivering suggestions on how the investigation findings can be applied in practice;
• Identifying gaps in the subject area and suggesting ways to extend existing knowledge;
• Enhancing reliability and validity of the research findings. 

Where to put recommendations?

To better understand how to write recommendations in research, you should know where to insert them. These elements are typically added in the conclusion (a short version) and discussion sections. Still, if you’re doing research with a practical or business focus, you can also include your suggestions in an advisory report or separate section. This text part should be completed based on the research findings and evidence. It should be clear, specific, and actionable, targeted to the intended audience, such as researchers, practitioners, or policymakers.

Get plagiarism-free papers in just 3 hours

• Zero AI - 100% human-crafted content
• Tailored to your writing style
• Sourced from the latest, reliable sources

Guaranteed Turnitin success ✌️

Place an order

What should recommendations look like?

When providing your solutions for further research, it’s important to ensure they are specific, fully connected to your investigation, and supported by a comprehensible rationale. The essential goal is to show how other researchers can generate the same results to make conclusions and offer potential directions for future research. 

Recommendations should be clear and include actionable words. While completing this section, the writer should show a solution-oriented approach by highlighting the scope for future investigation. Using bullet points is a better way to ensure clarity instead of writing long paragraphs.

Look at the following recommendation in a research paper example:

It is recommended that company X should create and promote sugar-free biscuits along with their existing product range. The marketing department should focus on creating a positive and healthy image. 

Let’s rewrite this paragraph to make it clear and well-structured:

• The corporation has to introduce and promote sugar-free products;
• The company has to create a new positive image;
• The company has to launch an advertising campaign to show their products’ benefits for health.

When visiting the EduBirdie website, you’ll find many helpful tips on writing a research paper, ranging from completing a research paper conclusion to exploring examples of a well-thought-out recommendations section. Don’t miss your chance to improve your paper with our assistance!

Structure of recommendations

Let’s consider the typical structure of this part. You’ll come across many various ways to organize it. The most common approach uses a simple formula with three elements: research question, conclusion, and recommendation. Now, you’ll see how this structure can be implemented.

Research question:

Which category of people is more prone to social exclusion? 

Conclusion:

The study found that individuals over 65 have a greater risk of being isolated from society.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the institutions dealing with overcoming social exclusion should focus on this particular group. 

In this example, the author delivers a suggestion based on the research findings (the risk of social isolation grows among people aged 65 and more). The measures to improve this situation are indicated (the organizations dealing with problems of social isolation should pay more attention to people over 65 years old).

How to write recommendations in research papers: essential guidelines

Look at some tips from EduBirdie research paper writing services to help you complete a flawless chapter for your papers.

• Be concise in your statements.  Ensure that your suggestions are written in clear and concise language, avoiding jargon or technical terms difficult to understand. Try to limit yourself to one-sentence statements to present your recommendation. Not only it can help with language learning overall, but will also look more professional.
• Organize your ideas logically and coherently . You may use lists or paragraphs depending on your institution's guidelines or field of study. Use headings and subheadings to structure your section for easy navigation.
• Provide specific and concrete suggestions.  Clearly state the issues you explore and offer specific measures and solutions. Your call to action and suggestions should be related to the issues mentioned in the previous sections. Focusing on the most relevant and actionable suggestions directly stemming from your research is crucial.
• Match recommendations to your conclusion.  Ensure that your suggestions logically align with your conclusions. Refrain from suggesting too many solutions. You can create one recommendation addressing several conclusions when you must provide numerous suggestions for every study conclusion.
• Ensure your solutions are achievable.  Your recommendations should be practical and feasible to implement. Suggest specific and actionable steps to effectively address the considered issues or gaps in the research, avoiding vague or impractical suggestions.
• Use a comprehensive approach.  Make sure your solutions cover all relevant areas within your research scope. Consider different contexts, stakeholders, and perspectives affected by the recommendations. Be thorough in identifying potential improvement areas and offering appropriate actions.
• Don’t add new information to this part of your paper.  Avoid introducing new issues or ideas to complete your argument when writing recommendations in a research paper. Your academic paper has to stand on its own merits. 
• Create content tailored to your readers.  Ensure that your recommendations are aimed at your audience, namely your colleagues in the field of study who work on similar topics. The ideas you provide in the paper should be based on limitations identified during research. They should offer concrete possibilities for further study to rely on areas your investigation could not cover when completed.
• Explain how your recommendations can solve the issues you explore.  Go beyond listing suggestions and provide a rationale for each, including why it is essential, how it handles the research problem, and what evidence or theory supports it. Use relevant literature citations to strengthen your content. Explain how the suggested solutions can effectively answer the research question. This can be done by adding the following:
• Ideas for improving the methodology or approach;
• Policy suggestions;
• Perspectives for future research.
• Don’t undermine your research contribution or criticize yourself.   Avoid criticizing yourself in this section. Instead, use it as a perfect opportunity to provide ideas on how future studies can build upon your findings, making them a natural extension point. 
• Acknowledge any limitations or constraints of your research.  Reflect on how these limitations may impact the feasibility or generalizability of your solutions. This demonstrates critical thinking and awareness of the limitations of your study.
• End this section with a summary.  Highlight the key suggestions and their potential impact in a short conclusion. Emphasize the significance of your ideas and their valuable contribution to the field.

Don’t forget to consult and adhere to the requirements and specific guidelines provided by your institution for this section.

How do the discussion and the conclusion sections differ in a research paper? 

The discussion usually entails a comprehensive analysis of the results, delving into the significance of your findings and providing contextualization using citations of relevant sources. On the other hand, the conclusion is typically more concise and general. It briefly considers the main research question and provides suggestions from your findings.

Can the research paper conclusion come with new arguments? 

Although adding fresh evidence or arguments in the conclusion might be tempting, especially if you have a compelling point, we don’t recommend doing it. Research papers, dissertations, or theses typically adhere to a formal structure. Exposing all your arguments and findings in the thesis body is crucial. It’s better to do it in the discussion and results chapters. The conclusion should serve as a summary and reflection of your evidence and arguments rather than a place to introduce new ideas.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Steven Robinson

Steven Robinson is an academic writing expert with a degree in English literature. His expertise, patient approach, and support empower students to express ideas clearly. On EduBirdie's blog, he provides valuable writing guides on essays, research papers, and other intriguing topics. Enjoys chess in free time.

Related Blog Posts

How to write a conclusion for a research paper like a pro.

A research paper is an integral part of any educational process, thus writing it properly is a must for any student, including the discussion secti...

Discover How to Write a Discussion Section of a Research Paper

When working on a research paper, one of the most important parts you must include is the discussion or the analytical section where you outline yo...

How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper: Writing Tips & Examples

Completing the results chapter is one of the most important and challenging parts of the research process. Many students are interested in how to w...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

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

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.

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)

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

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:

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 …

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

Home » Blog » How to Write Conclusions and Recommendations in a Research Paper

How to Write Conclusions and Recommendations in a Research Paper

Table of Contents

How to Write Conclusions and Recommendations

Writing a research paper can be very stressful but as you go deeper into writing it, it becomes easier. Like every form of writing, research papers have formats that you must follow to enable you to write one that is worthy of Nobel recognition.

The conclusions and recommendations are an essential part of research papers and also, mark the end of a research paper. Both must be taken seriously as they are the very last impression you leave in the minds of your readers. They have the ability to add beauty and technicality to your piece of writing. No matter how much or how best you have written other chapters of your paper, it wouldn’t matter if your conclusion or recommendation lacks soul.

It is important to note that the conclusion and recommendations may be combined or presented in separate sections depending on the type of research paper.

How to write a conclusion for your research paper

The conclusion section of a research paper focuses on discussing the essential features and the significant outcomes of your research. It highlights to your readers the importance of your research to them after they have read through it. It also serves as a round off to the story in your research. The conclusion should be written in relation to the introduction in your research paper. This means that your conclusion should be written in such a way that it relates to the aims of the research paper.

Here are a few steps to follow to enable you write a good conclusion for your research paper.

Find logical connections

The conclusion should summarize your research paper. Don’t begin a new idea in this section. You should restate main points, and provide a basic synthesis for them. This means that you should find a logical connection between your aims, objectives or hypothesis to your conclusions. This will ensure that your conclusion doesn’t sound like a single thought to your readers or sound different from what was discussed throughout the research paper. When you are able to draw logical connections to previous ideas stated in your research paper, you leave your readers with a lasting impression.

Ensure your conclusion is linked to your introduction

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 can understand. This is the same method used in short stories, when the writer leaves you guessing at the start and then tells you all you need to know at the very end of the story.

Don’t forget logic

It is ok to have opposing points in your research paper. However, it is solely your duty to ensure that your readers are not left confused as a result of the opposing points. Your conclusion is the perfect place to tell your readers your opinion on the issues highlighted in your research paper. All the questions that were unanswered or partially answered in your research paper should be answered in your conclusion. If at this point you can’t give a clear answer to those questions, let your readers know what further research is needed or the future actions that would provide a clear answer to the questions. Restate your thesis statement, let your readers know if you still believe it or a new finding has caused you to think otherwise.

Let the readers draw their own conclusions

Note that this approach is inappropriate in some types of research papers. However, it is accepted mostly in research papers on social or political issues. In this method, you ask your readers the question instead of providing them with answers. The questions asked must be centered on the purpose of the paper.

Give recommendations

If you choose to merge your conclusion and recommendation into one section, then now is the time to state your recommendation.

How to write a recommendation for your research paper

Recommendations are used to call for action or solutions to the problems you have investigated in your research paper. Your recommendations highlight specific solutions and measures to be implemented based on the findings of your research.

Here are a few guidelines to enable you to write a good recommendation for your research paper.

Should be concrete and specific

Avoid beating around the bush. You can choose to restate the problem and then explain specific measures that can be used to solve those problems. The solutions or call for action should be specific for the problems you have stated earlier. Do not introduce new questions or problems at this point.

The recommendations should connect to your conclusion

Your recommendation should logically support your conclusions and should be achievable. You should limit yourself to a few recommendations. It is possible that a single recommendation can be fitting for all your conclusions.

Explain how the solution you suggested can contribute to solving the problems you stated

You shouldn’t just stop at putting down possible solutions. You should also explain how it can solve the problems highlighted in your research paper.

The conclusion and recommendation section in any research paper is very important. It tells the reader that he has come to the end of the paper. It also breaks down everything your research paper discusses into more digestible chunks. As earlier stated, you should avoid introducing new information in your conclusion and recommendation. Goodluck!

If you like this article, see others like it:

Balancing Work and Life: Achieving Success in Nigeria’s Competitive Job Market

2024 complete nigeria current affairs pdf free download, 2024 nigeria current affairs quiz questions & answers, learn how to trade forex: a beginner’s guide, 5 corporate team building activities ideas for introverted employees, related topics, how to search for journals for a research project, a step-by-step guide to writing a comparative analysis, signs it’s time to re-evaluate your career goals, 5 common career change fears and what to do, how to plan an affordable vacation as a student.

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. 

Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities (2017)

Chapter: 9 conclusions and recommendations, 9 conclusions and recommendations.

Practitioners designing or improving undergraduate research experiences (UREs) can build on the experiences of colleagues and learn from the increasingly robust literature about UREs and the considerable body of evidence about how students learn. The questions practitioners ask themselves during the design process should include questions about the goals of the campus, program, faculty, and students. Other factors to consider when designing a URE include the issues raised in the conceptual framework for learning and instruction, the available resources, how the program or experience will be evaluated or studied, and how to design the program from the outset to incorporate these considerations, as well as how to build in opportunities to improve the experience over time in light of new evidence. (Some of these topics are addressed in Chapter 8 .)

Colleges and universities that offer or wish to offer UREs to their students should undertake baseline evaluations of their current offerings and create plans to develop a culture of improvement in which faculty are supported in their efforts to continuously refine UREs based on the evidence currently available and evidence that they and others generate in the future. While much of the evidence to date is descriptive, it forms a body of knowledge that can be used to identify research questions about UREs, both those designed around the apprenticeship model and those designed using the more recent course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) model. Internships and other avenues by which undergraduates do research provide many of the same sorts of experiences but are not well studied. In any case, it is clear that students value these experiences; that many faculty do as well; and that they contribute to broadening participation in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and careers. The findings from the research literature reported in Chapter 4 provide guidance to those designing both opportunities to improve practical and academic skills and opportunities for students to “try out” a professional role of interest.

Little research has been done that provides answers to mechanistic questions about how UREs work. Additional studies are needed to know which features of UREs are most important for positive outcomes with which students and to gain information about other questions of this type. This additional research is needed to better understand and compare different strategies for UREs designed for a diversity of students, mentors, and institutions. Therefore, the committee recommends steps that could increase the quantity and quality of evidence available in the future and makes recommendations for how faculty, departments, and institutions might approach decisions about UREs using currently available information. Multiple detailed recommendations about the kinds of research that might be useful are provided in the research agenda in Chapter 7 .

In addition to the specific research recommended in Chapter 7 , in this chapter the committee provides a series of interrelated conclusions and recommendations related to UREs for the STEM disciplines and intended to highlight the issues of primary importance to administrators, URE program designers, mentors to URE students, funders of UREs, those leading the departments and institutions offering UREs, and those conducting research about UREs. These conclusions and recommendations are based on the expert views of the committee and informed by their review of the available research, the papers commissioned for this report, and input from presenters during committee meetings. Table 9-1 defines categories of these URE “actors,” gives examples of specific roles included in each category, specifies key URE actions for which that category is responsible, and lists the conclusions and recommendations the committee views as most relevant to that actor category.

RESEARCH ON URES

Conclusion 1: The current and emerging landscape of what constitutes UREs is diverse and complex. Students can engage in STEM-based undergraduate research in many different ways, across a variety of settings, and along a continuum that extends and expands upon learning opportunities in other educational settings. The following characteristics define UREs. Due to the variation in the types of UREs, not all experiences include all of the following characteristics in the same way; experiences vary in how much a particular characteristic is emphasized.

TABLE 9-1 Audiences for Committee’s Conclusions and Recommendations

• They engage students in research practices including the ability to argue from evidence.
• They aim to generate novel information with an emphasis on discovery and innovation or to determine whether recent preliminary results can be replicated.
• They focus on significant, relevant problems of interest to STEM researchers and, in some cases, a broader community (e.g., civic engagement).
• They emphasize and expect collaboration and teamwork.
• They involve iterative refinement of experimental design, experimental questions, or data obtained.
• They allow students to master specific research techniques.
• They help students engage in reflection about the problems being investigated and the work being undertaken to address those problems.
• They require communication of results, either through publication or presentations in various STEM venues.
• They are structured and guided by a mentor, with students assuming increasing ownership of some aspects of the project over time.

UREs are generally designed to add value to STEM offerings by promoting an understanding of the ways that knowledge is generated in STEM fields and to extend student learning beyond what happens in the small group work of an inquiry-based course. UREs add value by enabling students to understand and contribute to the research questions that are driving the field for one or more STEM topics or to grapple with design challenges of interest to professionals. They help students understand what it means to be a STEM researcher in a way that would be difficult to convey in a lecture course or even in an inquiry-based learning setting. As participants in a URE, students can learn by engaging in planning, experimentation, evaluation, interpretation, and communication of data and other results in light of what is already known about the question of interest. They can pose relevant questions that can be solved only through investigative or design efforts—individually or in teams—and attempt to answer these questions despite the challenges, setbacks, and ambiguity of the process and the results obtained.

The diversity of UREs reflects the reality that different STEM disciplines operate from varying traditions, expectations, and constraints (e.g., lab safety issues) in providing opportunities for undergraduates to engage in research. In addition, individual institutions and departments have cultures that promote research participation to various degrees and at different stages in students’ academic careers. Some programs emphasize design and problem solving in addition to discovery. UREs in different disciplines can

take many forms (e.g., apprentice-style, course-based, internships, project-based), but the definitional characteristics described above are similar across different STEM fields.

Furthermore, students in today’s university landscape may have opportunities to engage with many different types of UREs throughout their education, including involvement in a formal program (which could include mentoring, tutoring, research, and seminars about research), an apprentice-style URE under the guidance of an individual or team of faculty members, an internship, or enrolling in one or more CUREs or in a consortium- or project-based program.

Conclusion 2: Research on the efficacy of UREs is still in the early stages of development compared with other interventions to improve undergraduate STEM education.

• The types of UREs are diverse, and their goals are even more diverse. Questions and methodologies used to investigate the roles and effectiveness of UREs in achieving those goals are similarly diverse.
• Most of the studies of UREs to date are descriptive case studies or use correlational designs. Many of these studies report positive outcomes from engagement in a URE.
• Only a small number of studies have employed research designs that can support inferences about causation. Most of these studies find evidence for a causal relationship between URE participation and subsequent persistence in STEM. More studies are needed to provide evidence that participation in UREs is a causal factor in a range of desired student outcomes.

Taking the entire body of evidence into account, the committee concludes that the published peer-reviewed literature to date suggests that participation in a URE is beneficial for students .

As discussed in the report’s Introduction (see Chapter 1 ) and in the research agenda (see Chapter 7 ), the committee considered descriptive, causal, and mechanistic questions in our reading of the literature on UREs. Scientific approaches to answering descriptive, causal, and mechanistic questions require deciding what to look for, determining how to examine it, and knowing appropriate ways to score or quantify the effect.

Descriptive questions ask what is happening without making claims as to why it is happening—that is, without making claims as to whether the research experience caused these changes. A descriptive statement about UREs only claims that certain changes occurred during or after the time the students were engaged in undergraduate research. Descriptive studies

cannot determine whether any benefits observed were caused by participation in the URE.

Causal questions seek to discover whether a specific intervention leads to a specific outcome, other things being equal. To address such questions, causal evidence can be generated from a comparison of carefully selected groups that do and do not experience UREs. The groups can be made roughly equivalent by random assignment (ensuring that URE and non-URE groups are the same on average as the sample size increases) or by controlling for an exhaustive set of characteristics and experiences that might render the groups different prior to the URE. Other quasi-experimental strategies can also be used. Simply comparing students who enroll in a URE with students who do not is not adequate for determining causality because there may be selection bias. For example, students already interested in STEM are more likely to seek out such opportunities and more likely to be selected for such programs. Instead the investigator would have to compare future enrollment patterns (or other measures) between closely matched students, some of whom enrolled in a URE and some of whom did not. Controlling for selection bias to enable an inference about causation can pose significant challenges.

Questions of mechanism or of process also can be explored to understand why a causal intervention leads to the observed effect. Perhaps the URE enhances a student’s confidence in her ability to succeed in her chosen field or deepens her commitment to the field by exposing her to the joy of discovery. Through these pathways that act on the participant’s purposive behavior, the URE enhances the likelihood that she persists in STEM. The question for the researcher then becomes what research design would provide support for this hypothesis of mechanism over other candidate explanations for why the URE is a causal factor in STEM persistence.

The committee has examined the literature and finds a rich descriptive foundation for testable hypotheses about the effects of UREs on student outcomes. These studies are encouraging; a few of them have generated evidence that a URE can be a positive causal factor in the progression and persistence of STEM students. The weight of the evidence has been descriptive; it relies primarily on self-reports of short-term gains by students who chose to participate in UREs and does not include direct measures of changes in the students’ knowledge, skills, or other measures of success across comparable groups of students who did and did not participate in UREs.

While acknowledging the scarcity of strong causal evidence on the benefits of UREs, the committee takes seriously the weight of the descriptive evidence. Many of the published studies of UREs show that students who participate report a range of benefits, such as increased understanding of the research process, encouragement to persist in STEM, and support that helps them sustain their identity as researchers and continue with their

plans to enroll in a graduate program in STEM (see Chapter 4 ). These are effective starting points for causal studies.

Conclusion 3: Studies focused on students from historically underrepresented groups indicate that participation in UREs improves their persistence in STEM and helps to validate their disciplinary identity.

Various UREs have been specifically designed to increase the number of historically underrepresented students who go on to become STEM majors and ultimately STEM professionals. While many UREs offer one or more supplemental opportunities to support students’ academic or social success, such as mentoring, tutoring, summer bridge programs, career or graduate school workshops, and research-oriented seminars, those designed for underrepresented students appear to emphasize such features as integral and integrated components of the program. In particular, studies of undergraduate research programs targeting underrepresented minority students have begun to document positive outcomes such as degree completion and persistence in interest in STEM careers ( Byars-Winston et al., 2015 ; Chemers et al., 2011 ; Jones et al., 2010 ; Nagda et al., 1998 ; Schultz et al., 2011 ). Most of these studies collected data on apprentice-style UREs, in which the undergraduate becomes a functioning member of a research group along with the graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and mentor.

Recommendation 1: Researchers with expertise in education research should conduct well-designed studies in collaboration with URE program directors to improve the evidence base about the processes and effects of UREs. This research should address how the various components of UREs may benefit students. It should also include additional causal evidence for the individual and additive effects of outcomes from student participation in different types of UREs. Not all UREs need be designed to undertake this type of research, but it would be very useful to have some UREs that are designed to facilitate these efforts to improve the evidence base .

As the focus on UREs has grown, so have questions about their implementation. Many articles have been published describing specific UREs (see Chapter 2 ). Large amounts of research have also been undertaken to explore more generally how students learn, and the resulting body of evidence has led to the development and adoption of “active learning” strategies and experiences. If a student in a URE has an opportunity to, for example, analyze new data or to reformulate a hypothesis in light of the student’s analysis, this activity fits into the category that is described as active learning. Surveys of student participants and unpublished evaluations pro-

vide additional information about UREs but do not establish causation or determine the mechanism(s). Consequently, little is currently known about the mechanisms of precisely how UREs work and which aspects of UREs are most powerful. Important components that have been reported include student ownership of the URE project, time to tackle a question iteratively, and opportunities to report and defend one’s conclusions ( Hanauer and Dolan, 2014 ; Thiry et al., 2011 ).

There are many unanswered questions and opportunities for further research into the role and mechanism of UREs. Attention to research design as UREs are planned is important; more carefully designed studies are needed to understand the ways that UREs influence a student’s education and to evaluate the outcomes that have been reported for URE participants. Appropriate studies, which include matched samples or similar controls, would facilitate research on the ways that UREs benefit students, enabling both education researchers and implementers of UREs to determine optimal features for program design and giving the community a more robust understanding of how UREs work.

See the research agenda ( Chapter 7 ) for specific recommendations about research topics and approaches.

Recommendation 2: Funders should provide appropriate resources to support the design, implementation, and analysis of some URE programs that are specifically designed to enable detailed research establishing the effects on participant outcomes and on other variables of interest such as the consequences for mentors or institutions.

Not all UREs need to be the subject of extensive study. In many cases, a straightforward evaluation is adequate to determine whether the URE is meeting its goals. However, to achieve more widespread improvement in both the types and quality of the UREs offered in the future, additional evidence about the possible causal effects and mechanisms of action of UREs needs to be systematically collected and disseminated. This includes a better understanding of the implementation differences for a variety of institutions (e.g., community colleges, primarily undergraduate institutions, research universities) to ensure that the desired outcomes can translate across settings. Increasing the evidence about precisely how UREs work and which aspects of UREs are most powerful will require careful attention to study design during planning for the UREs.

Not all UREs need to be designed to achieve this goal; many can provide opportunities to students by relying on pre-existing knowledge and iterative improvement as that knowledge base grows. However, for the knowledge base to grow, funders must provide resources for some URE designers and social science researchers to undertake thoughtful and well-planned studies

on causal and mechanistic issues. This will maximize the chances for the creation and dissemination of information that can lead to the development of sustainable and effective UREs. These studies can result from a partnership formed as the URE is designed and funded, or evaluators and social scientists could identify promising and/or effective existing programs and then raise funds on their own to support the study of those programs to answer the questions of interest. In deciding upon the UREs that are chosen for these extensive studies, it will be important to consider whether, collectively, they are representative of UREs in general. For example, large and small UREs at large and small schools targeted at both introductory and advanced students and topics should be studied.

CONSTRUCTION OF URES

Conclusion 4: The committee was unable to find evidence that URE designers are taking full advantage of the information available in the education literature on strategies for designing, implementing, and evaluating learning experiences. STEM faculty members do not generally receive training in interpreting or conducting education research. Partnerships between those with expertise in education research and those with expertise in implementing UREs are one way to strengthen the application of evidence on what works in planning and implementing UREs.

As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 , there is an extensive body of literature on pedagogy and how people learn; helping STEM faculty to access the existing literature and incorporate those concepts as they design UREs could improve student experiences. New studies that specifically focus on UREs may provide more targeted information that could be used to design, implement, sustain, or scale up UREs and facilitate iterative improvements. Information about the features of UREs that elicit particular outcomes or best serve certain populations of students should be considered when implementing a new instantiation of an existing model of a URE or improving upon an existing URE model.

Conclusion 5: Evaluations of UREs are often conducted to inform program providers and funders; however, they may not be accessible to others. While these evaluations are not designed to be research studies and often have small sample sizes, they may contain information that could be useful to those initiating new URE programs and those refining UREs. Increasing access to these evaluations and to the accumulated experience of the program providers may enable URE designers and implementers to build upon knowledge gained from earlier UREs.

As discussed in Chapter 1 , the committee searched for evaluations of URE programs in several different ways but was not able to locate many published evaluations to study. Although some evaluations were found in the literature, the committee could not determine a way to systematically examine the program evaluations that have been prepared. The National Science Foundation and other funders generally require grant recipients to submit evaluation data, but that information is not currently aggregated and shared publicly, even for programs that are using a common evaluation tool. 1

Therefore, while program evaluation likely serves a useful role in providing descriptive data about a program for the institutions and funders supporting the program, much of the summative evaluation work that has been done to date adds relatively little to the broader knowledge base and overall conversations around undergraduate research. Some of the challenges of evaluation include budget and sample size constraints.

Similarly, it is difficult for designers of UREs to benefit systematically from the work of others who have designed and run UREs in the past because of the lack of an easy and consistent mechanism for collecting, analyzing, and sharing data. If these evaluations were more accessible they might be beneficial to others designing and evaluating UREs by helping them to gather ideas and inspiration from the experiences of others. A few such stories are provided in this report, and others can be found among the many resources offered by the Council on Undergraduate Research 2 and on other websites such as CUREnet. 3

Recommendation 3: Designers of UREs should base their design decisions on sound evidence. Consultations with education and social science researchers may be helpful as designers analyze the literature and make decisions on the creation or improvement of UREs. Professional development materials should be created and made available to faculty. Educational and disciplinary societies should consider how they can provide resources and connections to those working on UREs.

Faculty and other organizers of UREs can use the expanding body of scholarship as they design or improve the programs and experiences offered to their students. URE designers will need to make decisions about how to adapt approaches reported in the literature to make the programs they develop more suitable to their own expertise, student population(s), and available resources. Disciplinary societies and other national groups, such as those focused on improving pedagogy, can play important roles in

___________________

1 Personal knowledge of Janet Branchaw, member of the Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students.

2 See www.cur.org [November 2016].

3 See ( curenet.cns.utexas.edu ) [November 2016].

bringing these issues to the forefront through events at their national and regional meetings and through publications in their journals and newsletters. They can develop repositories for various kinds of resources appropriate for their members who are designing and implementing UREs. The ability to travel to conferences and to access and discuss resources created by other individuals and groups is a crucial aspect of support (see Recommendations 7 and 8 for further discussion).

See Chapter 8 for specific questions to consider when one is designing or implementing UREs.

CURRENT OFFERINGS

Conclusion 6: Data at the institutional, state, or national levels on the number and type of UREs offered, or who participates in UREs overall or at specific types of institutions, have not been collected systematically. Although the committee found that some individual institutions track at least some of this type of information, we were unable to determine how common it is to do so or what specific information is most often gathered.

There is no one central database or repository that catalogs UREs at institutions of higher education, the nature of the research experiences they provide, or the relevant demographics (student, departmental, and institutional). The lack of comprehensive data makes it difficult to know how many students participate in UREs; where UREs are offered; and if there are gaps in access to UREs across different institutional types, disciplines, or groups of students. One of the challenges of describing the undergraduate research landscape is that students do not have to be enrolled in a formal program to have a research experience. Informal experiences, for example a work-study job, are typically not well documented. Another challenge is that some students participate in CUREs or other research experiences (such as internships) that are not necessarily labeled as such. Institutional administrators may be unaware of CUREs that are already part of their curriculum. (For example, establishment of CUREs may be under the purview of a faculty curriculum committee and may not be recognized as a distinct program.) Student participation in UREs may occur at their home institution or elsewhere during the summer. Therefore, it is very difficult for a science department, and likely any other STEM department, to know what percentage of their graduating majors have had a research experience, let alone to gather such information on students who left the major. 4

4 This point was made by Marco Molinaro, University of California, Davis, in a presentation to the Committee on Strengthening Research Experience for Undergraduate STEM Students, September 16, 2015.

Conclusion 7: While data are lacking on the precise number of students engaged in UREs, there is some evidence of a recent growth in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), which engage a cohort of students in a research project as part of a formal academic experience.

There has been an increase in the number of grants and the dollar amount spent on CUREs over the past decade (see Chapter 3 ). CUREs can be particularly useful in scaling UREs to reach a much larger population of students ( Bangera and Brownell, 2014 ). By using a familiar mechanism—enrollment in a course—a CURE can provide a more comfortable route for students unfamiliar with research to gain their first experience. CUREs also can provide such experiences to students with diverse backgrounds, especially if an institution or department mandates participation sometime during a student’s matriculation. Establishing CUREs may be more cost-effective at schools with little on-site research activity. However, designing a CURE is a new and time-consuming challenge for many faculty members. Connecting to nationally organized research networks can provide faculty with helpful resources for the development of a CURE based around their own research or a local community need, or these networks can link interested faculty to an ongoing collaborative project. Collaborative projects can provide shared curriculum, faculty professional development and community, and other advantages when starting or expanding a URE program. See the discussion in the report from a convocation on Integrating Discovery-based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015 ).

Recommendation 4: Institutions should collect data on student participation in UREs to inform their planning and to look for opportunities to improve quality and access.

Better tracking of student participation could lead to better assessment of outcomes and improved quality of experience. Such metrics could be useful for both prospective students and campus planners. An integrated institutional system for research opportunities could facilitate the creation of tiered research experiences that allow students to progress in skills and responsibility and create support structures for students, providing, for example, seminars in communications, safety, and ethics for undergraduate researchers. Institutions could also use these data to measure the impact of UREs on student outcomes, such as student success rates in introductory courses, retention in STEM degree programs, and completion of STEM degrees.

While individual institutions may choose to collect additional information depending on their goals and resources, relevant student demographics

and the following design elements would provide baseline data. At a minimum, such data should include

• Type of URE;
• Each student’s discipline;
• Duration of the experience;
• Hours spent per week;
• When the student began the URE (e.g., first year, capstone);
• Compensation status (e.g., paid, unpaid, credit); and
• Location and format (e.g., on home campus, on another campus, internship, co-op).

National aggregation of some of the student participation variables collected by various campuses might be considered by funders. The existing Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System database, organized by the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education, may be a suitable repository for certain aspects of this information.

Recommendation 5: Administrators and faculty at all types of colleges and universities should continually and holistically evaluate the range of UREs that they offer. As part of this process, institutions should:

• Consider how best to leverage available resources (including off-campus experiences available to students and current or potential networks or partnerships that the institution may form) when offering UREs so that they align with their institution’s mission and priorities;
• Consider whether current UREs are both accessible and welcoming to students from various subpopulations across campus (e.g., historically underrepresented students, first generation college students, those with disabilities, non-STEM majors, prospective kindergarten-through-12th-grade teachers); and
• Gather and analyze data on the types of UREs offered and the students who participate, making this information widely available to the campus community and using it to make evidence-based decisions about improving opportunities for URE participation. This may entail devising or implementing systems for tracking relevant data (see Conclusion 4 ).

Resources available for starting, maintaining, and expanding UREs vary from campus to campus. At some campuses, UREs are a central focus and many resources are devoted to them. At other institutions—for example, many community colleges—UREs are seen as extra, and new resources may be required to ensure availability of courses and facilities. Resource-

constrained institutions may need to focus more on ensuring that students are aware of potential UREs that already exist on campus and elsewhere in near proximity to campus. All institutional discussions about UREs must consider both the financial resources and physical resources (e.g., laboratories, field stations, engineering design studios) required, while remembering that faculty time is a crucial resource. The incentives and disincentives for faculty to spend time on UREs are significant. Those institutions with an explicit mission to promote undergraduate research may provide more recognition and rewards to departments and faculty than those with another focus. The culture of the institution with respect to innovation in pedagogy and support for faculty development also can have a major influence on the extent to which UREs are introduced or improved.

Access to UREs may vary across campus and by department, and participation in UREs may vary across student groups. It is important for campuses to consider the factors that may facilitate or discourage students from participation in UREs. Inconsistent procedures or a faculty preference for students with high grades or previous research experience may limit options for some student populations.

UREs often grow based on the initiative of individual faculty members and other personnel, and an institution may not have complete or even rudimentary knowledge of all of the opportunities available or whether there are gaps or inconsistencies in its offerings. A uniform method for tracking the UREs available on a given campus would be useful to students and would provide a starting point for analyzing the options. Tracking might consist of notations in course listings and, where feasible, on student transcripts. Analysis might consider the types of UREs offered, the resources available to each type of URE, and variations within or between various disciplines and programs. Attention to whether all students or groups of students have appropriate access to UREs would foster consideration of how to best allocate resources and programming on individual campuses, in order to focus resources and opportunities where they are most needed.

Conclusion 8: The quality of mentoring can make a substantial difference in a student’s experiences with research. However, professional development in how to be a good mentor is not available to many faculty or other prospective mentors (e.g., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows).

Engagement in quality mentored research experiences has been linked to self-reported gains in research skills and productivity as well as retention in STEM (see Chapter 5 ). Quality mentoring in UREs has been shown

to increase persistence in STEM for historically underrepresented students ( Hernandez et al., 2016 ). In addition, poor mentoring during UREs has been shown to decrease retention of students ( Hernandez et al., 2016 ).

More general research on good mentoring in the STEM environment has been positively associated with self-reported gains in identity as a STEM researcher, a sense of belonging, and confidence to function as a STEM researcher ( Byars-Winston et al., 2015 ; Chemers et al., 2011 ; Pfund et al., 2016 ; Thiry et al., 2011 ). The frequency and quality of mentee-mentor interactions has been associated with students’ reports of persistence in STEM, with mentoring directly or indirectly improving both grades and persistence in college. For students from historically underrepresented ethnic/racial groups, quality mentoring has been associated with self-reported enhanced recruitment into graduate school and research-related career pathways ( Byars-Winston et al., 2015 ). Therefore, it is important to ensure that faculty and mentors receive the proper development of mentoring skills.

Recommendation 6: Administrators and faculty at colleges and universities should ensure that all who mentor undergraduates in research experiences (this includes faculty, instructors, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and undergraduates serving as peer mentors) have access to appropriate professional development opportunities to help them grow and succeed in this role.

Although many organizations recognize effective mentors (e.g., the National Science Foundation’s Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring), there currently are no standard criteria for selecting, evaluating, or recognizing mentors specifically for UREs. In addition, there are no requirements that mentors meet some minimum level of competency before engaging in mentoring or participate in professional development to obtain a baseline of knowledge and skills in mentoring, including cultural competence in mentoring diverse groups of students. Traditionally, the only experience required for being a mentor is having been mentored, regardless of whether the experience was negative or positive ( Handelsman et al., 2005 ; Pfund et al., 2015 ). Explicit consideration of how the relationships are formed, supported, and evaluated can improve mentor-mentee relationships. To ensure that the mentors associated with a URE are prepared appropriately, thereby increasing the chances of a positive experience for both mentors and mentees, all prospective mentors should prepare for their role. Available resources include the Entering Mentoring course (see Pfund et al., 2015 ) and the book Successful STEM Mentoring Initiative for Underrepresented Students ( Packard, 2016 ).

A person who is an ineffective mentor for one student might be inspiring for another, and the setting in which the mentoring takes place (e.g., a CURE or apprentice-style URE, a laboratory or field-research environment) may also influence mentor effectiveness. Thus, there should be some mechanism for monitoring such relationships during the URE, or there should be opportunity for a student who is unhappy with the relationship to seek other mentors. Indeed, cultivating a team of mentors with different experiences and expertise may be the best strategy for any student. A parallel volume to the Entering Mentoring curriculum mentioned above, Entering Research Facilitator’s Manual ( Branchaw et al., 2010 ), is designed to help students with their research mentor-mentee relationships and to coach them on building teams of mentors to guide them. As mentioned in Chapter 5 , the Entering Research curriculum also contains information designed to support a group of students as they go through their first apprentice-style research experience, each working in separate research groups and also meeting together as a cohort focused on learning about research.

PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE

Conclusion 9: The unique assets, resources, priorities, and constraints of the department and institution, in addition to those of individual mentors, impact the goals and structures of UREs. Schools across the country are showing considerable creativity in using unique resources, repurposing current assets, and leveraging student enthusiasm to increase research opportunities for their students.

Given current calls for UREs and the growing conversation about their benefits, an increasing number of two- and four-year colleges and universities are increasing their efforts to support undergraduate research. Departments, institutions, and individual faculty members influence the precise nature of UREs in multiple ways and at multiple levels. The physical resources available, including laboratories, field stations, and engineering design studios and testing facilities, make a difference, as does the ability to access resources in the surrounding community (including other parts of the campus). Institutions with an explicit mission to promote undergraduate research may provide more time, resources (e.g., financial, support personnel, space, equipment), and recognition and rewards to departments and faculty in support of UREs than do institutions without that mission. The culture of the institution with respect to innovation in pedagogy and support for faculty development also affects the extent to which UREs are introduced or improved.

Development of UREs requires significant time and effort. Whether or not faculty attempt to implement UREs can depend on whether departmental

or institutional reward and recognition systems compensate for or even recognize the time required to initiate and implement them. The availability of national consortia can help to alleviate many of the time and logistical problems but not those obstacles associated with recognition and resources.

It will be harder for faculty to find the time to develop UREs at institutions where they are required to teach many courses per semester, although in some circumstances faculty can teach CUREs that also advance their own research ( Shortlidge et al., 2016 ). Faculty at community colleges generally have the heaviest teaching expectations, little or no expectations or incentives to maintain a research program, limited access to lab or design space or to scientific and engineering journals, and few resources to undertake any kind of a research program. These constraints may limit the extent to which UREs can be offered to the approximately 40 percent of U.S. undergraduates who are enrolled in the nation’s community colleges (which collectively also serve the highest percentage of the nation’s underrepresented students). 5

Recommendation 7: Administrators and faculty at all types of colleges and universities should work together within and, where feasible, across institutions to create a culture that supports the development of evidence-based, iterative, and continuous refinement of UREs, in an effort to improve student learning outcomes and overall academic success. This should include the development, evaluation, and revision of policies and practices designed to create a culture supportive of the participation of faculty and other mentors in effective UREs. Policies should consider pedagogy, professional development, cross-cultural awareness, hiring practices, compensation, promotion (incentives, rewards), and the tenure process.

Colleges and universities that would like to expand or improve the UREs offered to their students should consider the campus culture and climate and the incentives that affect faculty choices. Those campuses that cultivate an environment supportive of the iterative and continuous refinement of UREs and that offer incentives for evaluation and evidence-based improvement of UREs seem more likely to sustain successful programs. Faculty and others who develop and implement UREs need support to be able to evaluate their courses or programs and to analyze evidence to make decisions about URE design. This kind of support may be fostered by expanding the mission of on-campus centers for learning and teaching to focus more on UREs or by providing incentives for URE developers from the natural sciences and engineering to collaborate with colleagues in the social sciences or colleges of education with expertise in designing studies

5 See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp [November 2016].

involving human subjects. Supporting closer communication between URE developers and the members of the campus Institutional Review Board may help projects to move forward more seamlessly. Interdepartmental and intercampus connections (especially those between two- and four-year institutions) can be valuable for linking faculty with the appropriate resources, colleagues, and diverse student populations. Faculty who have been active in professional development on how students learn in the classroom may have valuable experiences and expertise to share.

The refinement or expansion of UREs should build on evidence from data on student participation, pedagogy, and outcomes, which are integral components of the original design. As UREs are validated and refined, institutions should make efforts to facilitate connections among different departments and disciplines, including the creation of multidisciplinary UREs. Student engagement in learning in general, and with UREs more specifically, depends largely on the culture of the department and the institution and on whether students see their surroundings as inclusive and energetic places to learn and thrive. A study that examined the relationship between campus missions and the five benchmarks for effective educational practice (measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement) showed that different programs, policies, and approaches may work better, depending on the institution’s mission ( Kezar and Kinzie, 2006 ).

The Council on Undergraduate Research (2012) document Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research outlines several best practices for UREs based on the apprenticeship model (see Chapter 8 ). That document is not the result of a detailed analysis of the evidence but is based on the extensive experiences and expertise of the council’s members. It suggests that undergraduate research should be a normal part of the undergraduate experience regardless of the type of institution. It also identifies changes necessary to include UREs as part of the curriculum and culture changes necessary to support curricular reform, co-curricular activities, and modifications to the incentives and rewards for faculty to engage with undergraduate research. In addition, professional development opportunities specifically designed to help improve the pedagogical and mentoring skills of instructional staff in using evidence-based practices can be important for a supportive learning culture.

Recommendation 8: Administrators and faculty at all types of colleges and universities should work to develop strong and sustainable partnerships within and between institutions and with educational and professional societies for the purpose of sharing resources to facilitate the creation of sustainable URE programs.

Networks of faculty, institutions, regionally and nationally coordinated URE initiatives, professional societies, and funders should be strengthened

to facilitate the exchange of evidence and experience related to UREs. These networks could build on the existing work of professional societies that assist faculty with pedagogy. They can help provide a venue for considering the policy context and larger implications of increasing the number, size, and scope of UREs. Such networks also can provide a more robust infrastructure, to improve the sustainability and expansion of URE opportunities. The sharing of human, financial, scientific, and technical resources can strengthen the broad implementation of effective, high-quality, and more cost-efficient UREs. It may be especially important for community colleges and minority-serving institutions to engage in partnerships in order to expand the opportunities for undergraduates (both transfer and technical students) to participate in diverse UREs (see discussion in National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015 , and Elgin et al., 2016 ). Consortia can facilitate the sharing of resources across disciplines and departments within the same institution or at different institutions, organizations, and agencies. Consortia that employ research methodologies in common can share curriculum, research data collected, and common assessment tools, lessening the time burden for individual faculty and providing a large pool of students from which to assess the efficacy of individual programs.

Changes in the funding climate can have substantial impacts on the types of programs that exist, iterative refinement of programs, and whether and how programs might be expanded to broaden participation by more undergraduates. For those institutions that have not yet established URE programs or are at the beginning phases of establishing one, mechanisms for achieving success and sustainability may include increased institutional ownership of programs of undergraduate research, development of a broad range of programs of different types and funding structures, formation of undergraduate research offices or repurposing some of the responsibilities and activities of those which already exist, and engagement in community promotion and dissemination of student accomplishments (e.g., student symposia, support for undergraduate student travel to give presentations at professional meetings).

Over time, institutions must develop robust plans for ensuring the long-term sustained funding of high-quality UREs. Those plans should include assuming that more fiscal responsibility for sustaining such efforts will be borne by the home institution as external support for such efforts decreases and ultimately ends. Building UREs into the curriculum and structure of a department’s courses and other programs, and thus its funding model, can help with sustainability. Partnerships with nonprofit organizations and industry, as well as seeking funding from diverse agencies, can also facilitate programmatic sustainability, especially if the UREs they fund can also support the mission and programs of the funders (e.g., through research internships or through CUREs that focus on community-

based research questions and challenges). Partnerships among institutions also may have greater potential to study and evaluate student outcomes from URE participation across broader demographic groups and to reduce overall costs through the sharing of administrative or other resources (such as libraries, microscopes, etc.).

Bangera, G., and Brownell, S.E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE–Life Sciences Education , 13 (4), 602-606.

Branchaw, J.L., Pfund, C., and Rediske, R. (2010) Entering Research Facilitator’s Manual: Workshops for Students Beginning Research in Science . New York: Freeman & Company.

Byars-Winston, A.M., Branchaw, J., Pfund, C., Leverett, P., and Newton, J. (2015). Culturally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education , 37 (15), 2,533-2,554.

Chemers, M.M., Zurbriggen, E.L., Syed, M., Goza, B.K., and Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues , 67 (3), 469-491.

Council on Undergraduate Research. (2012). Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research . Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Elgin, S.C.R., Bangera, G., Decatur, S.M., Dolan, E.L., Guertin, L., Newstetter, W.C., San Juan, E.F., Smith, M.A., Weaver, G.C., Wessler, S.R., Brenner, K.A., and Labov, J.B. 2016. Insights from a convocation: Integrating discovery-based research into the undergraduate curriculum. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15 , 1-7.

Hanauer, D., and Dolan, E. (2014) The Project Ownership Survey: Measuring differences in scientific inquiry experiences, CBE–Life Sciences Education , 13 , 149-158.

Handelsman, J., Pfund, C., Lauffer, S.M., and Pribbenow, C.M. (2005). Entering Mentoring . Madison, WI: The Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching.

Hernandez, P.R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., and Schultz, P.W. (2016). Protégé perceptions of high mentorship quality depend on shared values more than on demographic match. Journal of Experimental Education. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405 [November 2016].

Jones, P., Selby, D., and Sterling, S.R. (2010). Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice Across Higher Education . New York: Earthscan.

Kezar, A.J., and Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: The role of mission. Journal of College Student Development , 47 (2), 149-172.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Report of a Convocation . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S.R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., and Lerner, J.S. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Review of Higher Education, 22 , 55-72. Available: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenniferlerner/files/nagda_1998_paper.pdf [February 2017].

Packard, P. (2016). Successful STEM Mentoring Initiatives for Underrepresented Students: A Research-Based Guide for Faculty and Administrators . Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Pfund, C., Branchaw, J.L., and Handelsman, J. (2015). Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists (2nd ed). New York: Macmillan Learning.

Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J.L., Hurtado, S., and Eagan, M.K. (2016). Defining attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS and Behavior, 20 , 238-248.

Schultz, P.W., Hernandez, P.R., Woodcock, A., Estrada, M., Chance, R.C., Aguilar, M., and Serpe, R.T. (2011). Patching the pipeline reducing educational disparities in the sciences through minority training programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 33 (1), 95-114.

Shortlidge, E.E., Bangera, G., and Brownell, S.E. (2016). Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences. BioScience, 66 (1), 54-62.

Thiry, H., Laursen, S.L., and Hunter, A.B. (2011). What experiences help students become scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 82 (4), 358-389.

This page intentionally left blank.

Undergraduate research has a rich history, and many practicing researchers point to undergraduate research experiences (UREs) as crucial to their own career success. There are many ongoing efforts to improve undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education that focus on increasing the active engagement of students and decreasing traditional lecture-based teaching, and UREs have been proposed as a solution to these efforts and may be a key strategy for broadening participation in STEM. In light of the proposals questions have been asked about what is known about student participation in UREs, best practices in UREs design, and evidence of beneficial outcomes from UREs.

Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students provides a comprehensive overview of and insights about the current and rapidly evolving types of UREs, in an effort to improve understanding of the complexity of UREs in terms of their content, their surrounding context, the diversity of the student participants, and the opportunities for learning provided by a research experience. This study analyzes UREs by considering them as part of a learning system that is shaped by forces related to national policy, institutional leadership, and departmental culture, as well as by the interactions among faculty, other mentors, and students. The report provides a set of questions to be considered by those implementing UREs as well as an agenda for future research that can help answer questions about how UREs work and which aspects of the experiences are most powerful.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• +44 7897 053596
• [email protected]

Get an experienced writer start working

Review our examples before placing an order, learn how to draft academic papers, how to write recommendations: do’s and don’ts..

How to Write Citation? | A Practical Guide for Citation and References

How to Write References Quickly and Accurately? | A Practical Guide

Writing research recommendations involves suggesting future research directions or actions that can be taken based on the findings of a research study. The most crucial element of the analysis process, recommendations, is where you provide specific suggestions for interventions or solutions to the problems and limitations found throughout the assessment.

Explore New Dissertation Ideas

Find Current Dissertation Examples

The following guideline will help you explore how to write recommendations : 

What are the Recommendations?

Research recommendations are suggestions for future research based on the findings of a research study. The researcher may make these recommendations, or they may be requested by the publisher, funding agency, or other stakeholders who have an interest in the research. The purpose of research recommendations is to identify areas where further investigation is needed and to provide direction for future research in the field.

Get Help Through Our Proofreading Editing Services

The recommendation section, whether it is included in the discussion section or conclusion, should involve the following:

• The research questions that the recommendation addresses.
• A concise summary of the findings from the research.
• The implications of the findings for practice.
• The strengths and limitations of the research.
• How do the findings relate to other research in the field?
• Recommendations for further research.

3-Step  Dissertation Process!

Get 3+ Topics

Dissertation Proposal

Get Final Dissertation

What kind of recommendations are appropriate.

The appropriateness of recommendations depends on the research study and the research field. Generally, research recommendations should be based on the findings of the study and should address research gaps or limitations. Here are some types of recommendations that may be appropriate:

Finalise Your Topic After Getting Inspired by the Current Research Topics

1- Further Investigations

Suggest further investigations into specific research questions or hypotheses. This can include exploring new variables, testing different methods, or using different samples.

2- Development of New Research Methods or Techniques

Propose new research methods or techniques that can be used to address research questions or improve the quality of research.

3- Replication of the Study

Recommend replication of the study with larger or more diverse samples to increase the generalizability of the findings.

4- Extension of the Study

Suggest extending the study to different populations or contexts to explore the generalizability of the findings.

5- Collaboration with Other Researchers

Recommend collaboration with other researchers or research teams to leverage expertise and resources.

6- Integration of the Study Findings into Policy or Practice

Suggest ways in which the study findings can be used to inform policy or practice in the relevant field.

7- Addressing Limitations or Gaps in the Current Research Literature

Propose ways the study findings can address limitations or gaps in the current research literature.

Get a Dissertation Proposal

Start your dissertation writing process with experts

Safe and confidential process Free custom topics to choose from Any deadline Unlimited free amendments Free anti-plagiarism report Money-back guarantee

Structuring of Recommendations

When learning how to write recommendations, start with structuring the recommendations section.

1- Summarize your Research Findings

Before making any recommendations, briefly summarise your study's key findings. This will provide context for your recommendations and ensure that they are relevant to the research topic.

2- Identify Research Gaps

Based on your research findings, identify gaps in the literature or areas requiring further investigation. Consider the limitations of your study and the potential implications of your findings.

3- Prioritize Recommendations

Determine the most important recommendations based on their potential impact and feasibility. You may want to organize your recommendations into short-term and long-term goals.

4- Provide Clear and Specific Recommendations

Your recommendations should be concise and specific. Avoid vague or general statements and provide actionable steps that can be taken to address the research gaps you have identified.

5- Justify Your Recommendations

Provide a rationale for each of your recommendations, explaining why they are necessary and how they will contribute to the overall research field.

6- Consider Potential Challenges

Be sure to consider potential challenges or limitations that may arise in implementing your recommendations. Provide suggestions for overcoming these challenges where possible.

7- Conclude with a Summary

End your recommendations with a brief summary of your main points. This will help reinforce the importance of your recommendations and ensure they are clearly understood.

Find Interesting Research Proposal Examples Here

Remember to tailor your recommendations to your specific research study and field of study. Keep in mind that your recommendations should be based on evidence and have practical applications for researchers, practitioners, or policymakers.

Building Concrete Research Recommendations

• The research process should be systematic and logical.
• Conduct the research in an objective and unbiased manner.
• The research findings should be reproducible.
• The research recommendations should be made with a concrete plan in mind.
• The research recommendations should be based on a solid foundation of evidence.
• The research recommendations should be clear and concise.
• The research recommendations should be achievable and realistic.
• The research recommendations should be made to further the research project's goals.
• They should be made to improve the quality of the research project.
• The research recommendations should make the research project more efficient.
• The recommendations should make the research project more effective.
• The research recommendations must aid in making the research project more successful.

Testimonials

Very satisfied students

This is our reason for working. We want to make all students happy, every day. Review us on Sitejabber

What is the Smart Strategy for Writing Research Recommendations?

In academic writing, there are generally three types of Recommendations:

• Obligations

Explore Some Best Dissertation Writings Here 

Recommendations can be further characterized as "SMART" or "non-SMART." A SMART Recommendation is one that is Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time-bound. The following sections will provide more information on each of these characteristics.

• A Recommendation is " Specific " if it clearly spells out what actions need to take place, who needs to take those actions, and when they need to occur.
• A Recommendation is " Measurable " if specified indicators can be used to gauge whether it has successfully achieved its objectives.
• A Recommendation is " Actionable " if the necessary steps required to implement the recommendation are spelt out and achievable.
• A Recommendation is " Realistic " if it is achievable given the available resources (e.g., time, money, human resources).
• Finally, a Recommendation is " Time - bound " if there is a specified timeframe within which the recommendation should be achieved.

How Does It Work ?

Fill the Form

Please fill the free topic form and share your requirements

Writer Starts Working

The writer starts to find a topic for you (based on your requirements)

3+ Topics Emailed!

The writer shared custom topics with you within 24 hours

What are the Dos and Don'ts of Research Recommendations? 

1- be specific.

Provide clear and specific recommendations that are relevant to the research study and the field of study. Use precise language and avoid vague or general statements.

2- Support Your Recommendations with Evidence

Base your recommendations on the research study's findings and other relevant literature. Provide evidence to support your recommendations and explain why they are necessary.

Identify and prioritise the most important recommendations based on their potential impact and feasibility.

4- Consider Practical Applications

Ensure that your recommendations have practical applications for researchers, practitioners, or policymakers. Think about how your recommendations can be implemented in practice and how they can contribute to the field.

5- Be Concise

Keep your recommendations concise and to the point. Avoid unnecessary details or explanations.

6- Provide a Rationale

Explain the rationale for each of your recommendations and how they will contribute to the overall research field.

1- Make Unsupported Claims

Avoid making claims that are not supported by evidence. Make sure that your recommendations are based on the research study's findings and other relevant literature.

2- Overgeneralize

Avoid overgeneralizing your recommendations. Make sure that your recommendations are specific to the research study and field.

3- Ignore Potential Challenges

Consider potential challenges or limitations that may arise in implementing your recommendations. Provide suggestions for overcoming these challenges where possible.

4- Disregard Practical Considerations

Ensure that your recommendations are practical and feasible. Consider the resources and constraints of the research field and how your recommendations can be implemented in practice.

5- Be Too Prescriptive

Avoid being too prescriptive in your recommendations. Provide guidance and direction, but allow room for interpretation and adaptation.

By following these dos and don'ts, you can ensure that your research recommendations are well-supported, relevant, and practical and will make a meaningful contribution to the research field.

Learn the Best Way to Write Acknowledgements

Explore the Current Samples of Acknowledgement

It is frequently the case that further research is needed to facilitate the advancement of a study. In your research plans, you can analyze potential study methodologies and the points regarding a subject that might be covered in such research.

The recommendations you include in your paper could be crucial to your research. Make sure your essay has clear recommendations that are simple to implement, can be used effectively, and are not unduly complex or challenging in any other manner. If you need further help writing recommendations, contact us via email or web chat.

admin farhan

Related posts.

How to Write a Reaction Paper: Format, Template, & Examples

What Is a Covariate? Its Role in Statistical Modeling

What is Conventions in Writing | Definition, Importance & Examples

Comments are closed.

Recommendation in Research

Ai generator.

A recommendation in research refers to the advice or suggestions provided by researchers at the conclusion of their study, aimed at addressing the gaps identified, enhancing future research , and applying findings in practical contexts. Recommendations are crucial as they guide stakeholders, including policymakers, practitioners, and fellow researchers, on how to utilize the research outcomes effectively. These suggestions are typically based on the evidence gathered during the study and are intended to improve practices, inform decision-making, and inspire further investigations to build on the existing knowledge.

What is Recommendation in Research?

A recommendation in research is a suggestion or course of action proposed by researchers based on their study’s findings. It aims to address identified gaps, enhance future research, and apply results in practical scenarios. Recommendations guide stakeholders, such as policymakers and fellow researchers, on utilizing the research effectively to improve practices, inform decisions, and inspire further studies.

Examples of Recommendations in Research

• Implement Comprehensive Training Programs : Ensure that employees receive ongoing training to keep up with technological advancements.
• Increase Funding for Renewable Energy Projects : Allocate more resources to develop sustainable energy solutions.
• Promote Interdisciplinary Research : Encourage collaboration across various fields to address complex global issues.
• Adopt Advanced Data Analytics : Utilize cutting-edge data analysis techniques to improve decision-making processes.
• Enhance Public Awareness Campaigns : Develop strategies to educate the public on critical health issues.
• Strengthen Cybersecurity Measures : Implement robust security protocols to protect sensitive information.
• Encourage Community Involvement : Foster greater community participation in local governance.
• Develop Inclusive Policies : Create policies that address the needs of diverse populations.
• Optimize Supply Chain Management : Improve logistics and supply chain efficiency to reduce costs.
• Support Mental Health Initiatives : Increase support for mental health programs and services.

Recommendation for Students in Research

Research is a crucial component of academic and professional development. Here are some key recommendations for students engaged in research to ensure success and meaningful contributions to their field:

1. Choose a Relevant and Interesting Topic

• Personal Interest: Select a topic that genuinely interests you.
• Relevance: Ensure the topic is relevant to your field of study.
• Scope: Make sure the topic is neither too broad nor too narrow.

2. Conduct a Thorough Literature Review

• Background Research: Review existing literature to understand the current state of knowledge.
• Identify Gaps: Identify gaps in the existing research that your study can address.
• Theoretical Framework: Build a strong theoretical foundation for your research.

3. Develop a Clear Research Plan

• Objectives: Define clear and achievable research objectives.
• Methodology: Choose appropriate research methods and techniques.
• Timeline: Create a realistic timeline with milestones for completing each stage of the research.

4. Use Reliable and Valid Sources

• Academic Journals: Prefer peer-reviewed journals for sourcing information.
• Primary Sources: Whenever possible, use primary sources to gather data.
• Citation Management: Use citation management tools to organize your references.

5. Ensure Ethical Conduct

• Informed Consent: Obtain informed consent from participants if your research involves human subjects.
• Data Privacy: Ensure the confidentiality and privacy of your data.
• Integrity: Maintain honesty and transparency in your research process.

6. Develop Strong Analytical Skills

• Critical Thinking: Develop the ability to critically analyze data and sources.
• Statistical Analysis: Gain proficiency in statistical methods if your research involves quantitative data.
• Qualitative Analysis: Learn methods for analyzing qualitative data, such as thematic analysis.

7. Seek Feedback and Collaboration

• Mentorship: Seek guidance from your research advisor or mentor regularly.
• Peer Review: Engage with peers for feedback and constructive criticism.
• Collaboration: Collaborate with other researchers to enhance the quality of your study.

8. Maintain Clear and Consistent Documentation

• Research Journal: Keep a detailed journal of your research process, observations, and reflections.
• Data Management: Organize your data systematically for easy retrieval and analysis.
• Progress Reports: Regularly update your progress and adjust your plan as needed.

9. Communicate Your Findings Effectively

• Writing Skills: Develop strong academic writing skills to present your findings clearly.
• Presentations: Learn to create and deliver effective presentations of your research.
• Publication: Aim to publish your research in reputable academic journals or conferences.

10. Stay Updated and Continue Learning

• Current Trends: Stay updated with the latest developments in your field.
• Professional Development: Attend workshops, seminars, and conferences to enhance your knowledge and skills.
• Networking: Build a professional network with other researchers and professionals in your field.

Types of Recommendation in Research

Recommendations in research are crucial as they provide actionable insights based on the study’s findings. Here are the primary types of recommendations commonly found in research:

1. Practical Recommendations

Practical recommendations offer actionable advice that can be implemented in real-world settings. These are particularly useful for practitioners and policymakers.

• Implementation Strategies: Suggest ways to apply research findings in practice.
• Policy Changes: Recommend modifications to existing policies or the creation of new policies.
• Best Practices: Identify effective practices and procedures based on research results.

2. Theoretical Recommendations

Theoretical recommendations are aimed at advancing academic knowledge and understanding. They often suggest directions for future research or adjustments to existing theories.

• Theory Development: Propose new theories or modifications to existing ones based on research findings.
• Conceptual Frameworks: Suggest new conceptual models or frameworks.
• Research Hypotheses: Recommend specific hypotheses for future testing.

3. Methodological Recommendations

Methodological recommendations focus on the research process itself. They offer suggestions for improving research design, data collection, and analysis techniques.

• Research Design: Advise on more effective or innovative research designs.
• Data Collection Methods: Recommend better or alternative methods for data collection.
• Analytical Techniques: Suggest advanced or more appropriate analytical techniques.

4. Policy Recommendations

Policy recommendations are directed towards governmental or organizational bodies. They aim to influence policy-making processes based on research evidence.

• Legislative Changes: Recommend changes to laws or regulations.
• Organizational Policies: Suggest adjustments to organizational policies and procedures.
• Public Health Initiatives: Propose new public health strategies or interventions.

5. Educational Recommendations

Educational recommendations are targeted at educational institutions, educators, and curriculum developers. They aim to improve educational practices and outcomes.

• Curriculum Development: Suggest changes or additions to curricula.
• Teaching Methods: Recommend effective teaching strategies and methods.
• Educational Programs: Propose new programs or enhancements to existing ones.

Recommendation for Future Researchers

Future researchers can benefit from insights and guidance to enhance the quality and impact of their studies. Here are some key recommendations:

1. Explore Unanswered Questions

• Identify Gaps: Focus on gaps highlighted in previous research to build on existing knowledge.
• New Areas: Investigate emerging areas or under-researched topics within your field.

2. Improve Methodological Rigor

• Innovative Methods: Incorporate innovative research methodologies and techniques.
• Replication Studies: Conduct replication studies to verify and validate findings from prior research.
• Mixed Methods: Utilize mixed methods approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem.

3. Ensure Ethical Conduct

• Ethical Guidelines: Adhere to ethical guidelines and standards throughout the research process.
• Informed Consent: Ensure that participants provide informed consent and understand their rights.
• Data Privacy: Protect the confidentiality and privacy of participants’ data.

4. Enhance Data Quality

• Robust Data Collection: Use robust data collection methods to ensure accuracy and reliability.
• Triangulation: Employ triangulation by using multiple data sources or methods to strengthen findings.
• Longitudinal Studies: Consider conducting longitudinal studies to observe changes over time.

5. Collaborate and Network

• Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Work with researchers from different disciplines to gain diverse perspectives.
• International Partnerships: Form partnerships with international researchers to broaden the scope and impact of your study.
• Professional Networks: Join professional organizations and attend conferences to stay updated and connected.

What is the Purpose of Recommendation in Research

Recommendations in research are essential for guiding future actions based on the study’s findings. Here are the main purposes of including recommendations in research:

1. Guiding Future Research

• Identify Gaps: Point out areas where more research is needed.
• Suggest Topics: Recommend specific topics or questions for future studies.
• Encourage Validation: Suggest replicating the study in different settings to confirm results.

2. Informing Policy and Practice

• Policy Changes: Provide evidence-based suggestions for improving or creating policies.
• Best Practices: Offer practical advice for professionals to improve their work.
• Implementation: Suggest ways to apply the research findings in real-world situations.

3. Enhancing Academic Knowledge

• Theoretical Contributions: Help develop or refine theories based on the research findings.
• Stimulate Discussion: Encourage further academic debate and inquiry.

4. Improving Research Methods

• Methodology: Recommend better or alternative research methods.
• Data Collection: Suggest more effective ways to gather data.
• Analysis Techniques: Propose improved methods for analyzing data.

5. Solving Practical Problems

• Actionable Solutions: Offer practical solutions to problems identified in the research.
• Resource Allocation: Guide organizations on how to use resources more effectively.
• Strategic Planning: Assist in planning future actions based on the research insights.

How to Write Research Recommendations?

Writing research recommendations involves providing actionable advice based on the findings of your study. Here are steps and tips to help you write effective research recommendations:

1. Review Your Findings

• Summarize Key Findings: Begin by summarizing the most important findings of your research.
• Highlight Significant Results: Focus on results that have significant implications for future research, policy, or practice.

2. Align Recommendations with Objectives

• Reflect on Objectives: Ensure that your recommendations align with the original objectives of your study.
• Address Research Questions: Directly address the research questions or hypotheses you set out to explore.

3. Be Specific and Actionable

• Concrete Actions: Provide specific actions that stakeholders can take.
• Clear Guidance: Offer clear and practical steps rather than vague suggestions.

4. Prioritize Recommendations

• Importance: Rank recommendations based on their importance and feasibility.
• Immediate vs. Long-Term: Distinguish between recommendations that can be implemented immediately and those that are long-term.

5. Consider Different Audiences

• Tailor Recommendations: Adapt recommendations to different audiences such as policymakers, practitioners, researchers, or the general public.
• Relevant Language: Use language and terms that are relevant and understandable to each audience.

6. Support with Evidence

• Link to Findings: Base your recommendations on the evidence from your research.
• Cite Data: Use data and examples from your study to justify each recommendation.

7. Address Limitations

• Acknowledge Constraints: Recognize any limitations in your study and how they might affect your recommendations.
• Suggest Improvements: Provide suggestions for how future research can address these limitations.

8. Highlight Benefits

• Positive Outcomes: Emphasize the potential benefits of implementing your recommendations.
• Impact: Discuss the impact your recommendations could have on the field, policy, or practice.

9. Be Realistic

• Feasibility: Ensure that your recommendations are realistic and achievable.
• Resources: Consider the resources required to implement your recommendations and whether they are available.

10. Review and Revise

• Proofread: Carefully review your recommendations for clarity, coherence, and correctness.
• Feedback: Seek feedback from peers or advisors to refine your recommendations.

FAQ’s

Why are recommendations important in research.

Recommendations provide practical applications of research findings, guiding stakeholders in implementing changes or further investigations.

How do you write a good research recommendation?

A good research recommendation is specific, actionable, and directly linked to the study’s conclusions and data.

What should be included in a research recommendation?

Include the action to be taken, the rationale behind it, and its expected impact or benefits.

Can recommendations suggest further research?

Yes, recommendations often suggest areas for further study to address limitations or explore new questions.

How should recommendations be structured in a research paper?

Recommendations should follow the conclusion section, clearly numbered or bullet-pointed for easy reading.

What is the difference between conclusions and recommendations?

Conclusions summarize the findings, while recommendations propose actions based on those findings.

Who benefits from research recommendations?

Policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders can benefit from research recommendations.

How many recommendations should a research paper have?

The number of recommendations varies but should be concise and focused, usually between three to five key suggestions.

Can recommendations be generalized to other contexts?

Recommendations should be context-specific but can sometimes be adapted for broader application.

What language should be used in writing recommendations?

Use clear, precise, and direct language to ensure recommendations are easily understood and actionable.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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.)

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

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Online First
• EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-6354 Maarten de Wit 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8708-9324 Krystel Aouad 2 ,
• Muriel Elhai 3 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9119-5330 Diego Benavent 4 ,
• Heidi Bertheussen 5 ,
• Steven Blackburn 6 ,
• Peter Böhm 7 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9327-6935 Catia Duarte 8 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5928-486X Marie Falahee 9 ,
• Susanne Karlfeldt 10 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5668-4497 Uta Kiltz 11 , 12 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0059-2141 Elsa F Mateus 13 , 14 ,
• Dawn P Richards 15 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0011-5102 Javier Rodríguez-Carrio 16 ,
• Joachim Sagen 17 , 18 ,
• Russka Shumnalieva 19 ,
• Simon R Stones 20 , 21 ,
• Sander W Tas 22 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7531-4125 William Tillett 23 , 24 ,
• Ana Vieira 14 , 25 ,
• Tanita-Christina Wilhelmer 26 , 27 , 28 ,
• Condruta Zabalan 29 , 30 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1049-4150 Jette Primdahl 31 , 32 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8895-6941 Paul Studenic 33 , 34 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4528-310X Laure Gossec 35 , 36
• 1 Patient Research Partner , EULAR , Amsterdam , The Netherlands
• 2 Saint George Hospital University Medical Center , Beirut , Lebanon
• 3 University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich , Zürich , Switzerland
• 4 Rheumatology , Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge , Madrid , Spain
• 5 Patient Research Partner , EULAR , Oslo , Norway
• 6 Institute of Applied Health Research , Univeristy of Birmingham , Birmingham , UK
• 7 Patient Research Partner , EULAR , Berlin , Germany
• 8 Rheumatology , Centro Hospitalar e Universitario de Coimbra , Coimbra , Portugal
• 9 Institute of Inflammation and Ageing , University of Birmingham Rheumatology Research Group , Birmingham , UK
• 10 Academic Specialist Center , Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden
• 11 Ruhr University Bochum , Bochum , Germany
• 12 Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet , Herne , Germany
• 13 Patient Research Partner , EULAR , Lisbon , Portugal
• 14 Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR) , Lisbon , Portugal
• 15 Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance , Toronto , Ontario , Canada
• 16 Area of Immunology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA) , University of Oviedo , Oviedo , Spain
• 17 Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology , Oslo , Norway
• 18 Norwegian Rheumatism Association , Oslo , Norway
• 19 Department of Rheumatology , Clinic of Rheumatology, University Hospital “St Ivan Rilski”, Medical University-Sofia , Sofia , Bulgaria
• 20 Patient Research Partner , EULAR , Manchester , UK
• 21 Envision Pharma Group , Wilmslow , UK
• 22 Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center , Amsterdam University Medical Centres , Amsterdam , The Netherlands
• 23 Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Disease , Bath , UK
• 24 Life Sciences , Centre for Therapeutic Innovation, University of Bath , Bath , UK
• 25 Patient Research Partner , EULAR , Lissabon , Portugal
• 26 EULAR Young PARE , Zürich , Switzerland
• 27 Österreichische Rheumaliga , Maria Alm , Austria
• 28 EULAR PRP , Vienna , Austria
• 29 Romanian League Against Rheumatism , Bucharest , Romania
• 30 EULAR PRP , Bucharest , Romania
• 31 Danish Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases , University Hospital of Southern Denmark , Sønderborg , Denmark
• 32 Department of Regional Health Research , University of Southern Denmark , Odense , Denmark
• 33 Internal Medicine 3, Division of Rheumatology , Medical University Vienna , Vienna , Austria
• 34 Department of Medicine (Solna), Karolinska Institutet , Division of Rheumatology , Stockholm , Sweden
• 35 INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, INSERM , Sorbonne Universite , Paris , France
• 36 APHP, Rheumatology Department , Hopital Universitaire Pitie Salpetriere , Paris , France
• Correspondence to Dr Maarten de Wit, Patient research partner, EULAR, Amsterdam, Netherlands; martinusdewit{at}hotmail.com

Background Since the publication of the 2011 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient research partner (PRP) involvement in rheumatology research, the role of PRPs has evolved considerably. Therefore, an update of the 2011 recommendations was deemed necessary.

Methods In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures, a task force comprising 13 researchers, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs was convened. The process included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate overarching principles (OAPs) and recommendations. The level of agreement of task force members was assessed anonymously (0–10 scale).

Results The task force developed five new OAPs, updated seven existing recommendations and formulated three new recommendations. The OAPs address the definition of a PRP, the contribution of PRPs, the role of informal caregivers, the added value of PRPs and the importance of trust and communication in collaborative research efforts. The recommendations address the research type and phases of PRP involvement, the recommended number of PRPs per project, the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRP contributions. New recommendations concern the benefits of support and guidance for researchers, the need for regular evaluation of the patient–researcher collaboration and the role of a designated coordinator to facilitate collaboration. Agreements within the task force were high and ranged between 9.16 and 9.96.

Conclusion The updated EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement are more substantially based on evidence. Together with added OAPs, they should serve as a guide for researchers and PRPs and will ultimately strengthen the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

• Epidemiology
• Health services research

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

https://doi.org/10.1136/ard-2024-225566

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

In 2011, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) published the first set of recommendations for the involvement of patient representatives in scientific projects and defined the role of patient research partners (PRPs).

The role of PRPs has evolved and the inclusion of PRPs in research has considerably expanded since 2011.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

The updated recommendations for the involvement of PRPs in scientific projects have become more evidence based and cover subjects such as research type (including basic and translational research), involvement from the research project’s inception, the recommended number of PRPs and the support, training and acknowledgement of PRPs.

These recommendations also address new topics such as the support and training of researchers, the role of a PRP coordinator and the need for regular monitoring and evaluation.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

The updated EULAR recommendations for the involvement of PRPs in research will guide researchers and PRPs in enhancing effective partnerships in their research efforts.

The ultimate benefit relates to the conduct of health research that better meets the needs of patients, which is likely to result in improved long-term health outcomes.

Introduction

The benefits of involving patient research partners (PRPs) in research are increasingly recognised by international organisations such as the WHO and European Medicines Agency (EMA). 1 2 To operationalise patient involvement in research, recommendations and guidelines are useful. In rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) has historically been a leader in the field of patient involvement—both for clinical care, teaching and research. 3 EULAR is built on three pillars: rheumatologists, health professionals and patients. In 2011, EULAR published recommendations for the inclusion of PRPs in scientific projects. 4 PRPs were clearly distinguished from patients or study participants in clinical research. PRPs were defined as ‘persons with a relevant disease who operate as active research team members on an equal basis with professional researchers, adding the benefit of their experiential knowledge to any phase of the project. 4

These were, to our knowledge, the first recommendations in rheumatology on this subject. Since then, the role of PRPs has significantly changed and expanded within and beyond the field of rheumatology. They are now not only involved in guideline development and clinical research but also in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) development, patient preference studies, research grant application assessment, regulatory processes and international research consortia. 5–9 While the initial 2011 EULAR recommendations have facilitated the implementation of these collaborative partnerships, there are still areas where PRP involvement is limited or absent such as basic and translational research, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), registries and longitudinal observational studies. 10 11 From research projects that were successful or failed in creating collaborative partnerships, we have gained more knowledge about the challenges and facilitators of PRP involvement. 7 12 13 These challenges revealed gaps where the 2011 recommendations fall short and where an update would be beneficial.

In addition, the 2011 EULAR recommendations prompted the establishment of national 14 and international PRP networks 12 15–17 including over 100 experienced and trained PRPs. EULAR has been proactive in supporting PRP involvement through the development of an online course for PRPs and facilitating an active study group for collaborative research that gathers twice a year. 18 However, the existing recommendations did not address monitoring, evaluation or reporting of lessons learnt regarding the collaboration between PRPs and researchers, which now appear indispensable for increasing our knowledge about PRP involvement and enhancing the implementation of PRPs in rheumatology research.

Finally, while the 2011 recommendations were largely based on expert opinion, since then an increasing number of studies exploring PRP involvement have been published, that now inform this update of the recommendations and provide more evidence.

Therefore, the aim of the current task force was to update the 2011 EULAR recommendations.

The target audience for these recommendations are researchers, PRPs, health providers, journal editors, research funders, ethical review boards and other stakeholders in the field of adult rheumatology and beyond.

According to our aim, we updated the 2011 EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement in research, formulated a set of overarching principles (OAPs) and developed a research agenda for the future. Of note, the scope of these recommendations is specific to the role of patients as collaborative partners in research, which is different from other roles of patients such as study participant, observer, informant or advisor. However, the updated recommendations should always consider the complementary role of PRPs in the broader context of patient and public involvement (PPI).

We followed the updated EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures. 19 The process took place between October 2022 and June 2023 and included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review (SLR) and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate OAPs and recommendations.

Steering group and task force composition

After the approval of this project by EULAR (September 2022), the steering group, comprising the convenor (MdW), an EULAR methodologist (LG), a junior methodologist (PS), a fellow and EMEUNET member (KA), a health professional (JP) and two PRPs (HB and CZ), had regular meetings between October 2022 and September 2023. They prepared the task force meetings and supported the SLR. Two EMerging EUlar NETwork (EMEUNET) members (ME and DB) joined the Steering Group after the first task force meeting. Including the steering group members, the task force comprised 13 researchers (6 were EMEUNET members) with backgrounds in basic, translational, clinical and social sciences, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs), of whom 2 represented young people. Members came from 15 European countries and Canada. The PRPs represented five RMDs.

The first task force meeting was held online (December 2022) and resulted in a set of research questions that focused on nine themes ( box 1 ).

Themes of the systematic literature review

Definition of patient research partners (PRPs).

Participation, roles, and activities of PRP.

Added value of PRPs.

Selection and recruitment of PRP.

PRP experience and feedback.

Facilitators and the supportive role of the investigator.

Training or education of PRP and researchers.

Recognition of PRPs.

Monitoring of PRP involvement.

To address these research questions in a data-driven manner, an SLR was performed for the period 2017–2022 in rheumatology journals. 20 The literature assessed in the SLR was complemented by information found on the British, European and American websites of three specialties (oncology, cardiology and diabetology) and those of Food and Drugs Administration and EMA. In addition, the following guidelines were consulted to answer specific questions about training, involvement of PRPs in translational research, and remuneration of PRPs: National Institute for Health and Care Research guidelines in the UK, guide on patient partnerships in rare disease research projects and the European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI). 21–23 Finally, the research questions mandated an additional scoping review on the involvement of PRPs in translational and RCT studies in rheumatology in the last years. 24 All findings were presented at our second task force meeting to inform the update of the recommendations.

Based on the literature, the steering group proposed tentative OAPs. Because these had not been developed for the 2011 recommendations, they were formulated here. The existing recommendations were thoroughly revised and new recommendations were proposed.

The second task force meeting took place in Amsterdam, Netherlands (April 2023) as a 1-day meeting with 24 members participating in person and one member online (DPR). Prior to the meeting, an introduction session was held to inform the task force about the applied methodology and to summarise the findings from the SLR. This session was attended by 21 task force participants. During the task force meeting, the SLR findings were presented followed by discussions and voting on each of the new OAPs and revised recommendations. The votes were considered as consensus if 75% agreement was reached in the first round, then if needed for a second round of voting, 66% and 50% in case of a third round. 25 At the end of the meeting, the evidence for three new recommendations was presented and discussed followed by voting on the respective statements.

Because our recommendations are not focused on (pharmaceutical) management of RMDs, we did not use the Oxford framework for assessing the strengths of our recommendations. We decided to base our GoR only on the quality assessment of four categories of articles from our SLR 20 : qualitative, reviews, cross-sectional and mixed-methods studies. For the first three types of studies, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist was used (n=13) 26 and for the mixed-methods studies we used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) checklist (n=6). 27 The quality assessment for the 19 articles was classified by the steering group on the basis of consensus as low, medium or high, based on the percentage of items in the quality checklist which were satisfied and the importance of the items in this checklist. The respective cut-offs were the same for the four categories: 25% or lower was considered low, between 25% and 75% was considered medium and more than 75% was considered high.

For determining the GoR, we developed the following grid, based on the LoE of the 19 papers ( table 1 ). Of note, only studies that recommended a theme ( box 1 ) or confirmed its importance for consideration were included.

• View inline

Grid for determining the grade of recommendations

Finally, following the second task force meeting, the task force members were invited by email to indicate anonymously their level of agreement with the 5 OAPs and 10 recommendations on a Likert scale between 0 (no agreement) and 10 (full agreement).

The task force derived five new OAPs, six existing recommendations were updated significantly (#1, 2, 4,5, 8, 10), one recommendation was kept unchanged (#3), two were combined into one (#4) and three new recommendations were formulated (#6, 7, 9). The LoE allowed us to obtain moderate GoR (A–D). Agreement with the OAPs and recommendations was high ( table 2 ).

Overarching principles and recommendations

Overarching principles

Prps provide input to research, through active collaboration as equal partners with researchers.

This first OAP is focused on the role of PRPs and highlights not only the added value that they bring to research, but also two key features which are the terms ‘equality’ and ‘active’. This statement emphasises the distinction between the involvement of PRPs and the use of patient consultation strategies. PRPs are not study participants, but people who join research teams to provide their knowledge, skills, experiences and expertise throughout the research cycle. There is a wealth of evidence that shows that research projects benefit from this kind of input. 28–30 The term equality refers to the call to researchers to involve PRPs in a process of shared decision-making; active collaboration refers to the concept of meaningful involvement which includes genuine dialogues and efforts to avoid tokenism.

PRPs are persons with an RMD condition who provide input to research, based on their experiential knowledge and expertise

The first recommendations provided a definition for the role of PRPs. 4 Because this role has evolved, it was deemed necessary to broaden the definition to enable its use in other research contexts than a guideline task force. Our task force agreed to formulate the definition as an OAP and removed reference to the added value of a PRP and to the phase of the study which are now part of OAP #D and recommendation #2, respectively.

Experiential knowledge can be described as the articulated personal experience of living with an RMD, and knowledge obtained from using the healthcare system. 31 Synonyms for experiential knowledge are ‘patient story’ or ‘lived experience’. Experiential expertise refers to the collective articulated experience of PRPs and includes awareness of the heterogeneity of the patients’ perspective, insights into patients’ needs and preferences, and some lay knowledge of research. 31 Expertise in PRPs can be gained over time through experience in research studies as well as through education and training to improve PPI.

Of note, it is not the primary task of PRPs to fully represent the target population. Representativeness is a responsibility of the entire research team and can be obtained through the use of a variety of consultation methods, such as mixed research methods including qualitative studies, Delphi methods or surveys to expand the input from a larger group of people with the condition under investigation. 32–34 PRPs may bring specific knowledge and expertise in developing effective strategies for PPI in a study. In addition, researchers may also consider inviting representatives of patient organisations.

Informal caregivers can provide input to research, complementary to the patients’ lived experience

Informal caregivers (also termed carers) are people who are not health professionals but persons who provide ongoing assistance with activities of daily living or social support to a person with a chronic condition or disability, often without professional education and usually without payment. 35 This person is often a family member but can also be a (close) acquaintance. The task force concluded that a caregiver is not a person with lived experience of the condition and therefore cannot fulfil the role of PRP, with the exception of paediatric rheumatology in which it is justified that a parent of a child with an RMD takes on the role of a PRP and brings their child’s perspective to the table.

Nevertheless, the task force acknowledged that carers have an independent perspective that can add value to research projects: ‘Caregivers have a different lived experience and potentially different concerns than that of a patient so both perspectives should be included when possible’. 36 Because this perspective is complementary to that of PRPs, the task force agreed to formulate this separate OAP on the potential role of informal caregivers.

PRPs add value and relevance to all types of research: their involvement benefits patients, researchers and PRPs

There is a fast-growing number of publications that confirm the added value of PRP involvement in research. 37 PRPs bring experiential knowledge and expertise to research which enhances the relevance and applicability of research findings and improves its impact. 38 PRPs benefit from collaboration because they become more knowledgeable about their conditions, may acquire increased self-confidence and practical skills, experience fulfilment and satisfaction, and gain more insights into research. 12 39 40 Moreover, researchers benefit from PRP involvement too. They obtain a better understanding of research priorities and needs of the community, gain new ideas and become more motivated and focused when being regularly in close contact with someone with the condition under research. 41 They see the implications of their work in real-life, PRPs help them obtain a more holistic view of people with RMDs, and learn to explain research concepts and findings in plain language that is understandable by patients and the general public. 36 41 Finally, at a societal level, PRP involvement increases trust, credibility and accountability of research in the community, improves relationships between researchers and other stakeholders and may ultimately also lead to improved outcomes. 42 43 This is a brief summary of the identified benefits. More illustrative examples can be found in the companion SLR. 20

Open, transparent communication, trust, respect and willingness to learn from each other are key factors for equal and successful collaboration between PRPs and researchers

Communication is crucial to establish successful and equal relationships. 20 Each research project is unique and needs clear communication about the expectations of all team members. 44 45 Based on the SLR and the expert opinion of the task force members, factors such as trust, respect, transparency and colearning were included in the final OAP.

During the task force meeting, the discussion focused on the meaning of ‘respect’ and ‘colearning’. It was argued that ‘listening to each other’ and the willingness to open oneself to the perspective and experiences of others, is a critical component of open communication and reducing power imbalances. ‘Willingness to learn from each other’ was, therefore, accepted as an improved explanation of the concept originally referenced as ‘colearning’. Respect is a principle that not only relates to communication, but is essential for building equal partnerships and collaboration, and thus is integral to this statement.

Finally, the difference between ‘open’ and ‘transparent’ communication was explained by emphasising the personal dimension in the first, and the more ‘formal’ component in the latter. Being clear about mutual expectations and limitations and providing honest feedback to each other when things are not going as envisioned, relates to open communication. Examples of transparent communication are being clear about rights and responsibilities, deadlines for tasks, procedures for communication, available support for PRPs and reimbursement policies.

Recommendations

In the following section, each recommendation will be explained in detail, supported by the identified evidence and examples when appropriate.

PRPs should be involved in all types of research, including basic, translational and clinical research

Task force members, reflecting current thinking, considered that there is a need to adjust the 2011 recommendation that read: ‘Participation of PRPs is strongly recommended for clinical research projects and for the development of recommendations and guidelines and should be considered for all other research projects’. 4 Based on the reported multiple benefits of PRP involvement, 10 41 the task force concluded that PRPs should be included in all types of research. They saw no need to distinguish between clinical research, guideline development and other types of research. They felt value in emphasising that PRP involvement is also possible in types of research in which PRPs are often absent, such as basic and translational research 24 41 as well as clinical trials, observational studies and registries. 10

The task force is aware that the new phrasing is aspirational. Indeed, guidance for researchers on how to involve patients is scarce, especially in basic research, 46 and examples of good practice are limited. 24 41 47

Feasibility of successful recruitment is a concern, given the reported difficulties in identifying PRPs and the risk of overburdening of existing PRPs. The task force felt the current wording would allow researchers and PRPs to tailor the intensity of PRP involvement to the type of research and/or the available resources.

Researchers should involve PRPs from the inception of a research project and throughout all its stages

The SLR showed strong evidence for the benefits of early PRP involvement 39 48 49 as well as prolonged engagement throughout the duration of the research. 37 44 50 Overall, 30% of the studies reported PRP involvement during all stages of the project including conception of the research questions, study design, data collection, interpretation and dissemination. 20 For PRPs, involvement throughout the lifetime of a research project represents a commitment which needs to be clearly stated upfront, and although PRPs are expected to stay involved during the entire research process, the timing and intensity of that involvement may vary, dependent on the scope and objectives of the research, the type of research and personal factors of the researcher(s) or the PRP(s). 51

A minimum of two PRPs should be involved in each project

There is a strong evidence that having more than one PRP is beneficial and that an ideal number of PRPs depends on the research context. 20 The SLR showed that the number of PRPs included in projects varies depending on the size and type of research. Having more than two PRPs can prevent imbalances in power between the PRPs and the researchers; it encourages PRPs to express their opinions, even if this means disagreeing with a researcher. 52 Thus, the task force decided not to change the 2011 recommendation and to advise researchers, in line with the previous recommendation, to tailor the number to the needs of the study. There should be two PRPs as a minimum and more when needed because of the wish for more diversity in knowledge and expertise, or because of the expected workload and to avoid overburdening.

Recruitment of PRPs should be based on a clear and agreed on description of mutual roles and responsibilities and should aim for diversity and inclusivity

The task force combined the 2011 recommendations #4 and #5. In the new formulation, the role description should be the product of cocreation by the researcher, PRP-coordinator and/or the PRPs and reflect mutual expectations. It should contain a description of the activities and responsibilities of the PRPs as well as those of the research team. In addition, the recruitment process should foster diversity and inclusivity. 34 39 53 This is particularly important where PRP involvement is needed to develop effective recruitment strategies and formulate fair inclusion and exclusion criteria to reach these goals. Useful methods for improving diversity in PPI research exist. 53 54

The task force reviewed the 2011 recommendation about the selection of PRPs based on required competencies. The SLR findings demonstrated a wide range of reported competencies that were strongly dependent on the role of the PRPs, the (disease) stage and experience of the PRP, and the kind of research activity. 31 The competencies varied from language skills, research knowledge and mobility to education, motivation, communication skills and PRP experience. The task force decided to remove any reference to competencies from the recommendation and to highlight the relevance of the research context for determining the recommended competences. The SLR demonstrated that there is no evidence for one preferred recruitment strategy over any other. 20 Researchers reported different ways of recruitment such as partnering with charities or patient and advocacy organisations, social media, community outreach and through health professionals or personal contact. 20

The research team must provide a supportive environment and facilitate the contribution of PRPs to research

The task force reached a consensus that the facilitation and support of PRPs should be a shared responsibility among all members of the research team. Collaborative research is all about ‘enabling PRPs to make meaningful contributions’ and requires, therefore, attention to the special needs for support depending on the type of RMD and the associated symptoms. Accessibility, making sure physical and online spaces are providing the right support, is an important condition for successful collaboration. Other potential conditions are, for instance, the need for a personal assistant, lay summaries, organised transfers or sufficient breaks during meetings. In many cases, fellows and junior researchers work closely together with PRPs and should address these conditions while senior researchers facilitate PRP involvement from a distance. 55 Therefore, early career researchers should address PRP’s personal needs, recognise fatigue, establish realistic deadlines, write summaries in plain language, consider the needs of PRPs for whom English is not their first language 7 53 56 and invite PRPs to give their perspective; senior or established researchers are generally responsible to facilitate PRP involvement by establishing optimal circumstances, resources and environments for sustainable involvement of PRPs and removing external, often institutional barriers, for instance, ensuring fair compensation for PRPs. 55

It was discussed whether support (#5) and training (#8) should be combined in one recommendation. However, the task force decided to keep them separated to emphasise the importance of both kinds of facilitators.

A designated coordinator should support the collaboration of researchers and PRPs

Over the last decade, we witnessed the emergence of the PRP coordinator role. 8 57 58 A PRP coordinator was reported or advised in 29% of the articles included in the SLR, and in all cases seen as an important facilitator in reducing the chances of tokenism. The PRP coordinator played a major role in the areas of logistics, information, communication and mediation. The SLR provides a comprehensive overview of the activities of the PRP coordinator ( box 2 ). 20

Potential tasks and responsibilities of a patient research partner (PRP) coordinator

Recruit and select PRPs.

Match PRPs with requests from researchers.

Support the alignment of expectations.

Organise education and support of PRPs and researchers.

Facilitate communication.

Moderate (small) group discussions.

Organise logistics around PRP involvement such as booking travel and accommodation, and arranging reimbursement.

Mentor and support younger and less-experienced PRPs.

Assist researchers at any stage of the research regarding PRP involvement.

Assist PRPs in their dialogue with employers—providing help in certifying PRPs voluntary involvement in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease community work.

Monitoring of the evaluations of PRPs contribution and impact on the project.

This role can be taken up by a research team member or by one of the PRPs but can also be positioned within a patient organisation or academic institution. In most cases, the PRP coordinator is responsible for adequate communication between PRPs and researchers, matching PRPs with new research projects and ensuring continuity and sustainable partnerships. 7 8 59 An example of a new task for PRP coordinators is to provide a ‘certificate of attendance’ after meetings. For some PRPs, such a certificate is important to enhance the dialogue with employers. PRPs may need to take time off from work and a certificate demonstrates that a person is involved in voluntary and important work for the community of people with RMDs so that future involvement is looked on favourably.

In one study included in the SLR, the PRP coordinator was expected to take the lead in setting up meetings and ensuring that ways of communication such as video calling were accessible to PRPs. 39 The PRP coordinator can also facilitate initial discussions to align mutual expectations. 39

Task force members emphasised that this new role may enhance the implementation of OAP #E on communication, trust and respect. A special warning is justified here: the presence of a PRP coordinator should never replace the responsibility of the research team to ensure adequate support for PRPs or the direct dialogue between researchers and PRPs (see recommendation #5).

Researchers should have access to training and support, to achieve effective communication and collaboration with PRPs as equal partners

The SLR revealed that both PRPs and researchers benefit from (peer-)mentoring, education and training, which was reported or advised in 34% of the articles. The SLR resulted in a list of potential topics for training content, such as communication with PRPs, and how to recruit, select and support PRPs in research studies ( box 3 ). 6 60 61

Topics for the training of researchers

Frameworks for collaboration.

Communicating with patient research partners (PRPs).

Different roles of patients in the context of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease research.

Recruitment and selection of PRPs.

Methods of enhancing equity, diversity and inclusion.

Involving PRPs in all parts of the research cycle.

Support of PRPs during a study and preventing overburdening of PRPs.

Compensation and acknowledgement of PRPs.

There was a debate about the wording with some members of the task force in favour of ’should receive support and training’ and others of ‘should have access to support and training’. In the end, the wish to homogenise this statement with the formulation on the same topic for PRPs (#8), the task force chose the less stringent version.

The training and support, although currently not broadly available, could come from different sources, for instance, EULAR, patient organisations or academic/research institutions. Implementation of this recommendation is highly dependent on the endorsement by the existing leadership of these organisations. 62

PRPs should have access to training relevant to their roles

Our SLR provided strong evidence that education and training of PRPs increase the quality of the collaboration with researchers. 20 In almost half of the publications, training was either advised (21%) or provided (25%). There is a growing supply of educational opportunities. 63 64 In 2022, the first EULAR online course for PRPs started, and more programmes are available or in development on national level. These training opportunities are provided by different stakeholders. PRPs have a right to access training if they wish, and it is no longer the principal investigator exclusively responsible for organising this. For this reason, the task force decided to adjust the 2011 recommendation by making access to training mandatory. Content of potential courses can be general, such as the EULAR course for PRPs ( box 4 ), 65 as well as tailored to the role and needs of the individual PRP in a specific research context, such as the EUPATI course for patient representatives involved in drug development and regulatory processes 64 or the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) e-learning modules for PRPs involved in core-outcome set development. 66

Topics of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology online course for patient research partners (PRPs)

Principles of collaborative research.

Basic epidemiology.

Outcome measures in rheumatology.

Critical appraisal of literature.

Development of recommendations.

Researcher–PRP communication.

Medicine development and market authorisation.

Health economics in rheumatology research.

Reviewing research grant applications.

Dissemination of scientific information to patients.

Patient involvement in laboratory research.

Core outcome set development and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative.

Researchers and PRPs should regularly evaluate their collaboration and adjust their way of working when needed

At the first meeting, the task force requested to explore the need for adequate monitoring and evaluation of PRP involvement in the literature. The results showed that 21% of papers reported or advised a kind of evaluation of PPI. One of the frequently reported challenges for researchers is the measurement of impact of PPI. 50 In addition, PRPs regularly report lack of feedback on their contributions. 8 During the second meeting, the task force discussed the difference between monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring was seen as a way to assess the level of compliance with the EULAR recommendations: how were PRPs recruited, at what stage, how many, and the kind of support and training they received. Evaluation focused on the experiences of the people involved: were they satisfied with the collaboration, were expectations met and what was the impact of the PRP involvement on the project? The task force emphasised that the collaboration should be the object of the evaluation, and that there could be a particular role for the PRP coordinator to monitor whether these evaluations happen. In the SLR, examples were given of moderators who created a safe environment that enabled genuine dialogue between patients and researchers to enhance mutual understanding. It was concluded that continuous reflection is required by all to guarantee that obstacles are removed, and doubts expressed. 67

The contribution of PRPs should be appropriately recognised, including coauthorship when eligible: financial compensation should be considered

The SLR showed that the number of PRPs that are acknowledged by coauthorship is growing. 68 If the Vancouver regulations are fulfilled, ‘coauthorship is a recognition of the contributions made by patients and is the ultimate proof of equal and meaningful partnerships’. 13 69 PRPs who meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria are eligible for authorship. If they do not fulfil these criteria or choose not to accept authorship, they should be acknowledged. The task force did not see any reason to change this part of the recommendation. However, in many countries, there is a strong call to compensate PRPs for their time and efforts. Over the past years, several patient and research organisations have developed payment structures to acknowledge the substantial contributions that PRPs provide to research. Some projects are extremely time-consuming. For attending a 2-day annual research meeting, reviewing a series of grant applications or being involved in the development of a decision aid or PRO, PRPs may have to take several days off from work or make other sacrifices. The task force felt that, in addition to reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, financial compensation for PRPs should be considered. PRPs may decide whether they want to refrain from payment, but researchers should consider financial compensation when developing their research budget. 70 Research institutes should ease the procedures for fair payment of PRPs, 71 and funders should allow researchers to budget for PPI, including payment of PRPs. The NIHR and the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft have published generic guidelines for remuneration of public contributors. 72–74

We present here the updated recommendations for the involvement of PRPs in scientific projects. Five new OAPs define the roles of PRPs and informal caregivers, describe the added value that PRPs contribute to research and emphasise the importance of trust, respect, and open and transparent communication as critical factors for successful partnerships. Six significantly changed recommendations cover the research type and phases of PRP involvement, and the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRPs contribution. The statement concerning the recommended number of PRPs per project remained unchanged. The task force formulated three new recommendations about the role of a PRP coordinator, the education of researchers and the need for regular evaluations.

Within the EULAR community of People with Arthritis/Rheumatism in Europe, several national members have appointed PRP coordinators, dedicated to recruit, train, support and coordinate the involvement of PRPs in research projects. This new role seems effective for the establishment of sustainable and productive relationships between PRPs and researchers. Publications from national PRP networks 14 as well as from international consortia 8 show that PRPs appreciate having a dedicated person who supports their involvement and acts as a point of contact. For these reasons, the task force formulated a new recommendation (#6) about the appointment of a designated PRP coordinator. The task force highlighted one caveat: research team members should never be released from their responsibility to contribute to a facilitating environment for meaningful collaboration between PRPs and researchers as stated in recommendation #5.

A second new recommendation (#9) calls on researchers and PRPs to regularly evaluate their collaboration. There is a growing number of publications that report surveys or other kinds of formative evaluations that can inform about the current level of PRP involvement in rheumatology research. The 2011 recommendations were cited or mentioned in 50% of the SLR articles. Although the 2011 EULAR recommendations have facilitated the implementation of collaborative partnerships in a variety of research areas, there are still areas where PRP involvement is limited or absent. 24 Evaluation studies are often initiated by principal investigators of international studies and facilitated by the designated PPI or PRP coordinator. However, there is also a need to collect and publish the experiences of PRPs in smaller or single-centre studies. Hitherto, information on the level of implementation of PRP strategies is still lacking, and there is limited understanding of the challenges faced, the nature of the collaboration between PRPs and researchers, its overall impact and instruments for its assessment. A subsequently proposed recommendation on monitoring and reporting did not reach consensus (60%). It was felt that the current updated set of recommendations will help researchers and PRPs to advance PPI. Their implementation will already require additional effort from both researchers and PRPs, and the introduction of mandatory monitoring and reporting of PRP involvement, was considered to be potentially ‘overwhelming’ and not always feasible. Although a reporting checklist for PPI activities (GRIPP2) exists, 75 completion is time-consuming and not always appropriate for all types of research.

By emphasising the need for more regular evaluation, the task force hopes that this will be an incentive for better reporting of good and unsound practices of PRP involvement in all types of research. By doing so, we might incorporate further evidence for PPI practices in a future update of the recommendations for the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

Implementation of recommendations requires full endorsement, coordinated actions and joint efforts of all stakeholders involved, from research institutions to organisations and funders. 62 Additionally, a better understanding of barriers and facilitators influencing PRP involvement at macrolevel and microlevel is needed for the implementation of the new recommendations. The establishment of national-specific or disease-specific networks of trained PRPs could help increase the number of available PRPs for research projects. Creating more support and education programmes for researchers, as formulated in the new recommendation #7, could stimulate researchers to start collaborating with PRPs. Finally, implementation would certainly benefit from appointing more PRP coordinators (#6) who could assist in creating workable partnerships in which there is no place for tokenistic approaches.

This update of the current recommendations has several strengths in comparison with the original recommendations. First, the new statements are more strongly based on existing evidence. While the original statements were largely expert driven and partly based on a limited scoping review of the literature (with almost no publications on PRP involvement), the current SLR provided findings of 53 articles focused on the involvement of patients as partners in rheumatology research. This enabled us to attribute GoR to all statements, which makes these recommendations the first set of evidence-based recommendations on PRP involvement. Second, a wider and more diverse group of experts (n=25) were involved in the update compared with the 16 persons in 2011.

A limitation of this project might be the wide range of articles that were included in the SLR, varying from original research studies to meeting reports and opinion articles. For this reason, it was a challenge to assess in a uniform way the literature giving us the level of evidence behind each recommendation since the literature was issued from several different types of studies and the quality assessment grids were adapted to each type of study. Here, we chose to apply a semiquantitative assessment to the quality of the articles. This method may be applicable to other consensus groups dealing with diverse literature.

It is fair to say that, despite the fast-growing body of knowledge on PPI, the quantity of literature pertaining to the participation of PRPs continue to lag behind. The reasons for this may be diverse. Researchers are traditionally not expected, let alone rewarded for detailed reporting of PRP involvement and funders may be reluctant to accept reasonable budgets for PRP strategies in the studies they sponsor. Furthermore, journals may not allow for comprehensive reporting of PRP involvement due to limited word counts, although they start to encourage authors to provide information about their PPI strategy during submission, which enhances the awareness of its importance. Another limitation is the difficulty to develop recommendations appropriate both for adult and for paediatric rheumatology, given the specific challenges of young PRPs. In fact, these recommendations do not address the specific needs and approaches to the engagement of children and young people with RMDs in research. We recognise the need for separate recommendations based on evidence from the field of paediatric rheumatology.

The resulting lack in reporting also reveals many items that belong to the current research agenda around PRP involvement ( box 5 ).

Research agenda

Assessment of the level of implementation of patient research partner (PRP) involvement.

Monitoring of patient and public involvement in research and the added value of the GRIPP-2 framework.

Assessing the impact of diverse PRP perspectives on research outcomes.

Exploring power dynamics and the impact of sociodemographic, cultural, regional and financial factors in PRP involvement.

Understanding differences in PRP involvement between sexes/genders.

Reporting of PRP involvement.

Understanding the perspectives and experiences of PRP and researchers engaged in research.

Evaluating the added value of a designated coordinator.

Optimising the interactions between PRP and researchers through the PRP coordinator.

Establishing fair compensation for PRP contributing to research projects.

Delineate the role of informal caregivers as PRP.

Assess the added value of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology as an umbrella PRP network of national networks.

Raising awareness on the need of a global approach (directed to all stakeholders) to facilitate PRP involvement.

Education/training

Evaluating educational needs and preferences for courses for PRP and researchers.

Evaluating usefulness of refresher courses for PRP over time.

Assess the added value of different training opportunities/formats for PRP and researchers (eg, Booklets, online training, live training).

Assessing the feasibility and usefulness of an online course for researchers.

Evaluating the role of PRPs in researcher/student training/education.

Basic/translational projects

Assess means of PRP participation in basic and translational projects.

Evaluate specific needs for PRP engaging in basic and translational projects.

Understanding how to stimulate PRP involvement in basic and translational research.

Developing informative materials to guide basic/translational researchers how to effectively communicate and engage with PRP.

Producing materials guiding researchers how to assess the added value of PRP involvement in basic/translational studies.

Clinical studies projects

Evaluate needs for PRP engaging in specific clinical projects (registries, randomised controlled trial, etc).

Assessing barriers and facilitators to PRP involvement in industry led/sponsored research projects.

Implementation

Identifying barriers and facilitators at different levels that may impact PRP involvement.

Assessing implementation models to develop and optimise implementation practices in PRP research

Establishing solid evaluation practices and framework for PRP involvement.

In conclusion, the EULAR recommendations for the involvement of PRPs in scientific projects were successfully updated by adding five OAPs, revising seven recommendations and adding three new recommendations using an evidence-based approach. This is a significant step forward in advancing PRP involvement in research. Importantly, these recommendations provide a framework for the whole rheumatology research community to improve research practices and culture, and foster collaborative research. Moreover, these recommendations may be applicable in other specialties beyond rheumatology. However, challenges remain, such as reporting limitations and lack of evidence regarding the added value of PRPs in specific research projects and the role of a PRP coordinator. Further efforts are needed to address these challenges, gain consensus on the research agenda and fully implement the updated recommendations.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

• de Wit MPT ,
• Aanerud GJ , et al
• Bayliss K ,
• Starling B ,
• Raza K , et al
• Pollock J ,
• Pratt AG , et al
• Wähämaa H , et al
• de Souza S ,
• Johansson EC ,
• Karlfeldt S , et al
• Janssens R ,
• Jimenez-Moreno AC , et al
• Studenic P ,
• Carmona L , et al
• Stewart S ,
• Darlow B , et al
• Moskalewicz B ,
• Grygielska J
• Kirwan JR ,
• Bingham CO , et al
• Tillett W ,
• Adebajo A ,
• Brooke M , et al
• Elhai M , et al
• Benavent D ,
• Aouad K , et al
• French DP ,
• Gagnon MP ,
• Griffiths F , et al
• Crocker JC ,
• Ricci-Cabello I ,
• Parker A , et al
• Domecq JP ,
• Prutsky G ,
• Elraiyah T , et al
• Schoemaker CG ,
• Richards DP ,
• Koelewijn-Van Loon M , et al
• Tugwell P , et al
• Fredman L ,
• Del Gaizo V ,
• Koelewijn-van Loon M , et al
• Jurg D , et al
• Haribhai-Thompson J ,
• Dalbeth N ,
• Stewart S , et al
• Koenders MI ,
• Neijland Y , et al
• Elliott RS ,
• Ainsworth J , et al
• Pauling JD ,
• Domsic RT , et al
• Frank L , et al
• Macdonald G ,
• Kerr S , et al
• Fergusson DA ,
• Daham Z , et al
• Stocks J , et al
• Costello W ,
• Ortiz MM , et al
• Cheung PP ,
• Schöpf-Lazzarino AC ,
• Garske U , et al
• Golenya R ,
• Chloros GD ,
• Panteli M , et al
• Michalak EE ,
• Cheung IW ,
• Willis E , et al
• Elberse JE ,
• Broerse JEW , et al
• Kiltz U , et al
• Jongsma KR ,
• Scott A , et al
• Parsons S ,
• Thomson W ,
• Cresswell K , et al
• Maxwell LJ ,
• Graham ID , et al
• Beurskens A ,
• Piškur B , et al
• Schöpf AC ,
• Schlöffel M ,
• Amos T , et al
• Campbell W ,
• FitzGerald O , et al
• Birnie KA ,
• Eubanks K , et al
• DeTora LM ,
• Toroser D ,
• Sykes A , et al
• Strain K , et al
• Proulx L , et al
• Research NIfHaC
• Ludwig-Boltzmann-Gesellschaft
• Staniszewska S ,
• Mockford C , et al

Handling editor Désirée van der Heijde

Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. Affiliation number 19 has been corrected.

Collaborators This work is the result of the EULAR Task Force for updating the recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research. All members are included as co-authors of this manuscript.

Contributors All authors have contributed to this work and approved the final version. MdW is the guarantor.

Funding Funded by EULAR grant RES 005.

Competing interests MdW: over the last 3 years, Stichting Tools has received fees for lectures or consultancy provided by Maarten de Wit from UCB, not related to this project. LG reports grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, non-financial support from AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, outside the submitted work. KA: funded by EULAR grant RES005 this project; research grants: UCB; consulting fees: Novartis. ME: congress travel support from Janssen and AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. DB: Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD. Research grants: Novartis. Consultancy: Sandoz, UCB. Part-time work in Savana Research. EFM has received consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim Portugal outside of the submitted work, LPCDR has received fees for lectures or consultancy provided by Elsa Mateus from Lilly Portugal, GSK and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. SWT has received research funding, consultancy and/ or speaker fees from: Abbvie, Arthrogen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Galvani bioelectronics, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme, all outside the submitted work. WT has received research funding, consultancy and/ or speaker fees from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Ono-Pharma, Pfizer and UCB all outside of the submitted work. HB, SB, PB, JP, CD, MF, SK, UK, DPR, JR-C, JS, RS, SRS, AV, T-CW, CZ and JP report no competing interests for this project.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Systematic review
• Open access
• Published: 24 June 2024

A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022

• Laura Ellen Ashcraft   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-0617 1 , 2 ,
• David E. Goodrich 3 , 4 , 5 ,
• Joachim Hero 6 ,
• Angela Phares 3 ,
• Rachel L. Bachrach 7 , 8 ,
• Deirdre A. Quinn 3 , 4 ,
• Nabeel Qureshi 6 ,
• Natalie C. Ernecoff 6 ,
• Lisa G. Lederer 5 ,
• Leslie Page Scheunemann 9 , 10 ,
• Shari S. Rogal 3 , 11   na1 &
• Matthew J. Chinman 3 , 4 , 6   na1  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  43 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1958 Accesses

18 Altmetric

Metrics details

Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes.

We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms “implementation strategy”, “intervention”, “bundle”, “support”, and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes.

Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness ( n =82; 64%) and Implementation ( n =73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials ( n =99), Conduct Educational Meetings ( n =96), Audit and Provide Feedback ( n =76), and External Facilitation ( n =59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions.

This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

While many implementation strategies exist, it has been challenging to compare their effectiveness across a wide range of trial designs and practice settings

This systematic review provides a transdisciplinary evaluation of implementation strategies across population, practice setting, and evidence-based interventions using a standardized taxonomy of strategies and outcomes.

Educational strategies were employed ubiquitously; nineteen other commonly used implementation strategies, including External Facilitation and Audit and Provide Feedback, were associated with positive outcomes in these experimental trials.

This review offers guidance for scholars and practitioners alike in selecting implementation strategies and suggests a roadmap for future evidence generation.

Implementation strategies are “methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based practices or programs” (EBPs) [ 1 ]. In 2015, the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study organized a panel of implementation scientists to compile a standardized set of implementation strategy terms and definitions [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. These 73 strategies were then organized into nine “clusters” [ 5 ]. The ERIC taxonomy has been widely adopted and further refined [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. However, much of the evidence for individual or groups of ERIC strategies remains narrowly focused. Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed strategy effectiveness, but have generally focused on a specific strategy, (e.g., Audit and Provide Feedback) [ 14 , 15 , 16 ], subpopulation, disease (e.g., individuals living with dementia) [ 16 ], outcome [ 15 ], service setting (e.g., primary care clinics) [ 17 , 18 , 19 ] or geography [ 20 ]. Given that these strategies are intended to have broad applicability, there remains a need to understand how well implementation strategies work across EBPs and settings and the extent to which implementation knowledge is generalizable.

There are challenges in assessing the evidence of implementation strategies across many EBPs, populations, and settings. Heterogeneity in population characteristics, study designs, methods, and outcomes have made it difficult to quantitatively compare which strategies work and under which conditions [ 21 ]. Moreover, there remains significant variability in how researchers operationalize, apply, and report strategies (individually or in combination) and outcomes [ 21 , 22 ]. Still, synthesizing data related to using individual strategies would help researchers replicate findings and better understand possible mediating factors including the cost, timing, and delivery by specific types of health providers or key partners [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Such an evidence base would also aid practitioners with implementation planning such as when and how to deploy a strategy for optimal impact.

Building upon previous efforts, we therefore conducted a systematic review to evaluate the level of evidence supporting the ERIC implementation strategies across a broad array of health and human service settings and outcomes, as organized by the evaluation framework, RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. A secondary aim of this work was to identify patterns in scientific reporting of strategy use that could not only inform reporting standards for strategies but also the methods employed in future. The current study was guided by the following research questions Footnote 1 :

What implementation strategies have been most commonly and rigorously tested in health and human service settings?

Which implementation strategies were commonly paired?

What is the evidence supporting commonly tested implementation strategies?

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) model [ 29 , 30 , 31 ] to develop and report on the methods for this systematic review (Additional File 1). This study was considered to be non-human subjects research by the RAND institutional review board.

Registration

The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021235592).

Eligibility criteria

This review sought to synthesize evidence for implementation strategies from research studies conducted across a wide range of health-related settings and populations. Inclusion criteria required studies to: 1) available in English; 2) published between January 1, 2010 and September 20, 2022; 3) based on experimental research (excluded protocols, commentaries, conference abstracts, or proposed frameworks); 4) set in a health or human service context (described below); 5) tested at least one quantitative outcome that could be mapped to the RE-AIM evaluation framework [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]; and 6) evaluated the impact of an implementation strategy that could be classified using the ERIC taxonomy [ 2 , 32 ]. We defined health and human service setting broadly, including inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings, specialty clinics, mental health treatment centers, long-term care facilities, group homes, correctional facilities, child welfare or youth services, aging services, and schools, and required that the focus be on a health outcome. We excluded hybrid type I trials that primarily focused on establishing EBP effectiveness, qualitative studies, studies that described implementation barriers and facilitators without assessing implementation strategy impact on an outcome, and studies not meeting standardized rigor criteria defined below.

Information sources

Our three-pronged search strategy included searching academic databases (i.e., CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science for replicability and transparency), seeking recommendations from expert implementation scientists, and assessing existing, relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Search strategy

Search terms included “implementation strateg*” OR “implementation intervention*” OR “implementation bundl*” OR “implementation support*.” The search, conducted on September 20, 2022, was limited to English language and publication between 2010 and 2022, similar to other recent implementation science reviews [ 22 ]. This timeframe was selected to coincide with the advent of Implementation Science and when the term “implementation strategy” became conventionally used [ 2 , 4 , 33 ]. A full search strategy can be found in Additional File 2.

Title and abstract screening process

Each study’s title and abstract were read by two reviewers, who dichotomously scored studies on each of the six eligibility criteria described above as yes=1 or no=0, resulting in a score ranging from 1 to 6. Abstracts receiving a six from both reviewers were included in the full text review. Those with only one score of six were adjudicated by a senior member of the team (MJC, SSR, DEG). The study team held weekly meetings to troubleshoot and resolve any ongoing issues noted through the abstract screening process.

Full text screening

During the full text screening process, we reviewed, in pairs, each article that had progressed through abstract screening. Conflicts between reviewers were adjudicated by a senior member of the team for a final inclusion decision (MJC, SSR, DEG).

Review of study rigor

After reviewing published rigor screening tools [ 34 , 35 , 36 ], we developed an assessment of study rigor that was appropriate for the broad range of reviewed implementation studies. Reviewers evaluated studies on the following: 1) presence of a concurrent comparison or control group (=2 for traditional randomized controlled trial or stepped wedge cluster randomized trial and =1 for pseudo-randomized and other studies with concurrent control); 2) EBP standardization by protocol or manual (=1 if present); 3) EBP fidelity tracking (=1 if present); 4) implementation strategy standardization by operational description, standard training, or manual (=1 if present); 5) length of follow-up from full implementation of intervention (=2 for twelve months or longer, =1 for six to eleven months, or =0 for less than six months); and 6) number of sites (=1 for more than one site). Rigor scores ranged from 0 to 8, with 8 indicating the most rigorous. Articles were included if they 1) included a concurrent control group, 2) had an experimental design, and 3) received a score of 7 or 8 from two independent reviewers.

Outside expert consultation

We contacted 37 global implementation science experts who were recognized by our study team as leaders in the field or who were commonly represented among first or senior authors in the included abstracts. We asked each expert for recommendations of publications meeting study inclusion criteria (i.e., quantitatively evaluating the effectiveness of an implementation strategy). Recommendations were recorded and compared to the full abstract list.

Systematic reviews

Eighty-four systematic reviews were identified through the initial search strategy (See Additional File 3). Systematic reviews that examined the effectiveness of implementation strategies were reviewed in pairs for studies that were not found through our initial literature search.

Data abstraction and coding

Data from the full text review were abstracted in pairs, with conflicts resolved by senior team members (DEG, MJC) using a standard Qualtrics abstraction form. The form captured the setting, number of sites and participants studied, evidence-based practice/program of focus, outcomes assessed (based on RE-AIM), strategies used in each study arm, whether the study took place in the U.S. or outside of the U.S., and the findings (i.e., was there significant improvement in the outcome(s)?). We coded implementation strategies used in the Control and Experimental Arms. We defined the Control Arm as receiving the lowest number of strategies (which could mean zero strategies or care as usual) and the Experimental Arm as the most intensive arm (i.e., receiving the highest number of strategies). When studies included multiple Experimental Arms, the Experimental Arm with the least intensive implementation strategy(ies) was classified as “Control” and the Experimental Arm with the most intensive implementation strategy(ies) was classified as the “Experimental” Arm.

Implementation strategies were classified using standard definitions (MJC, SSR, DEG), based on minor modifications to the ERIC taxonomy [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Modifications resulted in 70 named strategies and were made to decrease redundancy and improve clarity. These modifications were based on input from experts, cognitive interview data, and team consensus [ 37 ] (See Additional File 4). Outcomes were then coded into RE-AIM outcome domains following best practices as recommended by framework experts [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. We coded the RE-AIM domain of Effectiveness as either an assessment of the effectiveness of the EBP or the implementation strategy. We did not assess implementation strategy fidelity or effects on health disparities as these are recently adopted reporting standards [ 27 , 28 ] and not yet widely implemented in current publications. Further, we did not include implementation costs as an outcome because reporting guidelines have not been standardized [ 38 , 39 ].

Assessment and minimization of bias

Assessment and minimization of bias is an important component of high-quality systematic reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration guidance for conducting high-quality systematic reviews recommends including a specific assessment of bias for individual studies by assessing the domains of randomization, deviations of intended intervention, missing data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported results (e.g., following a pre-specified analysis plan) [ 40 , 41 ]. One way we addressed bias was by consolidating multiple publications from the same study into a single finding (i.e., N =1), so-as to avoid inflating estimates due to multiple publications on different aspects of a single trial. We also included high-quality studies only, as described above. However, it was not feasible to consistently apply an assessment of bias tool due to implementation science’s broad scope and the heterogeneity of study design, context, outcomes, and variable measurement, etc. For example, most implementation studies reviewed had many outcomes across the RE-AIM framework, with no one outcome designated as primary, precluding assignment of a single score across studies.

We used descriptive statistics to present the distribution of health or healthcare area, settings, outcomes, and the median number of included patients and sites per study, overall and by country (classified as U.S. vs. non-U.S.). Implementation strategies were described individually, using descriptive statistics to summarize the frequency of strategy use “overall” (in any study arm), and the mean number of strategies reported in the Control and Experimental Arms. We additionally described the strategies that were only in the experimental (and not control) arm, defining these as strategies that were “tested” and may have accounted for differences in outcomes between arms.

We described frequencies of pair-wise combinations of implementation strategies in the Experimental Arm. To assess the strength of the evidence supporting implementation strategies that were used in the Experimental Arm, study outcomes were categorized by RE-AIM and coded based on whether the association between use of the strategies resulted in a significantly positive effect (yes=1; no=0). We then created an indicator variable if at least one RE-AIM outcome in the study was significantly positive (yes=1; no=0). We plotted strategies on a graph with quadrants based on the combination of median number of studies in which a strategy appears and the median percent of studies in which a strategy was associated with at least one positive RE-AIM outcome. The upper right quadrant—higher number of studies overall and higher percent of studies with a significant RE-AIM outcome—represents a superior level of evidence. For implementation strategies in the upper right quadrant, we describe each RE-AIM outcome and the proportion of studies which have a significant outcome.

Search results

We identified 14,646 articles through the initial literature search, 17 articles through expert recommendation (three of which were not included in the initial search), and 1,942 articles through reviewing prior systematic reviews (Fig. 1 ). After removing duplicates, 9,399 articles were included in the initial abstract screening. Of those, 48% ( n =4,075) abstracts were reviewed in pairs for inclusion. Articles with a score of five or six were reviewed a second time ( n =2,859). One quarter of abstracts that scored lower than five were reviewed for a second time at random. We screened the full text of 1,426 articles in pairs. Common reasons for exclusion were 1) study rigor, including no clear delineation between the EBP and implementation strategy, 2) not testing an implementation strategy, and 3) article type that did not meet inclusion criteria (e.g., commentary, protocol, etc.). Six hundred seventeen articles were reviewed for study rigor with 385 excluded for reasons related to study design and rigor, and 86 removed for other reasons (e.g., not a research article). Among the three additional expert-recommended articles, one met inclusion criteria and was added to the analysis. The final number of studies abstracted was 129 representing 143 publications.

Expanded PRISMA Flow Diagram

The expanded PRISMA flow diagram provides a description of each step in the review and abstraction process for the systematic review

Descriptive results

Of 129 included studies (Table 1 ; see also Additional File 5 for Summary of Included Studies), 103 (79%) were conducted in a healthcare setting. EBP health care setting varied and included primary care ( n =46; 36%), specialty care ( n =27; 21%), mental health ( n =11; 9%), and public health ( n =30; 23%), with 64 studies (50%) occurring in an outpatient health care setting. Studies included a median of 29 sites and 1,419 target population (e.g., patients or students). The number of strategies varied widely across studies, with Control Arms averaging approximately two strategies (Range = 0-20, including studies with no strategy in the comparison group) and Experimental Arms averaging eight strategies (Range = 1-21). Non-US studies ( n =73) included more sites and target population on average, with an overall median of 32 sites and 1,531 patients assessed in each study.

Organized by RE-AIM, the most evaluated outcomes were Effectiveness ( n = 82, 64%) and Implementation ( n = 73, 56%); followed by Maintenance ( n =40; 31%), Adoption ( n =33; 26%), and Reach ( n =31; 24%). Most studies ( n = 98, 76%) reported at least one significantly positive outcome. Adoption and Implementation outcomes showed positive change in three-quarters of studies ( n =78), while Reach ( n =18; 58%), Effectiveness ( n =44; 54%), and Maintenance ( n =23; 58%) outcomes evidenced positive change in approximately half of studies.

The following describes the results for each research question.

Table 2 shows the frequency of studies within which an implementation strategy was used in the Control Arm, Experimental Arm(s), and tested strategies (those used exclusively in the Experimental Arm) grouped by strategy type, as specified by previous ERIC reports [ 2 , 6 ].

Control arm

In about half the studies (53%; n =69), the Control Arms were “active controls” that included at least one strategy, with an average of 1.64 (and up to 20) strategies reported in control arms. The two most common strategies used in Control Arms were: Distribute Educational Materials ( n =52) and Conduct Educational Meetings ( n =30).

Experimental arm

Experimental conditions included an average of 8.33 implementation strategies per study (Range = 1-21). Figure 2 shows a heat map of the strategies that were used in the Experimental Arms in each study. The most common strategies in the Experimental Arm were Distribute Educational Materials ( n =99), Conduct Educational Meetings ( n =96), Audit and Provide Feedback ( n =76), and External Facilitation ( n =59).

Implementation strategies used in the Experimental Arm of included studies. Explore more here: https://public.tableau.com/views/Figure2_16947070561090/Figure2?:language=en-US&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link

Tested strategies

The average number of implementation strategies that were included in the Experimental Arm only (and not in the Control Arm) was 6.73 (Range = 0-20). Footnote 2 Overall, the top 10% of tested strategies included Conduct Educational Meetings ( n =68), Audit and Provide Feedback ( n =63), External Facilitation ( n =54), Distribute Educational Materials ( n =49), Tailor Strategies ( n =41), Assess for Readiness and Identify Barriers and Facilitators ( n =38) and Organize Clinician Implementation Team Meetings ( n =37). Few studies tested a single strategy ( n =9). These strategies included, Audit and Provide Feedback, Conduct Educational Meetings, Conduct Ongoing Training, Create a Learning Collaborative, External Facilitation ( n =2), Facilitate Relay of Clinical Data To Providers, Prepare Patients/Consumers to be Active Participants, and Use Other Payment Schemes. Three implementation strategies were included in the Control or Experimental Arms but were not Tested including, Use Mass Media, Stage Implementation Scale Up, and Fund and Contract for the Clinical Innovation.

Table 3  shows the five most used strategies in Experimental Arms with their top ten most frequent pairings, excluding Distribute Educational Materials and Conduct Educational Meetings, as these strategies were included in almost all Experimental and half of Control Arms. The five most used strategies in the Experimental Arm included Audit and Provide Feedback ( n =76), External Facilitation ( n =59), Tailor Strategies ( n =43), Assess for Readiness and Identify Barriers and Facilitators ( n =43), and Organize Implementation Teams ( n =42).

Strategies frequently paired with these five strategies included two educational strategies: Distribute Educational Materials and Conduct Educational Meetings. Other commonly paired strategies included Develop a Formal Implementation Blueprint, Promote Adaptability, Conduct Ongoing Training, Purposefully Reexamine the Implementation, and Develop and Implement Tools for Quality Monitoring.

We classified the strength of evidence for each strategy by evaluating both the number of studies in which each strategy appeared in the Experimental Arm and the percentage of times there was at least one significantly positive RE-AIM outcome. Using these factors, Fig. 3 shows the number of studies in which individual strategies were evaluated (on the y axis) compared to the percentage of times that studies including those strategies had at least one positive outcome (on the x axis). Due to the non-normal distribution of both factors, we used the median (rather than the mean) to create four quadrants. Strategies in the lower left quadrant were tested in fewer than the median number of studies (8.5) and were less frequently associated with a significant RE-AIM outcome (75%). The upper right quadrant included strategies that occurred in more than the median number of studies (8.5) and had more than the median percent of studies with a significant RE-AIM outcome (75%); thus those 19 strategies were viewed as having stronger evidence. Of those 19 implementation strategies, Conduct Educational Meetings, Distribute Educational Materials, External Facilitation, and Audit and Provide Feedback continued to occur frequently, appearing in 59-99 studies.

Experimental Arm Implementation Strategies with significant RE-AIM outcome. Explore more here: https://public.tableau.com/views/Figure3_16947017936500/Figure3?:language=en-US&publish=yes&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link

Figure 4 graphically illustrates the proportion of significant outcomes for each RE-AIM outcome for the 19 commonly used and evidence-based implementation strategies in the upper right quadrant. These findings again show the widespread use of Conduct Educational Meetings and Distribute Educational Materials. Implementation and Effectiveness outcomes were assessed most frequently, with Implementation being the mostly commonly reported significantly positive outcome.

RE-AIM outcomes for the 19 Top-Right Quadrant Implementation Strategies . The y-axis is the number of studies and the x-axis is a stacked bar chart for each RE-AIM outcome with R=Reach, E=Effectiveness, A=Adoption, I=Implementation, M=Maintenance. Blue denotes at least one significant RE-AIM outcome; Light blue denotes studies which used the given implementation strategy and did not have a significant RE-AIM . Explore more here: https://public.tableau.com/views/Figure4_16947017112150/Figure4?:language=en-US&publish=yes&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link

This systematic review identified 129 experimental studies examining the effectiveness of implementation strategies across a broad range of health and human service studies. Overall, we found that evidence is lacking for most ERIC implementation strategies, that most studies employed combinations of strategies, and that implementation outcomes, categorized by RE-AIM dimensions, have not been universally defined or applied. Accordingly, other researchers have described the need for universal outcomes definitions and descriptions across implementation research studies [ 28 , 42 ]. Our findings have important implications not only for the current state of the field but also for creating guidance to help investigators determine which strategies and in what context to examine.

The four most evaluated strategies were Distribute Educational Materials, Conduct Educational Meetings, External Facilitation, and Audit and Provide Feedback. Conducting Educational Meetings and Distributing Educational Materials were surprisingly the most common. This may reflect the fact that education strategies are generally considered to be “necessary but not sufficient” for successful implementation [ 43 , 44 ]. Because education is often embedded in interventions, it is critical to define the boundary between the innovation and the implementation strategies used to support the innovation. Further specification as to when these strategies are EBP core components or implementation strategies (e.g., booster trainings or remediation) is needed [ 45 , 46 ].

We identified 19 implementation strategies that were tested in at least 8 studies (more than the median) and were associated with positive results at least 75% of the time. These strategies can be further categorized as being used in early or pre-implementation versus later in implementation. Preparatory activities or pre-implementation, strategies that had strong evidence included educational activities (Meetings, Materials, Outreach visits, Train for Leadership, Use Train the Trainer Strategies) and site diagnostic activities (Assess for Readiness, Identify Barriers and Facilitators, Conduct Local Needs Assessment, Identify and Prepare Champions, and Assess and Redesign Workflows). Strategies that target the implementation phase include those that provide coaching and support (External and Internal Facilitation), involve additional key partners (Intervene with Patients to Enhance Uptake and Adherence), and engage in quality improvement activities (Audit and Provide Feedback, Facilitate the Relay of Clinical Data to Providers, Purposefully Reexamine the Implementation, Conduct Cyclical Small Tests of Change, Develop and Implement Tools for Quality Monitoring).

There were many ERIC strategies that were not represented in the reviewed studies, specifically the financial and policy strategies. Ten strategies were not used in any studies, including: Alter Patient/Consumer Fees, Change Liability Laws, Change Service Sites, Develop Disincentives, Develop Resource Sharing Agreements, Identify Early Adopters, Make Billing Easier, Start a Dissemination Organization, Use Capitated Payments, and Use Data Experts. One of the limitations of this investigation was that not all individual strategies or combinations were investigated. Reasons for the absence of these strategies in our review may include challenges with testing certain strategies experimentally (e.g., changing liability laws), limitations in our search terms, and the relative paucity of implementation strategy trials compared to clinical trials. Many “untested” strategies require large-scale structural changes with leadership support (see [ 47 ] for policy experiment example). Recent preliminary work has assessed the feasibility of applying policy strategies and described the challenges with doing so [ 48 , 49 , 50 ]. While not impossible in large systems like VA (for example: the randomized evaluation of the VA Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Management) the large size, structure, and organizational imperative makes these initiatives challenging to experimentally evaluate. Likewise, the absence of these ten strategies may have been the result of our inclusion criteria, which required an experimental design. Thus, creative study designs may be needed to test high-level policy or financial strategies experimentally.

Some strategies that were likely under-represented in our search strategy included electronic medical record reminders and clinical decision support tools and systems. These are often considered “interventions” when used by clinical trialists and may not be indexed as studies involving ‘implementation strategies’ (these tools have been reviewed elsewhere [ 51 , 52 , 53 ]). Thus, strategies that are also considered interventions in the literature (e.g., education interventions) were not sought or captured. Our findings do not imply that these strategies are ineffective, rather that more study is needed. Consistent with prior investigations [ 54 ], few studies meeting inclusion criteria tested financial strategies. Accordingly, there are increasing calls to track and monitor the effects of financial strategies within implementation science to understand their effectiveness in practice [ 55 , 56 ]. However, experts have noted that the study of financial strategies can be a challenge given that they are typically implemented at the system-level and necessitate research designs for studying policy-effects (e.g., quasi-experimental methods, systems-science modeling methods) [ 57 ]. Yet, there have been some recent efforts to use financial strategies to support EBPs that appear promising [ 58 ] and could be a model for the field moving forward.

The relationship between the number of strategies used and improved outcomes has been described inconsistently in the literature. While some studies have found improved outcomes with a bundle of strategies that were uniquely combined or a standardized package of strategies (e.g., Replicating Effective Programs [ 59 , 60 ] and Getting To Outcomes [ 61 , 62 ]), others have found that “more is not always better” [ 63 , 64 , 65 ]. For example, Rogal and colleagues documented that VA hospitals implementing a new evidence-based hepatitis C treatment chose >20 strategies, when multiple years of data linking strategies to outcomes showed that 1-3 specific strategies would have yielded the same outcome [ 39 ]. Considering that most studies employed multiple or multifaceted strategies, it seems that there is a benefit of using a targeted bundle of strategies that are purposefully aligns with site/clinic/population norms, rather than simply adding more strategies [ 66 ].

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of any one implementation strategy in bundles where multiple strategies are used simultaneously. Even a ‘single’ strategy like External Facilitation is, in actuality, a bundle of narrowly constructed strategies (e.g., Conduct Educational Meetings, Identify and Prepare Champions, and Develop a Formal Implementation Blueprint). Thus, studying External Facilitation does not allow for a test of the individual strategies that comprise it, potentially masking the effectiveness of any individual strategy. While we cannot easily disaggregate the effects of multifaceted strategies, doing so may not yield meaningful results. Because strategies often synergize, disaggregated results could either underestimate the true impact of individual strategies or conversely, actually undermine their effectiveness (i.e., when their effectiveness comes from their combination with other strategies). The complexity of health and human service settings, imperative to improve public health outcomes, and engagement with community partners often requires the use of multiple strategies simultaneously. Therefore, the need to improve real-world implementation may outweigh the theoretical need to identify individual strategy effectiveness. In situations where it would be useful to isolate the impact of single strategies, we suggest that the same methods for documenting and analyzing the critical components (or core functions) of complex interventions [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ] may help to identify core components of multifaceted implementation strategies [ 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ].

In addition, to truly assess the impacts of strategies on outcomes, it may be necessary to track fidelity to implementation strategies (not just the EBPs they support). While this can be challenging, without some degree of tracking and fidelity checks, one cannot determine whether a strategy’s apparent failure to work was because it 1) was ineffective or 2) was not applied well. To facilitate this tracking there are pragmatic tools to support researchers. For example, the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS) offers a pragmatic and feasible means to assess fidelity to and adaptations of strategies [ 75 ].

Implications for implementation science: four recommendations

Based on our findings, we offer four recommended “best practices” for implementation studies.

Prespecify strategies using standard nomenclature. This study reaffirmed the need to apply not only a standard naming convention (e.g., ERIC) but also a standard reporting of for implementation strategies. While reporting systems like those by Proctor [ 1 ] or Pinnock [ 75 ] would optimize learning across studies, few manuscripts specify strategies as recommended [ 76 , 77 ]. Pre-specification allows planners and evaluators to assess the feasibility and acceptability of strategies with partners and community members [ 24 , 78 , 79 ] and allows evaluators and implementers to monitor and measure the fidelity, dose, and adaptations to strategies delivered over the course of implementation [ 27 ]. In turn, these data can be used to assess the costs, analyze their effectiveness [ 38 , 80 , 81 ], and ensure more accurate reporting [ 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 ]. This specification should include, among other data, the intensity, stage of implementation, and justification for the selection. Information regarding why strategies were selected for specific settings would further the field and be of great use to practitioners. [ 63 , 65 , 69 , 79 , 86 ].

Ensure that standards for measuring and reporting implementation outcomes are consistently applied and account for the complexity of implementation studies. Part of improving standardized reporting must include clearly defining outcomes and linking each outcome to particular implementation strategies. It was challenging in the present review to disentangle the impact of the intervention(s) (i.e., the EBP) versus the impact of the implementation strategy(ies) for each RE-AIM dimension. For example, often fidelity to the EBP was reported but not for the implementation strategies. Similarly, Reach and Adoption of the intervention would be reported for the Experimental Arm but not for the Control Arm, prohibiting statistical comparisons of strategies on the relative impact of the EBP between study arms. Moreover, there were many studies evaluating numerous outcomes, risking data dredging. Further, the significant heterogeneity in the ways in which implementation outcomes are operationalized and reported is a substantial barrier to conducting large-scale meta-analytic approaches to synthesizing evidence for implementation strategies [ 67 ]. The field could look to others in the social and health sciences for examples in how to test, validate, and promote a common set of outcome measures to aid in bringing consistency across studies and real-world practice (e.g., the NIH-funded Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS], https://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis ).

Develop infrastructure to learn cross-study lessons in implementation science. Data repositories, like those developed by NCI for rare diseases, U.S. HIV Implementation Science Coordination Initiative [ 87 ], and the Behavior Change Technique Ontology [ 88 ], could allow implementation scientists to report their findings in a more standardized manner, which would promote ease of communication and contextualization of findings across studies. For example, the HIV Implementation Science Coordination Initiative requested all implementation projects use common frameworks, developed user friendly databases to enable practitioners to match strategies to determinants, and developed a dashboard of studies that assessed implementation determinants [ 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 ].

Develop and apply methods to rigorously study common strategies and bundles. These findings support prior recommendations for improved empirical rigor in implementation studies [ 46 , 95 ]. Many studies were excluded from our review based on not meeting methodological rigor standards. Understanding the effectiveness of discrete strategies deployed alone or in combination requires reliable and low burden tracking methods to collect information about strategy use and outcomes. For example, frameworks like the Implementation Replication Framework [ 96 ] could help interpret findings across studies using the same strategy bundle. Other tracking approaches may leverage technology (e.g., cell phones, tablets, EMR templates) [ 78 , 97 ] or find novel, pragmatic approaches to collect recommended strategy specifications over time (e.g.., dose, deliverer, and mechanism) [ 1 , 9 , 27 , 98 , 99 ]. Rigorous reporting standards could inform more robust analyses and conclusions (e.g., moving toward the goal of understanding causality, microcosting efforts) [ 24 , 38 , 100 , 101 ]. Such detailed tracking is also required to understand how site-level factors moderate implementation strategy effects [ 102 ]. In some cases, adaptive trial designs like sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) and just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) can be helpful for planning strategy escalation.

Limitations

Despite the strengths of this review, there were certain notable limitations. For one, we only included experimental studies, omitting many informative observational investigations that cover the range of implementation strategies. Second, our study period was centered on the creation of the journal Implementation Science and not on the standardization and operationalization of implementation strategies in the publication of the ERIC taxonomy (which came later). This, in conjunction with latency in reporting study results and funding cycles, means that the employed taxonomy was not applied in earlier studies. To address this limitation, we retroactively mapped strategies to ERIC, but it is possible that some studies were missed. Additionally, indexing approaches used by academic databases may have missed relevant studies. We addressed this particular concern by reviewing other systematic reviews of implementation strategies and soliciting recommendations from global implementation science experts.

Another potential limitation comes from the ERIC taxonomy itself—i.e., strategy listings like ERIC are only useful when they are widely adopted and used in conjunction with guidelines for specifying and reporting strategies [ 1 ] in protocol and outcome papers. Although the ERIC paper has been widely cited (over three thousand times, accessed about 186 thousand times), it is still not universally applied, making tracking the impact of specific strategies more difficult. However, our experience with this review seemed to suggest that ERIC’s use was increasing over time. Also, some have commented that ERIC strategies can be unclear and are missing key domains. Thus, researchers are making definitions clearer for lay users [ 37 , 103 ], increasing the number of discrete strategies for specific domains like HIV treatment, acknowledging strategies for new functions (e.g., de-implementation [ 104 ], local capacity building), accounting for phases of implementation (dissemination, sustainment [ 13 ], scale-up), addressing settings [ 12 , 20 ], actors roles in the process, and making mechanisms of change to select strategies more user-friendly through searchable databases [ 9 , 10 , 54 , 73 , 104 , 105 , 106 ]. In sum, we found the utility of the ERIC taxonomy to outweigh any of the taxonomy’s current limitations.

As with all reviews, the search terms influenced our findings. As such, the broad terms for implementation strategies (e.g., “evidence-based interventions”[ 7 ] or “behavior change techniques” [ 107 ]) may have led to inadvertent omissions of studies of specific strategies. For example, the search terms may not have captured tests of policies, financial strategies, community health promotion initiatives, or electronic medical record reminders, due to differences in terminology used in corresponding subfields of research (e.g., health economics, business, health information technology, and health policy). To manage this, we asked experts to inform us about any studies that they would include and cross-checked their lists with what was identified through our search terms, which yielded very few additional studies. We included standard coding using the ERIC taxonomy, which was a strength, but future work should consider including the additional strategies that have been recommended to augment ERIC, around sustainment [ 13 , 79 , 106 , 108 ], community and public health research [ 12 , 109 , 110 , 111 ], consumer or service user engagement [ 112 ], de-implementation [ 104 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 ] and related terms [ 118 ].

We were unable to assess the bias of studies due to non-standard reporting across the papers and the heterogeneity of study designs, measurement of implementation strategies and outcomes, and analytic approaches. This could have resulted in over- or underestimating the results of our synthesis. We addressed this limitation by being cautious in our reporting of findings, specifically in identifying “effective” implementation strategies. Further, we were not able to gather primary data to evaluate effect sizes across studies in order to systematically evaluate bias, which would be fruitful for future study.

Conclusions

This novel review of 129 studies summarized the body of evidence supporting the use of ERIC-defined implementation strategies to improve health or healthcare. We identified commonly occurring implementation strategies, frequently used bundles, and the strategies with the highest degree of supportive evidence, while simultaneously identifying gaps in the literature. Additionally, we identified several key areas for future growth and operationalization across the field of implementation science with the goal of improved reporting and assessment of implementation strategies and related outcomes.

Availability and materials

All data for this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

We modestly revised the following research questions from our PROSPERO registration after reading the articles and better understanding the nature of the literature: 1) What is the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of implementation strategies in supporting the uptake and sustainment of evidence intended to improve health and healthcare outcomes? 2) What are the current gaps in the literature (i.e., implementation strategies that do not have sufficient evidence of effectiveness) that require further exploration?

Tested strategies are those which exist in the Experimental Arm but not in the Control Arm. Comparative effectiveness or time staggered trials may not have any unique strategies in the Experimental Arm and therefore in our analysis would have no Tested Strategies.

Abbreviations

Centers for Disease Control

Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

Dissemination and Implementation

Evidence-based practices or programs

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change

Multiphase Optimization Strategy

National Cancer Institute

National Institutes of Health

The Pittsburgh Dissemination and Implementation Science Collaborative

Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial

United States

Department of Veterans Affairs

Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, et al. Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implement Sci IS. 2014;9:39.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, et al. A Compilation of Strategies for Implementing Clinical Innovations in Health and Mental Health. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;69:123–57.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109.

Perry CK, Damschroder LJ, Hemler JR, Woodson TT, Ono SS, Cohen DJ. Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):32.

Community Preventive Services Task Force. Community Preventive Services Task Force: All Active Findings June 2023 [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Aug 7]. Available from: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/media/pdf/CPSTF-All-Findings-508.pdf

Solberg LI, Kuzel A, Parchman ML, Shelley DR, Dickinson WP, Walunas TL, et al. A Taxonomy for External Support for Practice Transformation. J Am Board Fam Med JABFM. 2021;34:32–9.

Leeman J, Birken SA, Powell BJ, Rohweder C, Shea CM. Beyond “implementation strategies”: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice. Implement Sci. 2017;12:1–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

Leeman J, Calancie L, Hartman MA, Escoffery CT, Herrmann AK, Tague LE, et al. What strategies are used to build practitioners’ capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective?: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–15.

Nathan N, Shelton RC, Laur CV, Hailemariam M, Hall A. Editorial: Sustaining the implementation of evidence-based interventions in clinical and community settings. Front Health Serv. 2023;3:1176023.

Balis LE, Houghtaling B, Harden SM. Using implementation strategies in community settings: an introduction to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation and future directions. Transl Behav Med. 2022;12:965–78.

Nathan N, Powell BJ, Shelton RC, Laur CV, Wolfenden L, Hailemariam M, et al. Do the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies adequately address sustainment? Front Health Serv. 2022;2:905909.

Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259.

Google Scholar  

Moore L, Guertin JR, Tardif P-A, Ivers NM, Hoch J, Conombo B, et al. Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31:754–67.

Sykes MJ, McAnuff J, Kolehmainen N. When is audit and feedback effective in dementia care? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:27–35.

Barnes C, McCrabb S, Stacey F, Nathan N, Yoong SL, Grady A, et al. Improving implementation of school-based healthy eating and physical activity policies, practices, and programs: a systematic review. Transl Behav Med. 2021;11:1365–410.

Tomasone JR, Kauffeldt KD, Chaudhary R, Brouwers MC. Effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies on health care professionals’ behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer care context: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2020;15:1–18.

Seda V, Moles RJ, Carter SR, Schneider CR. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies for professional services to community pharmacy: A systematic review. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2022;18:3469–83.

Lovero KL, Kemp CG, Wagenaar BH, Giusto A, Greene MC, Powell BJ, et al. Application of the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies to health intervention implementation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2023;18:56.

Chapman A, Rankin NM, Jongebloed H, Yoong SL, White V, Livingston PM, et al. Overcoming challenges in conducting systematic reviews in implementation science: a methods commentary. Syst Rev. 2023;12:1–6.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Proctor EK, Bunger AC, Lengnick-Hall R, Gerke DR, Martin JK, Phillips RJ, et al. Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2023;18:1–19.

Michaud TL, Pereira E, Porter G, Golden C, Hill J, Kim J, et al. Scoping review of costs of implementation strategies in community, public health and healthcare settings. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e060785.

Sohn H, Tucker A, Ferguson O, Gomes I, Dowdy D. Costing the implementation of public health interventions in resource-limited settings: a conceptual framework. Implement Sci. 2020;15:1–8.

Peek C, Glasgow RE, Stange KC, Klesges LM, Purcell EP, Kessler RS. The 5 R’s: an emerging bold standard for conducting relevant research in a changing world. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12:447–55.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1322–7.

Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An Extension of RE-AIM to Enhance Sustainability: Addressing Dynamic Context and Promoting Health Equity Over Time. Front Public Health. 2020;8:134.

Holtrop JS, Estabrooks PA, Gaglio B, Harden SM, Kessler RS, King DK, et al. Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: Clarifications and resources. J Clin Transl Sci. 2021;5:e126.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ [Internet]. 2021;372. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71

Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL. A Glossary for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14:117–23.

Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2006;1:1.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Miller WR, Wilbourne PL. Mesa Grande: a methodological analysis of clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders. Addict Abingdon Engl. 2002;97:265–77.

Miller WR, Brown JM, Simpson TL, Handmaker NS, Bien TH, Luckie LF, et al. What works? A methodological analysis of the alcohol treatment outcome literature. Handb Alcohol Treat Approaches Eff Altern 2nd Ed. Needham Heights, MA, US: Allyn & Bacon; 1995:12–44.

Wells S, Tamir O, Gray J, Naidoo D, Bekhit M, Goldmann D. Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:226–40.

Yakovchenko V, Chinman MJ, Lamorte C, Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Merante M, et al. Refining Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy surveys using cognitive interviews with frontline providers. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4:1–14.

Wagner TH, Yoon J, Jacobs JC, So A, Kilbourne AM, Yu W, et al. Estimating costs of an implementation intervention. Med Decis Making. 2020;40:959–67.

Gold HT, McDermott C, Hoomans T, Wagner TH. Cost data in implementation science: categories and approaches to costing. Implement Sci. 2022;17:11.

Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hróbjartsson A. Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch7 . 

Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne J. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv. 2019;6:205–28.

Reilly KL, Kennedy S, Porter G, Estabrooks P. Comparing, Contrasting, and Integrating Dissemination and Implementation Outcomes Included in the RE-AIM and Implementation Outcomes Frameworks. Front Public Health [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2024 Apr 24];8. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00430/full

Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess Winch Engl. 2004;8:iii–iv 1-72.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Beidas RS, Kendall PC. Training Therapists in Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Review of Studies From a Systems-Contextual Perspective. Clin Psychol Publ Div Clin Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2010;17:1–30.

Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, et al. Methods to Improve the Selection and Tailoring of Implementation Strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44:177–94.

Powell BJ, Fernandez ME, Williams NJ, Aarons GA, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, et al. Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda. Front Public Health [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Mar 31];7. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00003/full

Frakt AB, Prentice JC, Pizer SD, Elwy AR, Garrido MM, Kilbourne AM, et al. Overcoming Challenges to Evidence-Based Policy Development in a Large. Integrated Delivery System Health Serv Res. 2018;53:4789–807.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crable EL, Lengnick-Hall R, Stadnick NA, Moullin JC, Aarons GA. Where is “policy” in dissemination and implementation science? Recommendations to advance theories, models, and frameworks: EPIS as a case example. Implement Sci. 2022;17:80.

Crable EL, Grogan CM, Purtle J, Roesch SC, Aarons GA. Tailoring dissemination strategies to increase evidence-informed policymaking for opioid use disorder treatment: study protocol. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4:16.

Bond GR. Evidence-based policy strategies: A typology. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2018;25:e12267.

Loo TS, Davis RB, Lipsitz LA, Irish J, Bates CK, Agarwal K, et al. Electronic Medical Record Reminders and Panel Management to Improve Primary Care of Elderly Patients. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1552–8.

Shojania KG, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182:E216-25.

Sequist TD, Gandhi TK, Karson AS, Fiskio JM, Bugbee D, Sperling M, et al. A Randomized Trial of Electronic Clinical Reminders to Improve Quality of Care for Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. 2005;12:431–7.

Dopp AR, Kerns SEU, Panattoni L, Ringel JS, Eisenberg D, Powell BJ, et al. Translating economic evaluations into financing strategies for implementing evidence-based practices. Implement Sci. 2021;16:1–12.

Dopp AR, Hunter SB, Godley MD, Pham C, Han B, Smart R, et al. Comparing two federal financing strategies on penetration and sustainment of the adolescent community reinforcement approach for substance use disorders: protocol for a mixed-method study. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:51.

Proctor EK, Toker E, Tabak R, McKay VR, Hooley C, Evanoff B. Market viability: a neglected concept in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2021;16:98.

Dopp AR, Narcisse M-R, Mundey P, Silovsky JF, Smith AB, Mandell D, et al. A scoping review of strategies for financing the implementation of evidence-based practices in behavioral health systems: State of the literature and future directions. Implement Res Pract. 2020;1:2633489520939980.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dopp AR, Kerns SEU, Panattoni L, Ringel JS, Eisenberg D, Powell BJ, et al. Translating economic evaluations into financing strategies for implementing evidence-based practices. Implement Sci IS. 2021;16:66.

Kilbourne AM, Neumann MS, Pincus HA, Bauer MS, Stall R. Implementing evidence-based interventions in health care:application of the replicating effective programs framework. Implement Sci. 2007;2:42–51.

Kegeles SM, Rebchook GM, Hays RB, Terry MA, O’Donnell L, Leonard NR, et al. From science to application: the development of an intervention package. AIDS Educ Prev Off Publ Int Soc AIDS Educ. 2000;12:62–74.

Wandersman A, Imm P, Chinman M, Kaftarian S. Getting to outcomes: a results-based approach to accountability. Eval Program Plann. 2000;23:389–95.

Wandersman A, Chien VH, Katz J. Toward an evidence-based system for innovation support for implementing innovations with quality: Tools, training, technical assistance, and quality assurance/quality improvement. Am J Community Psychol. 2012;50:445–59.

Rogal SS, Yakovchenko V, Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Kirchner JE, Proctor EK, et al. The association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment in a national sample. Implement Sci. 2017;12:1–13.

Smith SN, Almirall D, Prenovost K, Liebrecht C, Kyle J, Eisenberg D, et al. Change in patient outcomes after augmenting a low-level implementation strategy in community practices that are slow to adopt a collaborative chronic care model: a cluster randomized implementation trial. Med Care. 2019;57:503.

Rogal SS, Yakovchenko V, Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Gonzalez R, Park A, et al. Longitudinal assessment of the association between implementation strategy use and the uptake of hepatitis C treatment: Year 2. Implement Sci. 2019;14:1–12.

Harvey G, Kitson A. Translating evidence into healthcare policy and practice: Single versus multi-faceted implementation strategies – is there a simple answer to a complex question? Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4:123–6.

Engell T, Stadnick NA, Aarons GA, Barnett ML. Common Elements Approaches to Implementation Research and Practice: Methods and Integration with Intervention Science. Glob Implement Res Appl. 2023;3:1–15.

Michie S, Fixsen D, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci IS. 2009;4:40.

Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The Implementation Research Logic Model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci IS. 2020;15:84.

Perez Jolles M, Lengnick-Hall R, Mittman BS. Core Functions and Forms of Complex Health Interventions: a Patient-Centered Medical Home Illustration. JGIM J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:1032–8.

Schroeck FR, Ould Ismail AA, Haggstrom DA, Sanchez SL, Walker DR, Zubkoff L. Data-driven approach to implementation mapping for the selection of implementation strategies: a case example for risk-aligned bladder cancer surveillance. Implement Sci IS. 2022;17:58.

Frank HE, Kemp J, Benito KG, Freeman JB. Precision Implementation: An Approach to Mechanism Testing in Implementation Research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2022;49:1084–94.

Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Lyon AR, Powell BJ, Lengnick-Hall R, Buchanan G, et al. The mechanics of implementation strategies and measures: advancing the study of implementation mechanisms. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:114.

Geng EH, Baumann AA, Powell BJ. Mechanism mapping to advance research on implementation strategies. PLoS Med. 2022;19:e1003918.

Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017;356:i6795.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38:65–76.

Hooley C, Amano T, Markovitz L, Yaeger L, Proctor E. Assessing implementation strategy reporting in the mental health literature: a narrative review. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2020;47:19–35.

Proctor E, Ramsey AT, Saldana L, Maddox TM, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. FAST: a framework to assess speed of translation of health innovations to practice and policy. Glob Implement Res Appl. 2022;2:107–19.

Cullen L, Hanrahan K, Edmonds SW, Reisinger HS, Wagner M. Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework. Implement Sci IS. 2022;17:1.

Saldana L, Ritzwoller DP, Campbell M, Block EP. Using economic evaluations in implementation science to increase transparency in costs and outcomes for organizational decision-makers. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:40.

Eisman AB, Kilbourne AM, Dopp AR, Saldana L, Eisenberg D. Economic evaluation in implementation science: making the business case for implementation strategies. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283:112433.

Akiba CF, Powell BJ, Pence BW, Nguyen MX, Golin C, Go V. The case for prioritizing implementation strategy fidelity measurement: benefits and challenges. Transl Behav Med. 2022;12:335–42.

Akiba CF, Powell BJ, Pence BW, Muessig K, Golin CE, Go V. “We start where we are”: a qualitative study of barriers and pragmatic solutions to the assessment and reporting of implementation strategy fidelity. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:117.

Rudd BN, Davis M, Doupnik S, Ordorica C, Marcus SC, Beidas RS. Implementation strategies used and reported in brief suicide prevention intervention studies. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79:829–31.

Painter JT, Raciborski RA, Matthieu MM, Oliver CM, Adkins DA, Garner KK. Engaging stakeholders to retrospectively discern implementation strategies to support program evaluation: Proposed method and case study. Eval Program Plann. 2024;103:102398.

Bunger AC, Powell BJ, Robertson HA, MacDowell H, Birken SA, Shea C. Tracking implementation strategies: a description of a practical approach and early findings. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:1–12.

Mustanski B, Smith JD, Keiser B, Li DH, Benbow N. Supporting the growth of domestic HIV implementation research in the united states through coordination, consultation, and collaboration: how we got here and where we are headed. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022;90:S1-8.

Marques MM, Wright AJ, Corker E, Johnston M, West R, Hastings J, et al. The Behaviour Change Technique Ontology: Transforming the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. Wellcome Open Res. 2023;8:308.

Merle JL, Li D, Keiser B, Zamantakis A, Queiroz A, Gallo CG, et al. Categorising implementation determinants and strategies within the US HIV implementation literature: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e070216.

Glenshaw MT, Gaist P, Wilson A, Cregg RC, Holtz TH, Goodenow MM. Role of NIH in the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the US Initiative: Research Improving Practice. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;2022(90):S9-16.

Purcell DW, Namkung Lee A, Dempsey A, Gordon C. Enhanced Federal Collaborations in Implementation Science and Research of HIV Prevention and Treatment. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;2022(90):S17-22.

Queiroz A, Mongrella M, Keiser B, Li DH, Benbow N, Mustanski B. Profile of the Portfolio of NIH-Funded HIV Implementation Research Projects to Inform Ending the HIV Epidemic Strategies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;2022(90):S23-31.

Zamantakis A, Li DH, Benbow N, Smith JD, Mustanski B. Determinants of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation in Transgender Populations: A Qualitative Scoping Review. AIDS Behav. 2023;27:1600–18.

Li DH, Benbow N, Keiser B, Mongrella M, Ortiz K, Villamar J, et al. Determinants of Implementation for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Based on an Updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: A Systematic Review. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;2022(90):S235-46.

Chambers DA, Emmons KM. Navigating the field of implementation science towards maturity: challenges and opportunities. Implement Sci. 2024;19:26, s13012-024-01352–0.

Chinman M, Acosta J, Ebener P, Shearer A. “What we have here, is a failure to [replicate]”: Ways to solve a replication crisis in implementation science. Prev Sci. 2022;23:739–50.

Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8:117.

Lengnick-Hall R, Gerke DR, Proctor EK, Bunger AC, Phillips RJ, Martin JK, et al. Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting. Implement Sci. 2022;17:16.

Miller CJ, Barnett ML, Baumann AA, Gutner CA, Wiltsey-Stirman S. The FRAME-IS: a framework for documenting modifications to implementation strategies in healthcare. Implement Sci IS. 2021;16:36.

Xu X, Lazar CM, Ruger JP. Micro-costing in health and medicine: a critical appraisal. Health Econ Rev. 2021;11:1.

Barnett ML, Dopp AR, Klein C, Ettner SL, Powell BJ, Saldana L. Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:82.

Lengnick-Hall R, Williams NJ, Ehrhart MG, Willging CE, Bunger AC, Beidas RS, et al. Eight characteristics of rigorous multilevel implementation research: a step-by-step guide. Implement Sci. 2023;18:52.

Riley-Gibson E, Hall A, Shoesmith A, Wolfenden L, Shelton RC, Doherty E, et al. A systematic review to determine the effect of strategies to sustain chronic disease prevention interventions in clinical and community settings: study protocol. Res Sq [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 19]; Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10312971/

Ingvarsson S, Hasson H, von Thiele Schwarz U, Nilsen P, Powell BJ, Lindberg C, et al. Strategies for de-implementation of low-value care—a scoping review. Implement Sci IS. 2022;17:73.

Lewis CC, Powell BJ, Brewer SK, Nguyen AM, Schriger SH, Vejnoska SF, et al. Advancing mechanisms of implementation to accelerate sustainable evidence-based practice integration: protocol for generating a research agenda. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e053474.

Hailemariam M, Bustos T, Montgomery B, Barajas R, Evans LB, Drahota A. Evidence-based intervention sustainability strategies: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2019;14:N.PAG-N.PAG.

Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The behaviour change wheel. Guide Des Interv 1st Ed G B Silverback Publ. 2014;1003:1010.

Birken SA, Haines ER, Hwang S, Chambers DA, Bunger AC, Nilsen P. Advancing understanding and identifying strategies for sustaining evidence-based practices: a review of reviews. Implement Sci IS. 2020;15:88.

Metz A, Jensen T, Farley A, Boaz A, Bartley L, Villodas M. Building trusting relationships to support implementation: A proposed theoretical model. Front Health Serv. 2022;2:894599.

Rabin BA, Cain KL, Watson P, Oswald W, Laurent LC, Meadows AR, et al. Scaling and sustaining COVID-19 vaccination through meaningful community engagement and care coordination for underserved communities: hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. Implement Sci IS. 2023;18:28.

Gyamfi J, Iwelunmor J, Patel S, Irazola V, Aifah A, Rakhra A, et al. Implementation outcomes and strategies for delivering evidence-based hypertension interventions in lower-middle-income countries: Evidence from a multi-country consortium for hypertension control. PLOS ONE. 2023;18:e0286204.

Woodward EN, Ball IA, Willging C, Singh RS, Scanlon C, Cluck D, et al. Increasing consumer engagement: tools to engage service users in quality improvement or implementation efforts. Front Health Serv. 2023;3:1124290.

Norton WE, Chambers DA. Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions. Implement Sci IS. 2020;15:2.

Norton WE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Chambers DA, Stella PJ, Brawley OW, Kramer BS. DeImplementing Ineffective and Low-Value Clinical Practices: Research and Practice Opportunities in Community Oncology Settings. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2021;5:pkab020.

McKay VR, Proctor EK, Morshed AB, Brownson RC, Prusaczyk B. Letting Go: Conceptualizing Intervention De-implementation in Public Health and Social Service Settings. Am J Community Psychol. 2018;62:189–202.

Patey AM, Grimshaw JM, Francis JJ. Changing behaviour, ‘more or less’: do implementation and de-implementation interventions include different behaviour change techniques? Implement Sci IS. 2021;16:20.

Rodriguez Weno E, Allen P, Mazzucca S, Farah Saliba L, Padek M, Moreland-Russell S, et al. Approaches for Ending Ineffective Programs: Strategies From State Public Health Practitioners. Front Public Health. 2021;9:727005.

Gnjidic D, Elshaug AG. De-adoption and its 43 related terms: harmonizing low-value care terminology. BMC Med. 2015;13:273.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the early contributions of the Pittsburgh Dissemination and Implementation Science Collaborative (Pitt DISC). LEA would like to thank Dr. Billie Davis for analytical support. The authors would like to acknowledge the implementation science experts who recommended articles for our review, including Greg Aarons, Mark Bauer, Rinad Beidas, Geoffrey Curran, Laura Damschroder, Rani Elwy, Amy Kilbourne, JoAnn Kirchner, Jennifer Leeman, Cara Lewis, Dennis Li, Aaron Lyon, Gila Neta, and Borsika Rabin.

Dr. Rogal’s time was funded in part by a University of Pittsburgh K award (K23-DA048182) and by a VA Health Services Research and Development grant (PEC 19-207). Drs. Bachrach and Quinn were supported by VA HSR Career Development Awards (CDA 20-057, PI: Bachrach; CDA 20-224, PI: Quinn). Dr. Scheunemann’s time was funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08HS027210). Drs. Hero, Chinman, Goodrich, Ernecoff, and Mr. Qureshi were funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) AOSEPP2 Task Order 12 to conduct a landscape review of US studies on the effectiveness of implementation strategies with results reported here ( https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Implementation-Strategies-for-Evidence-Based-Practice-in-Health-and-Health-Care-A-Review-of-the-Evidence-Full-Report.pdf and https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Implementation-Strategies-for-Evidence-Based-Practice-in-Health-and-Health-Care-Brief-Report-Summary.pdf ). Dr. Ashcraft and Ms. Phares were funded by the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, (CIN 13-405). The funders had no involvement in this study.

Author information

Shari S. Rogal and Matthew J. Chinman are co-senior authors.

Authors and Affiliations

Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Corporal Michael Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Laura Ellen Ashcraft

Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

David E. Goodrich, Angela Phares, Deirdre A. Quinn, Shari S. Rogal & Matthew J. Chinman

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

David E. Goodrich, Deirdre A. Quinn & Matthew J. Chinman

Clinical & Translational Science Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

David E. Goodrich & Lisa G. Lederer

RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Joachim Hero, Nabeel Qureshi, Natalie C. Ernecoff & Matthew J. Chinman

Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Rachel L. Bachrach

Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Leslie Page Scheunemann

Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Departments of Medicine and Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Shari S. Rogal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LEA, SSR, and MJC conceptualized the study. LEA, SSR, MJC, and JOH developed the study design. LEA and JOH acquired the data. LEA, DEG, AP, RLB, DAQ, LGL, LPS, SSR, NQ, and MJC conducted the abstract, full text review, and rigor assessment. LEA, DEG, JOH, AP, RLB, DAQ, NQ, NCE, SSR, and MJC conducted the data abstraction. DEG, SSR, and MJC adjudicated conflicts. LEA and SSR analyzed the data. LEA, SSR, JOH, and MJC interpreted the data. LEA, SSR, and MJC drafted the work. All authors substantially revised the work. All authors approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for their contributions and the integrity of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Ellen Ashcraft .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

The manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data.

Competing interests

Additional information, publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., supplementary material 4., supplementary material 5., supplementary material 6., supplementary material 7., supplementary material 8., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ashcraft, L.E., Goodrich, D.E., Hero, J. et al. A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022. Implementation Sci 19 , 43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01369-5

Download citation

Received : 09 November 2023

Accepted : 27 May 2024

Published : 24 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01369-5

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

• Implementation strategy
• Health-related outcomes

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• News & Updates

NEW REPORT: The People's Guide to Project 2025

The People’s Guide to Project 2025

Project 2025 is among the most profound threats to the American people.

We read Project 2025’s entire 900+ page “Mandate for Leadership” so that you don’t have to.

What we discovered was a systemic, ruthless plan to undermine the quality of life of millions of Americans, remove critical protections and dismantle programs for communities across the nation, and prioritize special interests and ideological extremism over people.

From attacking overtime pay, student loans, and reproductive rights, to allowing more discrimination, pollution, and price gouging, those behind Project 2025 are preparing to go to incredible lengths to create a country only for some, not for all of us.

If these plans are enacted, which Project 2025’s authors claim can happen without congressional approval, 4.3 million people could lose overtime protections, 40 million people could have their food assistance reduced, 220,000 American jobs could be lost, and much, much, more. The stakes are higher than ever for democracy and for people.

These threats aren’t hypothetical. These are their real plans.

The Heritage Foundation and the 100+ organizations that make up the Project 2025 Advisory Board have mapped out exactly how they will achieve their extreme ends. They aim to try and carry out many of the most troubling proposals through an anti-democratic president and political loyalists installed in the executive branch, without waiting for congressional action. And, while many of these plans are unlawful, winning in court is not guaranteed given that the same far-right movement that is behind Project 2025 has shaped our current court system.

To combat the threats posed by Project 2025, we have to first understand them.

What follows are some of the most dangerous proposals that make up Project 2025, specifically those that they plan to implement through federal agencies and a far-right executive branch.

The majority of Americans share the same values and priorities, but Project 2025 wants to push an extreme, out-of-touch agenda on all of us . By reading this guide and sharing it, we can begin to address these threats and go on offense towards building a bold, inclusive democracy for all people.

Download PDF

What is Project 2025?

The Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project is a well-funded (eight-figure) effort of the Heritage Foundation and more than 100 organizations to enable a future anti-democratic presidential administration to take swift, far-right action that would cut wages for working people, dismantle social safety net programs, reverse decades of progress for civil rights, redefine the way our society operates, and undermine our economy.

A central pillar of Project 2025 is the “Mandate for Leadership,” a 900+ page policy playbook authored by former Trump administration officials and other extremists that provides a radical vision for our nation and a roadmap to implement it.

Project 2025 Snapshot

Proposals from Project 2025, discussed in detail throughout this guide, that they claim could be implemented through executive branch action alone — so without new legislation — include:

• Cut overtime protections for 4.3 million workers
• Stop efforts to lower prescription drug prices
• Limit access to food assistance, which an average of more than 40 million people in 21.6 million households rely on monthly
• Eliminate the Head Start early education program, which serves over 1 million children annually
• Cut American Rescue Plan (ARP) programs that have created or saved 220,000 jobs
• Restrict access to medication abortion
• Push more of the 33 million people enrolled in Medicare towards Medicare Advantage and other worse, private options
• Expose the 368,000 children in foster care to risk of increased discrimination
• Deny students in 25 states and Washington, D.C. access to student loans because their state provides in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants
• Roll back civil rights protections across multiple fronts, including cutting diversity, equity, and inclusion-related (DEI) programs and LGBTQ+ rights in health care, education, and workplaces

Explore Project 2025's Plans:

Cut wages, create unsafe workplaces, and destabilize our economy.

Project 2025 would enable corporations to cut overtime pay, relax worker safety rules, allow workplace discrimination, and more.

Make It Harder for Americans to Make Ends Meet

A strong democracy is one where people have the resources they need to thrive, not worry about how they will make ends meet. Project 2025 proposals would only make daily life harder for people – with fewer people able to access food assistance and affordable early education, less support for veterans with disabilities, and cuts to support for farmers.

Restrict Reproductive Rights and Access to Health Care

Despite the majority of Americans supporting comprehensive health care and reproductive freedom, Project 2025 would prefer a far different reality. Their attacks would undermine Medicare, keep prescription drug prices high, and restrict access to reproductive care.

Enable Discrimination Across Society

Threatened by decades of progress in advancing civil rights and equality for all, the authors of Project 2025 want to create a country that allows for more discrimination where we live, study, work, and play — and roll back hard-fought victories by our movements for progress.

Set Polluters Loose and Undo Climate Action

We’ve waited decades for meaningful and robust federal action to combat climate change and protect people from the harms of pollution. Project 2025 couldn’t care less about these threats — and now they want to destroy our hard-fought gains.

Make Education Unaffordable and Unwelcoming

Our public schools are foundational to our democracy. When special interests undermine public schools, they undermine the ability of students from all backgrounds to learn, feel safe in their community, and develop skills and knowledge that enable students to thrive. If Project 2025 has their way, our public schools could be stripped of funding, protections for students, and high-quality curricula.

Undermine Government’s Ability to Deliver for People

Civil servants are federal employees who work and live in all 50 states — the more than 2 million people who keep our air clean, water safe, consumers protected, and mail delivered. Attacks on the nation’s civil service are attacks on the government’s ability to work for the people.

The threats from Project 2025 do not end here.

This  People’s Guide only begins to catalog the people and communities who would be harmed if a future presidential administration began to implement Project 2025’s proposals. Businesses and industry across the country could be harmed not just from the lack of data collection discussed above, but also from proposals to politicize the Federal Reserve or to restrict free trade. Our country’s national security itself, too, is threatened by proposals to concentrate military decisionmaking, further undermine our intelligence agencies, or promote isolationist policies.

We continue to analyze these policies and their harms to people, and expect to release updated versions of the  People’s Guide  with reports on the threats that would make it harder to run a business, put our security at risk, and more. Click here to sign up to receive the updated reports directly in your inbox.

We cannot let Project 2025 write the next chapter of our nation’s story.

To learn more about how we can confront the threats presented in this guide head-on and begin to build a bold, vibrant democracy for all people, visit  democracyforward.org/join-2025 .

Our three pillars to advance a bold, vibrant democracy for all people:

Defending democracy and policies that propel progress through public education, regulatory and legal support.

Disrupting unlawful, regressive, and anti-democratic activity through litigation, investigations, and public education.

Building coalitions, supporting communities, and creating a more democratic and just future through the law.

Join us in this generational fight for people and democracy.

New york times: “the resistance to a new trump administration has already started”.

As first reported in The New York Times : Democracy Forward is “ensuring that people and communities that would be affected by a range of policies that we see with respect to Project 2025 know their legal rights and remedies and are able to access legal representation, should that be necessary.”

The Daily Northwestern

Sign up to receive our email newsletter in your inbox.

June 30, 2024

The Evanston Fire Department concluded a recovery search and rescue operation this afternoon for a missing...

June 27, 2024

Northwestern released the full report by law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP detailing...

June 26, 2024

City Council unanimously approved the $800,000 settlement with Copenhaver Construction and Christopher...

June 25, 2024

Northwestern formally broke ground at the construction site of the new Ryan Field, set to open for the...

June 24, 2024

Members of Evanston’s Housing & Community Development Committee addressed concerns of former Wesley...

June 21, 2024

The 23rd annual Chicago Pride Fest, hosted by the Northalsted Business Alliance chamber of commerce,...

June 19, 2024

Northwestern freshman Aaron, who wanted to use a pseudonym for safety, hovered his computer mouse over...

Alex Perry , Staff Writer

It’s a personal hell of mine to exist as a journalist and a habitually private person. From my understanding,...

Brew, Hou, Leung, Pandey: On being scared to tweet and the pressure to market yourself as a student journalist

June 4, 2024

Haner: A love letter to the multimedia room

Northwestern released the full report by law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP detailing the results of the firm’s independent review of the University’s...

Northwestern hosts groundbreaking ceremony at Ryan Field construction site

Derrick Gragg appointed as Northwestern’s vice president for athletic strategy, search for new athletic director begins

June 13, 2024

Emily Kim , Digital Managing Editor

Run clubs are the latest craze, and West Twn Brew Crew is one of many in Chicago. Combining fitness and socializing over coffee, this club is all about “running with friends.” Email:...

The secret (and short) lives of cicadas on campus

Edward Simon Cruz , Assistant Audio Editor

May 19, 2024

Communication Prof. Barbara Butts believes stage management requires a diverse set of leadership skills, and she wants her students to be able to use them both inside and...

Everything Evanston: Behind the boba in downtown Evanston

Nights at Dearborn Observatory,CIERA Astronomer Evenings bring astronomy education to the public

July 3, 2024

Lawsuit against Pritzker School of Law alleges its hiring process discriminates against white men

Ann Lurie, distinguished Chicago Philanthropist, dies at 79

July 1, 2024

The Week Ahead, July 1-7: Fourth of July Celebrations and Concerts in Chicagoland

July 2, 2024

‘1619: The Journey of A People’ brings audiences through an intense, beautiful journey of African Americans at the Fleetwood-Jourdain Theatre

Evanston Fire concludes recovery search and rescue efforts for missing swimmer after ‘exhausting’ all resources

Students pursue passions and policies in summer research

When trying to go to downtown Chicago, rising Weinberg junior Jun Park realized the Purple Line often doesn’t come on time. He sometimes found himself stuck at Howard station for 20 minutes. He decided to use this summer to research solutions for Chicago’s public transportation system.

From passion projects to policy recommendations, Park and other Northwestern students are conducting research on every topic imaginable with support from the University. 

Park is looking at Singapore’s public transport because he said it is known for being reliable and safe and cutting down car usage. Park’s research question is whether Singapore’s centralized governance — the Land Transport Authority — is more effective than Chicago’s divided agencies — the CTA, Metra and Pace particularly for minority populations.

Park received the Ginsberg Research Grant through the political science department to fund his flight to Singapore. Ahead of the trip, he is trying to schedule interviews with migrant workers. Currently, he said, Singapore does not allow them to use public transportation for work, instead using trucks for transport. While they are allowed to use public transport in their free time, Park said they tend to live in areas where such infrastructure does not exist.

Park wants to see whether having a centralized governing system deprioritizes the needs of certain populations like migrant workers. He hopes to write a policy recommendation for Chicago and other U.S. cities. 

Rising Weinberg junior Ethan Bledsoe is using his passion for environmental and data science to ponder another issue in Chicago — health disparities near warehouses. Bledsoe said redlining and other policies have disproportionately hurt low income communities and communities of color by placing warehouses and other pollution hotspots near them.

The research process so far, Bledsoe said, has involved reading papers and manipulating data with the programming language R.

Bledsoe became interested in this topic through Climate Change Research Group meetings, where weekly paper discussions familiarized him with environmental modeling topics and jargon. Working with CCRG made summer research less overwhelming for Bledsoe. He became interested in the health impact side and the statistics the group produced. 

“I’d done a lot of climate activism growing up and at home, but what I always really enjoyed (was) reading about the statistics that scientists would make,” he said. “I was like, ‘Oh, I could help make some of these statistics as part of my project.’”

He wants to develop statistics about disproportionate health impacts in Chicago for policymakers and activists.

Bledsoe was awarded a Summer Undergraduate Research Grant, a $4,000 stipend for eight weeks of full-time research. He appreciates the flexibility of the program, which allows proposals from all majors. His SURG advisor, Daniel Horton, is the CCRG leader.

Rising Weinberg senior Trevor Chau, has explored his interest in inorganic chemistry in the Hunter Lab over the past year. 

Chau works on electrocatalytic processes, which he said is taking a solution, putting something in it, and passing electricity through it through electrodes to see what happens. This summer, Chau is working with blue dimer — two ruthenium atoms bound together by an oxygen atom. He is researching how to stabilize it in an oxygen evolution reaction, a chemical process producing molecular oxygen.

Chau said his work involves running reactions, prepping solutions and analyzing data. While he and other members of the lab help one another, he said his project is independent. 

The work is sometimes tedious, Chau said, as he waits for reactions to run and for tests to come in. At times, he waits at his computer for half an hour. Chau learned that while we always hear about massive breakthroughs in science, “that doesn’t happen in a vacuum.”

“It takes a lot of time to get through it, a lot of trial and error,” he said. “I’m just permuting over and over…it’s rewarding to see progress.’”

Rising Weinberg junior and SURG recipient Lauren Dain took a personal route for her summer research. Her hobby is running marathons, so she is researching how athletic brands and sponsors have influenced women’s marathoning over time. 

Women were originally banned from running marathons, so Dain was interested in the “women’s equality journey” and culture of female marathoning. She was curious about why participation in marathons has surged for women in the past 20 years.

Dain is conducting archival research — reading books on early female marathoners — and interviewing runners ranging from recreational marathoners to semi-professional runners. The unique stories and the barriers these women have faced have been the most interesting part of her research, Dain said.

“Women’s running shoes weren’t around until the early 80s, so a lot of women were just running in literal tennis shoes or men’s shoes. There were no sports bras,” Dain said. “(Things that) I think a lot of people in sports take for granted now, people didn’t have, even 50 years ago.”

Dain said she is going to synthesize the history of women’s marathoning into a blog with four installments. 

This summer, Dain has learned to focus on meeting her goals. No one is telling her what to do each day, so she has to be self-directed. SURG has been a good learning experience about independent research, she said.

She said she mainly applied for SURG because she felt it was unique to the college experience to be able to research this “passion project” that isn’t necessarily tied to her academic plan.

“I’m very lucky to be able to just talk to all these really cool runners and read these books and develop this project,” she said. 

Email [email protected]

Twitter: @chiarafkim

Related Stories: 

— NU’s Summer Class Schedule offers flexibility, opportunities for academic advancement

— Hartmann lab harnesses viruses to fight disease, reduce pollution

— Asian American Studies Program students present projects at annual senior symposium

• Climate Change Research Group
• Ethan Bledsoe
• Ginsberg Research Grant
• Lauren Dain
• Summer Undergraduate Research Grant
• Trevor Chau

• Editorial Board
• Former Daily Editors
• Students Publishing Company
• Classifieds
• Today’s Paper
• Print Archives
• Comment policy
• Terms of Use

This website uses cookies to ensure the best user experience. Privacy & Cookies Notice Accept Cookies

Manage My Cookies

Manage Cookie Preferences

Confirm My Selections

• Events and Workshops

Announcing the 2024 Thaler-Tversky Research Grant Winners

The Roman Family Center for Decision Research is pleased to announce the winners of this year’s Thaler-Tversky Independent Research Grant for Emerging Scholars: Youngjae Cha, Rui Sun, and Rebecca Wu.

This year’s winners demonstrate a diverse range of research interests and disciplines within behavioral science. Their respective projects explore information-seeking about climate change, the beliefs of emotional expressions across social classes, and unconscious biases about low-and high-paid job-seekers. 

The Thaler-Tversky Research Grant is supported by the generosity of Professor Richard Thaler in honor of Amos Tversky, and provides grants up to $3,000 to support new behavioral science research led by University of Chicago PhD students and principal researchers.

Congratulations to all of this year’s winners! Learn more about their proposed research projects below.

Youngjae Cha

Third-year PhD student, UChicago Psychology Department

Advisor: Shigehiro Oishi

Researcher statement: In his seminal work, Adam Smith posits that as the division of labor advances, individuals may become habitually ignorant outside their specialized areas, impeding their comprehension of broader societal interests. Does the division of labor discourage information-seeking for broader topics, even important social issues like climate change? To test this question, the proposed research aims to investigate whether the division of labor makes people uninterested in information in general—not just a wide range of information, but also information related to important social issues.

Management and organizational psychologists have observed that specialization often entails a cognitive trade-off, necessitating a focus solely on domain-specific information (Dane, 2010). Expanding on this concept, Cha & Oishi (2024) devised a 3D simulation of a motorcycle assembly factory to test whether the division of labor engenders a general tendency to ignore new information. Their study found that individuals working on specialized tasks, such as wheel assembly, were later more inclined to bypass opportunities to acquire trivial knowledge compared to those working on the assembly of a whole bike. This suggests that division of labor within group tasks may dampen curiosity or non-task-related information-seeking behaviors, extending beyond the immediate task environment. However, the experiment lacked both mundane and experimental realism, as they used online factory tasks and trivia quizzes.

To address these limitations, the proposed study will run a group experiment with varying levels of division of labor at Mindworks. We predict that highly specialized team members will be less willing to learn both trivial and climate-related matters compared to less specialized ones. Given the pervasive ignorance surrounding climate change, this study seeks to understand socioecological factors that lead to the prevalence of climate disinterestedness across societies (Lewandowsky, 2021).

Postdoctoral principal researcher, Roman Family CDR

Advisors: Nicholas Epley and Oleg Urminsky

Researcher statement: Our beliefs about others’ emotional expressions depend on their racial, gender, and occupational identities, but what about their social class? In a submitted manuscript (preprint: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/69ryq ), we conducted four studies in the UK, India, UAE, and the US. We investigated beliefs about others’ emotional expressions in relation to the targets’ social class, focusing on self-oriented (e.g., triumphant) versus other-oriented (e.g., gratitude) positive emotions. As predicted, we found that across cultures, people associate higher social class with expressing more self-oriented positive emotions, and lower social class with more other-oriented positive emotions. This finding aligns with previous studies showing that wealthier individuals exhibit more independence and self-focus, while those from lower social classes emphasize relationality and dependence on others (Kraus et al, 2010).

However, an unanswered question is: why is it the case? Where do these beliefs come from? In the next step, I aim to examine the underlying mechanisms. I plan to test two (potentially competing) mechanisms: the bottom-up and the top-down mechanism.

The bottom-up mechanism proposes that this belief is derived from experiences – the expression stereotype is conditioned on feelings (Piff and Moskowitz, 2018) . Specifically, lower-class individuals may experience more other-oriented emotions (i.e. gratitude), whereas higher-class individuals may experience more individual-oriented emotions (i.e. triumphant) in life, thus people generate the corresponding emotional expression beliefs.

The top-down mechanism suggests that the beliefs are crafted through the mental simulation of life in different classes: individuals project emotional stereotypes onto those in hierarchical positions across various domains (such as elite athletes), not just social class, by imagining the emotional expressions associated with different levels of status.

These mechanisms may coexist and operate simultaneously.

Fourth-year PhD student, UChicago Economics Department

Advisors: Joshua Dean, Rachel Glennerster, and Christina Brown

Researcher statement: Inexperienced workers often face a hard time landing the first job because employers need to incur additional costs to discover their ability. A natural response from high-ability novices is to lower their initial wages to attract employers and build a reputation for better jobs in the future. However, this strategy may not work if employers perceive low wages as a signal of poor ability. Consumers often apply a price-quality heuristic when judging new consumer goods (Rao and Monnroe 1989, Wathieu and Bertini 2007, Erdem et al. 2008). If firms apply this same price-quality heuristic to potential hires in the presence of information frictions, they may overlook high-ability novices’ incentive for reputation investment and underestimate their quality. I study whether this is the case in the context of hiring on online freelancing platforms.

This project connects the behavioral literature on the price-quality inference (Dodds et al. 1991, de Langhe et al. 2014, Gneezy et al. 2014) with the labor literature on inefficient hiring of inexperienced workers (Tervio 2009, Pallais 2014, Barach and Horton 2019). The existing behavioral literature focuses on the product market. I draw their insights to study how the non-Bayesian quality inference rule adopted by employers may result in a labor market trap where too few high-ability novices get hired. In addition, I test how this behavioral constraint interacts with the provision of credible quality signals.

• June 26, 2024
• Roman Family Center for Decision Research
• Share This Page

Related Topics

• Behavioral Science

Recommendations

• All topics »
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) 
• Ukraine emergency
• Environment and health
• Health services delivery 
• Vaccines and immunization
• Mental health
• Digital health
• Behavioural and cultural insights

• All publications

• News releases 
• Feature stories 
• Photo stories 
• Initiatives »
• An introduction to WHO in the European Region

74th session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe

First qualitative research study conducted in Turkmenistan focuses on HPV vaccination

Within the framework of a WHO–European Union joint project on immunization in central Asia, the WHO Country Office in Turkmenistan and the Ministry of Health and Medical Industry of Turkmenistan jointly conducted the country’s first qualitative research study.

The project aimed at identifying factors influencing parents' decisions related to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for their children. Consisting of focus-group discussions and in-depth interviews, the research provided an understanding of parents’ attitudes and beliefs about HPV as well as barriers to HPV vaccination.

The results of the research conducted over 3 weeks in late 2023 will serve as the basis for activities to increase public awareness about HPV and sustain confidence in HPV vaccination in the future.

HPV vaccination in Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan included the HPV vaccine in its routine immunization schedule starting in 2016, for boys and girls at 9 years of age. Although national vaccination coverage remains high, a slight downward trend has been observed in both urban and rural areas: from 99.2% in 2021 to 98.5% in 2023.

With a relatively young population increasingly turning to the internet for information, it is important that evidence-based answers to potential questions about vaccination are readily available. However, official online information about vaccines remains limited, creating an opportunity for misinformation to spread with the potential to decrease vaccination uptake in the coming years.

The Ministry asked WHO to conduct a qualitative research study to identify what parents know about HPV, the diseases it can cause, the effectiveness of vaccination in preventing these diseases, and especially what questions or concerns they have on HPV vaccination that need to be addressed in a transparent and accessible manner.

The study, conducted jointly by experts from the Ministry and WHO, aimed to develop targeted interventions to better inform the public and health-care workers about HPV vaccines. Focus groups and in-depth interviews with health-care providers, parents and staff of public organizations were conducted to identify participants’ knowledge, attitudes and behavioural determinants for uptake of HPV vaccine and childhood vaccines in general.

The study was conducted in cities, including the capital, as well as in rural sites in 2 regions. Data collection and analysis were conducted using the COM-B framework, which looks at 3 key components: capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change.

Study outcomes

Study findings revealed that attitudes toward HPV were generally positive, partially due to positive attitudes toward vaccination in general but also due to preparatory steps taken by health authorities prior to introducing the HPV vaccine in 2016.

These steps included informing and training health workers to administer and answer questions about the vaccine and to inform parents and children about the benefits of HPV vaccination in preventing HPV infection, emphasizing its role in preventing the spread of the virus rather than only in preventing cervical cancer.

Despite high levels of knowledge and trust in vaccination, study participants did reveal certain gaps in knowledge and potential vulnerability to misinformation. Based on the findings, researchers proposed several measures, including:

• making up-to-date information on childhood vaccination available through a single online portal to ensure accessibility and availability for the public;
• training health workers to increase their capacity to effectively communicate with parents on HPV and other vaccines in the routine immunization schedule; and
• using existing facility-level data and ongoing activities to conduct local, community-based interventions to effectively engage the minority of parents delaying or rejecting vaccination.

Based on these recommendations, the Ministry is developing an action plan that will include regular training for health workers and provision of information to parents via online resources and individual consultations.

With an eye to sustaining high demand for vaccination in the future, the Ministry is also planning to pilot an education module for 10–12-year-olds called Immune Patrol in several schools. WHO developed Immune Patrol to increase health literacy, resistance to misinformation, and knowledge about the immune system and immunization. WHO will provide technical support to the Ministry to implement the action plan and to pilot the Immune Patrol package in 2024 and beyond.

Partnering with the European Union to support and strengthen vaccination

Questions and answers about human papillomavirus, second edition

Field guide to qualitative research for new vaccine introduction

Supporting the prevention, detection and treatment of cervical cancer