research synopsis guidelines

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Write a Research Synopsis: Template, Examples, & More

Last Updated: February 12, 2024 Fact Checked

Research Synopsis Template

• Organizing & Formatting
• Writing Your Synopsis
• Reviewing & Editing

This article was reviewed by Gerald Posner and by wikiHow staff writer, Raven Minyard, BA . Gerald Posner is an Author & Journalist based in Miami, Florida. With over 35 years of experience, he specializes in investigative journalism, nonfiction books, and editorials. He holds a law degree from UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and a BA in Political Science from the University of California-Berkeley. He’s the author of thirteen books, including several New York Times bestsellers, the winner of the Florida Book Award for General Nonfiction, and has been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History. He was also shortlisted for the Best Business Book of 2020 by the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 226,183 times.

A research synopsis describes the plan for your research project and is typically submitted to professors or department heads so they can approve your project. Most synopses are between 3,000 and 4,000 words and provide your research objectives and methods. While the specific types of information you need to include in your synopsis may vary depending on your department guidelines, most synopses include the same basic sections. In this article, we’ll walk you step-by-step through everything you need to know to write a synopsis for research.

Things You Should Know

• Begin your research synopsis by introducing the question your research will answer and its importance to your field.
• List 2 or 3 specific objectives you hope to achieve and how they will advance your field.
• Discuss your methodology to demonstrate why the study design you chose is appropriate for your research question.

Organizing Your Research Synopsis

• Find out what citation format you’re supposed to use, as well as whether you’re expected to use parenthetical references or footnotes in the body of your synopsis.
• If you have questions about anything in your guidelines, ask your instructor or advisor to ensure you follow them correctly.

• Title: the title of your study
• Abstract: a summary of your research synopsis
• Introduction: identifies and describes your research question
• Literature Review: a review of existing relevant research
• Objectives: goals you hope to accomplish through your study
• Hypotheses: results you expect to find through your research
• Methodology and methods: explains the methods you’ll use to complete your study
• References: a list of any references used in citations

Tip: Your synopsis might have additional sections, depending on your discipline and the type of research you're conducting. Talk to your instructor or advisor about which sections are required for your department.

• Keep in mind that you might not end up using all the sources you initially found. After you've finished your synopsis, go back and delete the ones you didn't use.

Writing Your Research Synopsis

• Your title should be a brief and specific reflection of the main objectives of your study. In general, it should be under 50 words and should avoid unneeded phrases like “an investigation into.”
• On the other hand, avoid a title that’s too short, as well. For example, a title like “A Study of Urban Heating” is too short and doesn’t provide any insight into the specifics of your research.

• The introduction allows you to explain to your reader exactly why the question you’re trying to answer is vital and how your knowledge and experience make you the best researcher to tackle it.
• Support most of the statements in your introduction with other studies in the area that support the importance of your question. For example, you might cite a previous study that mentions your problem as an area where further research needs to be done.
• The length of your introduction will vary depending on the overall length of your synopsis as well as the ultimate length of your eventual paper after you’ve finished your research. Generally, it will cover the first page or two of your synopsis.

• For example, try finding relevant literature through educational journals or bulletins from organizations like WHO and CDC.
• Typically, a thorough literature review discusses 8 to 10 previous studies related to your research problem.
• As with the introduction, the length of your literature review will vary depending on the overall length of your synopsis. Generally, it will be about the same length as your introduction.
• Try to use the most current research available and avoid sources over 5 years old.

• For example, an objective for research on urban heating could be “to compare urban heat modification caused by vegetation of mixed species considering the 5 most common urban trees in an area.”
• Generally, the overall objective doesn’t relate to solving a specific problem or answering a specific question. Rather, it describes how your particular project will advance your field.
• For specific objectives, think in terms of action verbs like “quantify” or “compare.” Here, you’re hoping to gain a better understanding of associations between particular variables.

• Specify the sources you used and the reasons you have arrived at your hypotheses. Typically, these will come from prior studies that have shown similar relationships.
• For example, suppose a prior study showed that children who were home-schooled were less likely to be in fraternities or sororities in college. You might use that study to back up a hypothesis that home-schooled children are more independent and less likely to need strong friendship support networks.

• Expect your methodology to be at least as long as either your introduction or your literature review, if not longer. Include enough detail that your reader can fully understand how you’re going to carry out your study.
• This section of your synopsis may include information about how you plan to collect and analyze your data, the overall design of your study, and your sampling methods, if necessary. Include information about the study setting, like the facilities and equipment that are available to you to carry out your study.
• For example, your research work may take place in a hospital, and you may use cluster sampling to gather data.

• Use between 100 and 200 words to give your readers a basic understanding of your research project.
• Include a clear statement of the problem, the main goals or objectives of your study, the theories or conceptual framework your research relies upon, and the methods you’ll use to reach your goals or objectives.

Tip: Jot down a few notes as you draft your other sections that you can compile for your abstract to keep your writing more efficient.

Reviewing and Editing Your Research Synopsis

• If you don’t have that kind of time because you’re up against a deadline, at least take a few hours away from your synopsis before you go back to edit it. Do something entirely unrelated to your research, like taking a walk or going to a movie.

• Eliminate sentences that don’t add any new information. Even the longest synopsis is a brief document—make sure every word needs to be there and counts for something.
• Get rid of jargon and terms of art in your field that could be better explained in plain language. Even though your likely readers are people who are well-versed in your field, providing plain language descriptions shows you know what you’re talking about. Using jargon can seem like you’re trying to sound like you know more than you actually do.

Tip: Free apps, such as Grammarly and Hemingway App, can help you identify grammatical errors as well as areas where your writing could be clearer. However, you shouldn't rely solely on apps since they can miss things.

• Reference list formatting is very particular. Read your references out loud, with the punctuation and spacing, to pick up on errors you wouldn’t have noticed if you’d just read over them.
• Compare your format to the one in the stylebook you’re using and make sure all of your entries are correct.

• Read your synopsis backward by starting on the last word and reading each word separately from the last to the first. This helps isolate spelling errors. Reading backward sentence by sentence helps you isolate grammatical errors without being distracted by the content.
• Print your synopsis and circle every punctuation mark with a red pen. Then, go through them and focus on whether they’re correct.
• Read your synopsis out loud, including the punctuation, as though you were dictating the synopsis.

• Have at least one person who isn’t familiar with your area of study look over your synopsis. If they can understand your project, you know your writing is clear. If any parts confuse them, then that’s an area where you can improve the clarity of your writing.

Expert Q&A

• If you make significant changes to your synopsis after your first or second round of editing, you may need to proofread it again to make sure you didn’t introduce any new errors. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://admin.umt.edu.pk/Media/Site/iib1/FileManager/FORMAT%20OF%20SYNOPSIS%2012-10-2018.pdf
• ↑ https://www.scientificstyleandformat.org/Tools/SSF-Citation-Quick-Guide.html
• ↑ https://numspak.edu.pk/upload/media/Guidelines%20for%20Synopsis%20Writing1531455748.pdf
• ↑ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279917593_Research_synopsis_guidelines
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/
• ↑ https://www.cornerstone.edu/blog-post/six-steps-to-really-edit-your-paper/

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Jul 25, 2022

Did this article help you?

Wave Bubble

Aug 31, 2021

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Summary

Definition:

A research summary is a brief and concise overview of a research project or study that highlights its key findings, main points, and conclusions. It typically includes a description of the research problem, the research methods used, the results obtained, and the implications or significance of the findings. It is often used as a tool to quickly communicate the main findings of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or decision-makers.

Structure of Research Summary

The Structure of a Research Summary typically include:

• Introduction : This section provides a brief background of the research problem or question, explains the purpose of the study, and outlines the research objectives.
• Methodology : This section explains the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. It describes the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Results : This section presents the main findings of the study, including statistical analysis if applicable. It may include tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data.
• Discussion : This section interprets the results and explains their implications. It discusses the significance of the findings, compares them to previous research, and identifies any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclusion : This section summarizes the main points of the research and provides a conclusion based on the findings. It may also suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• References : This section lists the sources cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

How to Write Research Summary

Here are the steps you can follow to write a research summary:

• Read the research article or study thoroughly: To write a summary, you must understand the research article or study you are summarizing. Therefore, read the article or study carefully to understand its purpose, research design, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Identify the main points : Once you have read the research article or study, identify the main points, key findings, and research question. You can highlight or take notes of the essential points and findings to use as a reference when writing your summary.
• Write the introduction: Start your summary by introducing the research problem, research question, and purpose of the study. Briefly explain why the research is important and its significance.
• Summarize the methodology : In this section, summarize the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. Explain the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Present the results: Summarize the main findings of the study. Use tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data if necessary.
• Interpret the results: In this section, interpret the results and explain their implications. Discuss the significance of the findings, compare them to previous research, and identify any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclude the summary : Summarize the main points of the research and provide a conclusion based on the findings. Suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• Revise and edit : Once you have written the summary, revise and edit it to ensure that it is clear, concise, and free of errors. Make sure that your summary accurately represents the research article or study.
• Add references: Include a list of references cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

Example of Research Summary

Here is an example of a research summary:

Title: The Effects of Yoga on Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: This meta-analysis examines the effects of yoga on mental health. The study aimed to investigate whether yoga practice can improve mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, stress, and quality of life.

Methodology : The study analyzed data from 14 randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of yoga on mental health outcomes. The sample included a total of 862 participants. The yoga interventions varied in length and frequency, ranging from four to twelve weeks, with sessions lasting from 45 to 90 minutes.

Results : The meta-analysis found that yoga practice significantly improved mental health outcomes. Participants who practiced yoga showed a significant reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as stress levels. Quality of life also improved in those who practiced yoga.

Discussion : The findings of this study suggest that yoga can be an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. The study supports the growing body of evidence that suggests that yoga can have a positive impact on mental health. Limitations of the study include the variability of the yoga interventions, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion : Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis support the use of yoga as an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the optimal length and frequency of yoga interventions for different populations.

References :

• Cramer, H., Lauche, R., Langhorst, J., Dobos, G., & Berger, B. (2013). Yoga for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Depression and anxiety, 30(11), 1068-1083.
• Khalsa, S. B. (2004). Yoga as a therapeutic intervention: a bibliometric analysis of published research studies. Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, 48(3), 269-285.
• Ross, A., & Thomas, S. (2010). The health benefits of yoga and exercise: a review of comparison studies. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(1), 3-12.

Purpose of Research Summary

The purpose of a research summary is to provide a brief overview of a research project or study, including its main points, findings, and conclusions. The summary allows readers to quickly understand the essential aspects of the research without having to read the entire article or study.

Research summaries serve several purposes, including:

• Facilitating comprehension: A research summary allows readers to quickly understand the main points and findings of a research project or study without having to read the entire article or study. This makes it easier for readers to comprehend the research and its significance.
• Communicating research findings: Research summaries are often used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public. The summary presents the essential aspects of the research in a clear and concise manner, making it easier for non-experts to understand.
• Supporting decision-making: Research summaries can be used to support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. This information can be used by policymakers or practitioners to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Saving time: Research summaries save time for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders who need to review multiple research studies. Rather than having to read the entire article or study, they can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.

Characteristics of Research Summary

The following are some of the key characteristics of a research summary:

• Concise : A research summary should be brief and to the point, providing a clear and concise overview of the main points of the research.
• Objective : A research summary should be written in an objective tone, presenting the research findings without bias or personal opinion.
• Comprehensive : A research summary should cover all the essential aspects of the research, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research summary should accurately reflect the key findings and conclusions of the research.
• Clear and well-organized: A research summary should be easy to read and understand, with a clear structure and logical flow.
• Relevant : A research summary should focus on the most important and relevant aspects of the research, highlighting the key findings and their implications.
• Audience-specific: A research summary should be tailored to the intended audience, using language and terminology that is appropriate and accessible to the reader.
• Citations : A research summary should include citations to the original research articles or studies, allowing readers to access the full text of the research if desired.

When to write Research Summary

Here are some situations when it may be appropriate to write a research summary:

• Proposal stage: A research summary can be included in a research proposal to provide a brief overview of the research aims, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.
• Conference presentation: A research summary can be prepared for a conference presentation to summarize the main findings of a study or research project.
• Journal submission: Many academic journals require authors to submit a research summary along with their research article or study. The summary provides a brief overview of the study’s main points, findings, and conclusions and helps readers quickly understand the research.
• Funding application: A research summary can be included in a funding application to provide a brief summary of the research aims, objectives, and expected outcomes.
• Policy brief: A research summary can be prepared as a policy brief to communicate research findings to policymakers or stakeholders in a concise and accessible manner.

Advantages of Research Summary

Research summaries offer several advantages, including:

• Time-saving: A research summary saves time for readers who need to understand the key findings and conclusions of a research project quickly. Rather than reading the entire research article or study, readers can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.
• Clarity and accessibility: A research summary provides a clear and accessible overview of the research project’s main points, making it easier for readers to understand the research without having to be experts in the field.
• Improved comprehension: A research summary helps readers comprehend the research by providing a brief and focused overview of the key findings and conclusions, making it easier to understand the research and its significance.
• Enhanced communication: Research summaries can be used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public, in a concise and accessible manner.
• Facilitated decision-making: Research summaries can support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. Policymakers or practitioners can use this information to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Increased dissemination: Research summaries can be easily shared and disseminated, allowing research findings to reach a wider audience.

Limitations of Research Summary

Limitations of the Research Summary are as follows:

• Limited scope: Research summaries provide a brief overview of the research project’s main points, findings, and conclusions, which can be limiting. They may not include all the details, nuances, and complexities of the research that readers may need to fully understand the study’s implications.
• Risk of oversimplification: Research summaries can be oversimplified, reducing the complexity of the research and potentially distorting the findings or conclusions.
• Lack of context: Research summaries may not provide sufficient context to fully understand the research findings, such as the research background, methodology, or limitations. This may lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the research.
• Possible bias: Research summaries may be biased if they selectively emphasize certain findings or conclusions over others, potentially distorting the overall picture of the research.
• Format limitations: Research summaries may be constrained by the format or length requirements, making it challenging to fully convey the research’s main points, findings, and conclusions.
• Accessibility: Research summaries may not be accessible to all readers, particularly those with limited literacy skills, visual impairments, or language barriers.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Research Summary

It’s a common perception that writing a research summary is a quick and easy task. After all, how hard can jotting down 300 words be? But when you consider the weight those 300 words carry, writing a research summary as a part of your dissertation, essay or compelling draft for your paper instantly becomes daunting task.

A research summary requires you to synthesize a complex research paper into an informative, self-explanatory snapshot. It needs to portray what your article contains. Thus, writing it often comes at the end of the task list.

Regardless of when you’re planning to write, it is no less of a challenge, particularly if you’re doing it for the first time. This blog will take you through everything you need to know about research summary so that you have an easier time with it.

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is the part of your research paper that describes its findings to the audience in a brief yet concise manner. A well-curated research summary represents you and your knowledge about the information written in the research paper.

While writing a quality research summary, you need to discover and identify the significant points in the research and condense it in a more straightforward form. A research summary is like a doorway that provides access to the structure of a research paper's sections.

Since the purpose of a summary is to give an overview of the topic, methodology, and conclusions employed in a paper, it requires an objective approach. No analysis or criticism.

Research summary or Abstract. What’s the Difference?

They’re both brief, concise, and give an overview of an aspect of the research paper. So, it’s easy to understand why many new researchers get the two confused. However, a research summary and abstract are two very different things with individual purpose. To start with, a research summary is written at the end while the abstract comes at the beginning of a research paper.

A research summary captures the essence of the paper at the end of your document. It focuses on your topic, methods, and findings. More like a TL;DR, if you will. An abstract, on the other hand, is a description of what your research paper is about. It tells your reader what your topic or hypothesis is, and sets a context around why you have embarked on your research.

Getting Started with a Research Summary

Before you start writing, you need to get insights into your research’s content, style, and organization. There are three fundamental areas of a research summary that you should focus on.

• While deciding the contents of your research summary, you must include a section on its importance as a whole, the techniques, and the tools that were used to formulate the conclusion. Additionally, there needs to be a short but thorough explanation of how the findings of the research paper have a significance.
• To keep the summary well-organized, try to cover the various sections of the research paper in separate paragraphs. Besides, how the idea of particular factual research came up first must be explained in a separate paragraph.
• As a general practice worldwide, research summaries are restricted to 300-400 words. However, if you have chosen a lengthy research paper, try not to exceed the word limit of 10% of the entire research paper.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

The research summary is nothing but a concise form of the entire research paper. Therefore, the structure of a summary stays the same as the paper. So, include all the section titles and write a little about them. The structural elements that a research summary must consist of are:

It represents the topic of the research. Try to phrase it so that it includes the key findings or conclusion of the task.

The abstract gives a context of the research paper. Unlike the abstract at the beginning of a paper, the abstract here, should be very short since you’ll be working with a limited word count.

Introduction

This is the most crucial section of a research summary as it helps readers get familiarized with the topic. You should include the definition of your topic, the current state of the investigation, and practical relevance in this part. Additionally, you should present the problem statement, investigative measures, and any hypothesis in this section.

Methodology

This section provides details about the methodology and the methods adopted to conduct the study. You should write a brief description of the surveys, sampling, type of experiments, statistical analysis, and the rationality behind choosing those particular methods.

Create a list of evidence obtained from the various experiments with a primary analysis, conclusions, and interpretations made upon that. In the paper research paper, you will find the results section as the most detailed and lengthy part. Therefore, you must pick up the key elements and wisely decide which elements are worth including and which are worth skipping.

This is where you present the interpretation of results in the context of their application. Discussion usually covers results, inferences, and theoretical models explaining the obtained values, key strengths, and limitations. All of these are vital elements that you must include in the summary.

Most research papers merge conclusion with discussions. However, depending upon the instructions, you may have to prepare this as a separate section in your research summary. Usually, conclusion revisits the hypothesis and provides the details about the validation or denial about the arguments made in the research paper, based upon how convincing the results were obtained.

The structure of a research summary closely resembles the anatomy of a scholarly article . Additionally, you should keep your research and references limited to authentic and  scholarly sources only.

Tips for Writing a Research Summary

The core concept behind undertaking a research summary is to present a simple and clear understanding of your research paper to the reader. The biggest hurdle while doing that is the number of words you have at your disposal. So, follow the steps below to write a research summary that sticks.

1. Read the parent paper thoroughly

You should go through the research paper thoroughly multiple times to ensure that you have a complete understanding of its contents. A 3-stage reading process helps.

a. Scan: In the first read, go through it to get an understanding of its basic concept and methodologies.

b. Read: For the second step, read the article attentively by going through each section, highlighting the key elements, and subsequently listing the topics that you will include in your research summary.

c. Skim: Flip through the article a few more times to study the interpretation of various experimental results, statistical analysis, and application in different contexts.

Sincerely go through different headings and subheadings as it will allow you to understand the underlying concept of each section. You can try reading the introduction and conclusion simultaneously to understand the motive of the task and how obtained results stay fit to the expected outcome.

2. Identify the key elements in different sections

While exploring different sections of an article, you can try finding answers to simple what, why, and how. Below are a few pointers to give you an idea:

• What is the research question and how is it addressed?
• Is there a hypothesis in the introductory part?
• What type of methods are being adopted?
• What is the sample size for data collection and how is it being analyzed?
• What are the most vital findings?
• Do the results support the hypothesis?

Discussion/Conclusion

• What is the final solution to the problem statement?
• What is the explanation for the obtained results?
• What is the drawn inference?
• What are the various limitations of the study?

3. Prepare the first draft

Now that you’ve listed the key points that the paper tries to demonstrate, you can start writing the summary following the standard structure of a research summary. Just make sure you’re not writing statements from the parent research paper verbatim.

Instead, try writing down each section in your own words. This will not only help in avoiding plagiarism but will also show your complete understanding of the subject. Alternatively, you can use a summarizing tool (AI-based summary generators) to shorten the content or summarize the content without disrupting the actual meaning of the article.

SciSpace Copilot is one such helpful feature! You can easily upload your research paper and ask Copilot to summarize it. You will get an AI-generated, condensed research summary. SciSpace Copilot also enables you to highlight text, clip math and tables, and ask any question relevant to the research paper; it will give you instant answers with deeper context of the article..

4. Include visuals

One of the best ways to summarize and consolidate a research paper is to provide visuals like graphs, charts, pie diagrams, etc.. Visuals make getting across the facts, the past trends, and the probabilistic figures around a concept much more engaging.

5. Double check for plagiarism

It can be very tempting to copy-paste a few statements or the entire paragraphs depending upon the clarity of those sections. But it’s best to stay away from the practice. Even paraphrasing should be done with utmost care and attention.

Also: QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

6. Religiously follow the word count limit

You need to have strict control while writing different sections of a research summary. In many cases, it has been observed that the research summary and the parent research paper become the same length. If that happens, it can lead to discrediting of your efforts and research summary itself. Whatever the standard word limit has been imposed, you must observe that carefully.

7. Proofread your research summary multiple times

The process of writing the research summary can be exhausting and tiring. However, you shouldn’t allow this to become a reason to skip checking your academic writing several times for mistakes like misspellings, grammar, wordiness, and formatting issues. Proofread and edit until you think your research summary can stand out from the others, provided it is drafted perfectly on both technicality and comprehension parameters. You can also seek assistance from editing and proofreading services , and other free tools that help you keep these annoying grammatical errors at bay.

8. Watch while you write

Keep a keen observation of your writing style. You should use the words very precisely, and in any situation, it should not represent your personal opinions on the topic. You should write the entire research summary in utmost impersonal, precise, factually correct, and evidence-based writing.

9. Ask a friend/colleague to help

Once you are done with the final copy of your research summary, you must ask a friend or colleague to read it. You must test whether your friend or colleague could grasp everything without referring to the parent paper. This will help you in ensuring the clarity of the article.

Once you become familiar with the research paper summary concept and understand how to apply the tips discussed above in your current task, summarizing a research summary won’t be that challenging. While traversing the different stages of your academic career, you will face different scenarios where you may have to create several research summaries.

In such cases, you just need to look for answers to simple questions like “Why this study is necessary,” “what were the methods,” “who were the participants,” “what conclusions were drawn from the research,” and “how it is relevant to the wider world.” Once you find out the answers to these questions, you can easily create a good research summary following the standard structure and a precise writing style.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Working with sources
• How to Write a Summary | Guide & Examples

How to Write a Summary | Guide & Examples

Published on November 23, 2020 by Shona McCombes . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Summarizing , or writing a summary, means giving a concise overview of a text’s main points in your own words. A summary is always much shorter than the original text.

There are five key steps that can help you to write a summary:

• Read the text
• Break it down into sections
• Identify the key points in each section
• Write the summary
• Check the summary against the article

Writing a summary does not involve critiquing or evaluating the source . You should simply provide an accurate account of the most important information and ideas (without copying any text from the original).

Table of contents

When to write a summary, step 1: read the text, step 2: break the text down into sections, step 3: identify the key points in each section, step 4: write the summary, step 5: check the summary against the article, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about summarizing.

There are many situations in which you might have to summarize an article or other source:

• As a stand-alone assignment to show you’ve understood the material
• To keep notes that will help you remember what you’ve read
• To give an overview of other researchers’ work in a literature review

When you’re writing an academic text like an essay , research paper , or dissertation , you’ll integrate sources in a variety of ways. You might use a brief quote to support your point, or paraphrase a few sentences or paragraphs.

But it’s often appropriate to summarize a whole article or chapter if it is especially relevant to your own research, or to provide an overview of a source before you analyze or critique it.

In any case, the goal of summarizing is to give your reader a clear understanding of the original source. Follow the five steps outlined below to write a good summary.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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.

Try for free

You should read the article more than once to make sure you’ve thoroughly understood it. It’s often effective to read in three stages:

• Scan the article quickly to get a sense of its topic and overall shape.
• Read the article carefully, highlighting important points and taking notes as you read.
• Skim the article again to confirm you’ve understood the key points, and reread any particularly important or difficult passages.

There are some tricks you can use to identify the key points as you read:

• Start by reading the abstract . This already contains the author’s own summary of their work, and it tells you what to expect from the article.
• Pay attention to headings and subheadings . These should give you a good sense of what each part is about.
• Read the introduction and the conclusion together and compare them: What did the author set out to do, and what was the outcome?

To make the text more manageable and understand its sub-points, break it down into smaller sections.

If the text is a scientific paper that follows a standard empirical structure, it is probably already organized into clearly marked sections, usually including an introduction , methods , results , and discussion .

Other types of articles may not be explicitly divided into sections. But most articles and essays will be structured around a series of sub-points or themes.

Now it’s time go through each section and pick out its most important points. What does your reader need to know to understand the overall argument or conclusion of the article?

Keep in mind that a summary does not involve paraphrasing every single paragraph of the article. Your goal is to extract the essential points, leaving out anything that can be considered background information or supplementary detail.

In a scientific article, there are some easy questions you can ask to identify the key points in each part.

If the article takes a different form, you might have to think more carefully about what points are most important for the reader to understand its argument.

In that case, pay particular attention to the thesis statement —the central claim that the author wants us to accept, which usually appears in the introduction—and the topic sentences that signal the main idea of each paragraph.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Now that you know the key points that the article aims to communicate, you need to put them in your own words.

To avoid plagiarism and show you’ve understood the article, it’s essential to properly paraphrase the author’s ideas. Do not copy and paste parts of the article, not even just a sentence or two.

The best way to do this is to put the article aside and write out your own understanding of the author’s key points.

Examples of article summaries

Let’s take a look at an example. Below, we summarize this article , which scientifically investigates the old saying “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

Davis et al. (2015) set out to empirically test the popular saying “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Apples are often used to represent a healthy lifestyle, and research has shown their nutritional properties could be beneficial for various aspects of health. The authors’ unique approach is to take the saying literally and ask: do people who eat apples use healthcare services less frequently? If there is indeed such a relationship, they suggest, promoting apple consumption could help reduce healthcare costs.

The study used publicly available cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants were categorized as either apple eaters or non-apple eaters based on their self-reported apple consumption in an average 24-hour period. They were also categorized as either avoiding or not avoiding the use of healthcare services in the past year. The data was statistically analyzed to test whether there was an association between apple consumption and several dependent variables: physician visits, hospital stays, use of mental health services, and use of prescription medication.

Although apple eaters were slightly more likely to have avoided physician visits, this relationship was not statistically significant after adjusting for various relevant factors. No association was found between apple consumption and hospital stays or mental health service use. However, apple eaters were found to be slightly more likely to have avoided using prescription medication. Based on these results, the authors conclude that an apple a day does not keep the doctor away, but it may keep the pharmacist away. They suggest that this finding could have implications for reducing healthcare costs, considering the high annual costs of prescription medication and the inexpensiveness of apples.

However, the authors also note several limitations of the study: most importantly, that apple eaters are likely to differ from non-apple eaters in ways that may have confounded the results (for example, apple eaters may be more likely to be health-conscious). To establish any causal relationship between apple consumption and avoidance of medication, they recommend experimental research.

An article summary like the above would be appropriate for a stand-alone summary assignment. However, you’ll often want to give an even more concise summary of an article.

For example, in a literature review or meta analysis you may want to briefly summarize this study as part of a wider discussion of various sources. In this case, we can boil our summary down even further to include only the most relevant information.

Using national survey data, Davis et al. (2015) tested the assertion that “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” and did not find statistically significant evidence to support this hypothesis. While people who consumed apples were slightly less likely to use prescription medications, the study was unable to demonstrate a causal relationship between these variables.

Citing the source you’re summarizing

When including a summary as part of a larger text, it’s essential to properly cite the source you’re summarizing. The exact format depends on your citation style , but it usually includes an in-text citation and a full reference at the end of your paper.

You can easily create your citations and references in APA or MLA using our free citation generators.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

Finally, read through the article once more to ensure that:

• You’ve accurately represented the author’s work
• You haven’t missed any essential information
• The phrasing is not too similar to any sentences in the original.

If you’re summarizing many articles as part of your own work, it may be a good idea to use a plagiarism checker to double-check that your text is completely original and properly cited. Just be sure to use one that’s safe and reliable.

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• ChatGPT vs human editor
• ChatGPT citations
• Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
• Using ChatGPT for your studies
• What is ChatGPT?
• Chicago style
• Paraphrasing

 Plagiarism

• Types of plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• Academic integrity
• Consequences of plagiarism
• Common knowledge

A summary is a short overview of the main points of an article or other source, written entirely in your own words. Want to make your life super easy? Try our free text summarizer today!

A summary is always much shorter than the original text. The length of a summary can range from just a few sentences to several paragraphs; it depends on the length of the article you’re summarizing, and on the purpose of the summary.

You might have to write a summary of a source:

• As a stand-alone assignment to prove you understand the material
• For your own use, to keep notes on your reading
• To provide an overview of other researchers’ work in a literature review
• In a paper , to summarize or introduce a relevant study

To avoid plagiarism when summarizing an article or other source, follow these two rules:

• Write the summary entirely in your own words by paraphrasing the author’s ideas.
• Cite the source with an in-text citation and a full reference so your reader can easily find the original text.

An abstract concisely explains all the key points of an academic text such as a thesis , dissertation or journal article. It should summarize the whole text, not just introduce it.

An abstract is a type of summary , but summaries are also written elsewhere in academic writing . For example, you might summarize a source in a paper , in a literature review , or as a standalone assignment.

All can be done within seconds with our free text summarizer .

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, May 31). How to Write a Summary | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 14, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/how-to-summarize/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to paraphrase | step-by-step guide & examples, how to quote | citing quotes in apa, mla & chicago, the basics of in-text citation | apa & mla examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

How to Write a Synopsis for Your Research |Steps in the Ph.D. Process

What is a Synopsis? Why do you need a synopsis for your doctoral research? What is the importance of a synopsis? How do you write and format a synopsis for your Ph.D.?

A synopsis, simply put, is a detailed summary of your research work that you will be doing for your doctoral degree.A synopsis is different from an abstract. You will submit your synopsis at the start of your research work along with your thesis title.

In simple terms, your synopsis is a write up which contains what you will be researching, the significance of your research to the field and how you will go about conducting this research. This document will be submitted before you start your research work and acts as a summary of what you plan to do in your research. In contrast, an abstract is the summary of your whole research thesis and will be written after the research is done and will be included along with your thesis.

The most important or significant use of a synopsis or why you should submit a synopsis is because this is the document that convinces the academic committee of your university as to why they should approve your research proposal. This is why the significance or contribution from your research to that particular field is included in the synopsis.

Writing a synopsis for your Ph.D. is an easy process once you have a clear idea about your research. The format of your synopsis will depend upon the guidelines provided by your university but we will provide you with a general outline on how to write a synopsis for a Ph.D.

The format for a synopsis will be as follows:

• Title of your research thesis: The title of your research project should be clearly defined in your synopsis. This will act as a clear indication of what your research is going to be.
• Introduction:Your introduction will contain a summary of the current level of knowledge in your field of research, the gaps in this knowledge and what your research will contribute to fill these gaps.
• Literature Review: Literature reviews are brief summaries of works that have already been published in journals and other academic forums which are concerned with the field of your research. You need to critically appraise what others have done and what they have found out pertaining to your field of research. Through this you can highlight where their work can be expanded on through your research.
• Aims and Objectives: This part of your synopsis is clear from its title. What is the aim of your research? What are you trying to find out? What are the objectives you are trying to achieve by conducting this research? You need to be very clear and concise while writing the aims and objectives of your research in the synopsis.
• Research Methodology: This is a very important part of your synopsis. Research methodology can be defined as“the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyse information about a topic”. In your synopsis you need to include the outline of your research process, i.e.: how you will be doing your research. In this section you need to include the tools and equipment you will be using, how you will collect your data, and the methods you will use to analyse this collected data. Your research methodology will provide an insight into whether your research is achievable.
• References: You need to provide a list of all the material that you have referred to in the process of writing your synopsis. The format of how to list your references will be provided by your university.
• Conclusion:In the conclusion of your research, you must once again briefly summarise your Ph.D. research that you will be undertaking and why your research is needed. You will also need to include the limitations of your research project in this section.

This is the basic format of how to write a Ph.D. synopsis in India. This may change from university to university so make sure you write it according to the guidelines your university has provided you with. On average, your synopsis will come to around 30 pages.

We hope that this post has provided you with a better understanding about what is a research synopsis, the importance of a research synopsis and how to write a synopsis for your Ph.D.

Eduflair will most certainly be with you as a guide in your journey to fulfil your dreams of a doctoral degree. We wish you luck on your research journey.

Let’s fly with Eduflair.

You May Also Like

How to Write a Hypothesis for Your Research||Steps in the Ph.D. Process

How to Get a Ph.D. – Steps and Requirements

Leave a reply 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.

Save up to $333 using promo code: PLOT22

1-800-243-9645

We teach our students how to write and get published! View our Course Catalog >

• Date: October 27, 2022
• Author: Jan Fields
• Category: Writing for Children Blog
• Tags: query , submissions

Essential Submissions Tips: How to Write a Synopsis | IFW

Meet the character.

Get Them Busy

Put them in the world, judging importance, how to write a synopsis as diagnostic tool, how about you, related links.

• The Who, What, When, Where, & Why: 5 Tips for Writing a Strong Synopsis
• NaNoWriMo: Synopsis and the Sagging Middle
• Cover and Query Letters

With over 100 books in publication, Jan Fields writes both chapter books for children and mystery novels for adults. She’s also known for a variety of experiences teaching writing, from one session SCBWI events to lengthier Highlights Foundation workshops to these blog posts for the Institute of Children’s Literature. As a former ICL instructor, Jan enjoys equipping writers for success in whatever way she can.

Writers and the Coming of “A.I.”

Today, we discuss writers and A.I. This is an ever-evolving topic where the ins and outs change quickly, but here are things to know about A.I. in early 2024.

5 Tips for Giving Useful Feedback to Writers

Not only does giving feedback help the writer who receives the feedback, it helps you as well. Let’s think about what makes good feedback and how to give it.

Writing Feedback: Casting Off Unhelpful Expectations

Preparing yourself to receive writing feedback is the best way to ensure you’ll improve. Let’s look at ways we sabotage our growth with unhelpful expectations.

• Pingback: Essential Submissions Tips: How to Write a Syno...

Leave a Reply 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.

Post comment

Become a better writer today

1000 N. West Street #1200, Wilmington, DE 19801

[email protected]

© 2024 Direct Learning Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy.

Licensure & Memberships

Recommended for college credits by the Connecticut Board for State Academic Awards

College credits obtained through Charter Oak State College

Approved as a private business and trade school in the state of Delaware

Quick Links

Critique Service

Bookstore            

Program Catalog

What Our Students Say  

Academic Info

How it Works

Request Info

Submit Writing Sample

Admission Requirements

Writing Contests

Incarcerated Course

© 2024 Direct Learning Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 

What Our Instructors Say  

Free Assessment

Guidelines for writing a research project synopsis or protocol

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, JSS Medical College Hospital, Mysore, Karnataka, India. [email protected]
• PMID: 19172017
• DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.45136
• Clinical Protocols / standards
• Practice Guidelines as Topic / standards*
• Research Design / standards*
• Writing / standards*

How to Write a Synopsis for Research

• Table of Contents

What is synopsis?

The Synopsis is mainly the gist of your already planned research project submitted for approval from higher authorities. It shows a clear transparent view of your research work. On the other hand, it is the crux of a general survey that gives an idea about what a composition is all about. In other words, it is a brief view of the thorny work. It is a short outline of your thesis work. 

It shows what your research work is all about. Moreover, it gives you and your supervisor a clear view of the research topic and provides clarity behind the research aim. In this, you tell your supervisor why did you conduct this research ? You also describe your time frame.

This paper views the supervisor a brief precise overview of the whole dissertation as well. Most of the supervisors specifically read this in the research work. Thus, a synopsis is only a promo that shows whether the research work is excellent or dull. The structure of the Synopsis should be authentic and precise as well. 

Format Of writing synopsis

As we know, synopsis is imperative for all the researcher’s work. The supervisors’ primary focus in conducting the research papers is on this. Also, the format is a brief discussion of your project plan. There are various formats of Synopsis, varying from institution to institution. In addition, an institution offers many disciplines; sometimes, each field has its structure to conduct the research in real-time.  

This focus on the general format that almost entire educational institutions are following. This is the most popular format. Moreover, this has some heading to represent your topic truly. The format must be facile so that readers can easily understand it.

In this, you divide your whole plan or idea into components so you can not miss any information regarding the research paper. You can say that the format gives you an in-depth picture of the research in the various components. So, you must follow these guidelines while conducting the study:

The first page of your dissertation consists of the title. It should be precise, not too long or short. Therefore, this reflects your study objective and should be decided and written after completing the Synopsis. This should be a clear representation of your topic and give you an overview of your research as well, in addition. Always think about the concise and clear topic so that it can raise interest in the reader. 

 So, it covers the title on which you conduct your title. This should adequately describe the entire research content. The synopsis topic elaborates on this category as well. Also, your name (student name), registration number, supervisor’s name, and supervisor details like his job title (professor or assistant professor). Moreover, your university name and department name are also in it. 

The title is the central part of the synopsis that reads the most, and it should also be eye-catching. Because many readers first look at the title page. On the other hand, the catchy, unique topic creates a good image in the supervisor’s mind about the paper. 

Table Of Content s

Table of a content list the chapters and the central dissertation section alongside the page numbers. So, it is easy to see what carrier holds what chapter. You can save your time by adding this table to your paper. It also demonstrates to your supervisor the covered chapters or headings. 

Read More: How to Create Table of Contents for Research Paper?

You can generate an automatic table after formatting the whole paper or make a manual one. The synopsis should be reader friendly. The central synopsis part is this table, which also gives you a picture of the different research categories. 

This category gives a good impression and presents the paper with a professional look. Moreover, it is complicated to search for any heading without it. It arranges all the information in the best way so that a supervisor or a reader can quickly assess it. So, it is a road map in complex cases. For example, chapter one (Introduction) covers the research gap , problems, and many more. 

Chapter 1: Introduction

You add all the relevant detail to show that your topic is worth reading. This is named the first chapter in the synopsis writing. On the other hand, this is the central portion of the research study. So, the reader is more attentive during the reading of this portion. It would be the great if you state and follow such few headings in this first research chapter. 

Background Of The Study

You will have to write your study background in this section. In addition, it describes your research study area as well. This section gives a reader in depth study of the research topic and it give you an overview of the study. Moreover, never focus on the ambiguous side in this heading. This area should not be too long or short. This category length depends on the overall size of the research paper synopsis. It should cover approximately one page of research synopsis.

• Research Gap

A research gap shows a problem not being reviewed or solved in the existing research studies or publications. Moreover, it can be a new idea and a thought process that you can prove in real-time. It should cover approximately two pages. But it depends on the number of variables, and the limit can exceed if you use more variables in your study. 

• Research Problem

This is an area of the problem the researcher wants to address in the Synopsis. This is managed as a question mark in the Synopsis and should be a real-time problem . In addition, the problem should be measurable in real time as well. If we talk about the section length, it should cover a half page or one full page.

• Research Questions

It helps to identify your research path. You first determine the total variables on which you want to conduct the study. Some are dependent, and some are independent variables. Also, some are mediators, and some are moderators. Therefore, you state the questions according to your variables. You will have to write down all your authentic research questions . The hypothesis is stated in this section.

Research Objectives

You will have to state the study’s objective. So, this is the end result researcher want to achieve. It will clearly state the study’s purpose and focus on real-time, and should be measurable. Moreover, it is the guideline of the research performance.

Significance Of The Study

It consists of Theoretical Contribution and Applied Contribution. It shows why this study is needed in the research field. Moreover, this section also elaborates on the research topic’s importance and impact on others. It justifies your research study, and if you talk about the length, this covers approximately half of the page. 

Chapter 2: Literature review

This is chapter two. It is the review of the existing research publication relevant to your topic. You also describe the variables and their relationship between them. So, you also add some researchers’ points of view with the citation to defend your statement regarding the topic. You will have to cover all the sections in it.

Independent Variables

First, you will have to define all the independent variables. You can manipulate and control these variables, and, in the study, these are not influenced by any other variables. This is the single variable, and you see their effect on the dependent variables in the study.

You will have to define the mediators’ variables. In addition, the mediators’ variables describe that how the two variables show relationship to each other. These are the intervening variables, which also show the relationship between the two variables.

Dependent variable

In this, you will have to state the definition of the dependent variable. This variable change with the independent variables’ manipulation. In addition, this is the variable being tested and measured in the research paper. So, this is the measurable variable in the study.

Read More: Chi-Square Test (Χ²) || Examples, Types, and Assumptions

Moderator 1

In the study there are at least two moderators should present. After the dependent and independent variables, you should also state the definition of the first moderator. Moreover, the moderator shows the strength and the direction of the journal. 

Moderator 2

Moderators modify the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables. Therefore, you will also have to define this variable in your study. It influences the relationship among the variables also. 

You will have to explain what theory supports your study and state the theory definition as well. Also, explain the proposed model based on your approach as well. The theoretical framework helps the investigation identify the real problem and show the impact of variables on each other.

• Research Hypothesis

Afterward, you will have to propose the research hypothesis of your study in the Synopsis. Therefore, Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, Hypothesis 3, and Hypothesis 4 should mention here by looking at the impact of the variables. Well, H1 shows the positive or negative relationship between the independent and dependent variables. And H2 shows the connection between the independent, mediator, and dependent variables. 

Read More: Directional vs. Non-Directional Hypothesis in Research

H3 shows the positive or negative relationship among the independent, moderator, and dependent variables. H4 shows the relationship between the mediator, moderator two, and the dependent variable. Other than that, it shows the independent variable impact positively or negatively on the other variable, and you will prove this through statistics. Moreover, this hypothesis should cover almost one page.

Research Mode l

Here you will show the clear diagram, which is the theoretical image of your research study. 

Chapter: 3 Research Methodology

It is chapter three. This section includes detail on how this study was carried out. It provides research design, sample size, and many others. This ensures the supervisor the reliability and the validity of the study.

Research Design

This covers the techniques chosen by the researcher. For example, the researcher will decide the tome horizon whether this research study will be cross-sectional or longitudinal . 

This is an extensive collection of individuals. Also, you will elaborate on what sector you focus on, like banking, education, textile, etc. 

Sample Size and Technique

There are many types of sampling techniques. Therefore, the researcher uses any of this according to the study’s nature and continence. You will state what sampling technique you use for your research study. 

Read more: T-test | Example, Formula | When to Use a T-test

Data Collection Procedure

In this section, you will decide how you will collect the information and how you will process all the data. Moreover, in this section, you will support your hypothesis based on the facts and the figures. 

It consists of the measurements of all your variables on which scale you are measuring your variables. You will also state which study you will be adopted to describe such variables. First, you will have to measure your independent variable, which was estimated by 14 item scale developed in the past study. So, this variable is measured by 7-point Likert Scale. 

 Mediators should measure by adopting 20 items scale developed in the past study. So, this variable will measure by 7-point Likert Scale (from 1 Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly Agree). The dependent variable should measure by adopting 20 items scale developed in the past study. So, this variable will measure by 7-point Likert Scale (from 1 Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly Agree).

 Moderator 1 should measure by adopting three items scale developed in the past study. So, this variable will measure by 7-point Likert Scale (from 1 Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly Agree). So, Moderator 2 should measure by adopting 28 items scale developed in the past study. So, this variable will measure by 7-point Likert Scale (from 1 Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly Agree)

You add other previous research contributions to your study, and it is important to mention them or give them credit by adding their journal links here in this category. You will have to add all the journal references from where you got all the data. Sites are in APA style, and the article link should also be authentic. 

• How to Format APA Reference Page? APA Citations | Examples
• What Are MLA Citations? Guidelines & Examples
• Chicago Style Format: Examples | Tips To Avoid Mistakes 
• Top AI Tools for Citation Management

It consists of the Questionnaire, starting with the questions of independent variables, then you will have to add mediators’ questions. Afterward, add questions of the dependent variable, then add moderato 1 and 2 questions. 

Other articles

Please read through some of our other articles with examples and explanations if you’d like to learn more about research methodology.

• PLS-SEM model
• Principal Components Analysis
• Multivariate Analysis
• Friedman Test
• Chi-Square Test (Χ²)
• Effect Size

 Methodology

• Research Methods
• Quantitative Research
• Qualitative Research
• Case Study Research
• Survey Research
• Conclusive Research
• Descriptive Research
• Cross-Sectional Research
• Theoretical Framework
• Conceptual Framework
• Triangulation
• Grounded Theory
• Quasi-Experimental Design
• Mixed Method
• Correlational Research
• Randomized Controlled Trial
• Stratified Sampling
• Ethnography
• Ghost Authorship
• Secondary Data Collection
• Primary Data Collection
• Ex-Post-Facto
•   Dissertation Topic
• Thesis Statement
• Research Proposal
• Types of Research Gaps
• Operationalization of Variables
• Literature Review
• Questionnaire
• Reliability
• Measurement of Scale
• Sampling Techniques
• Acknowledgements

Related Posts

9 qualitative research designs and research methods, tips to increase your journal citation score, types of research quiz, difference between cohort study and case control study, convenience sampling: method and examples, difference between cohort and panel study, why is a pilot study important in research, panel survey: definition with examples, what is panel study, what is a cohort study | definition & examples.

Excellent content. Keep sharing!

Love your content.

Some really good info , Gladiola I found this.

Simply wish to say your article is as surprising. The clarity for your publish is simply spectacular and i can think you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to seize your feed to keep up to date with impending post. Thanks one million and please continue the gratifying work.

I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back later on. Many thanks

Im not sure the place you’re getting your info, however great topic. I must spend some time finding out much more or working out more. Thanks for wonderful information I used to be in search of this info for my mission.

That is the appropriate weblog for anyone who wants to search out out about this topic. You notice so much its virtually onerous to argue with you (not that I actually would need…HaHa). You undoubtedly put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Nice stuff, simply great!

Just wish to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is simply excellent and i could assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable work.

Some genuinely interesting info , well written and broadly user friendly.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Elite Editing

You write it. We right it.™

How to Write a Synopsis

If you’re a writer, you definitely need to know how to write a synopsis for a book. Why? Because when you query an agent or publisher, you’ll need to include a synopsis with your submission.

But writers aren’t the only people who need to know how to write a synopsis. From students to scientists, all kinds of people will find themselves having to write one at some point. Thankfully, the process isn’t complicated. By following a few basic steps and guidelines, you’ll know how to write a synopsis in no time.

What a Synopsis Is

Forget about how to write a synopsis. First, you need to know what a synopsis is! Put simply, a synopsis is a detailed summary of all the important aspects of a book, project, or study. There are different types of synopses, but a book synopsis briefly explains the key points from the plot as well as things like setting, characters, tone, and any important themes.

What a Synopsis Isn’t

Knowing how to write a synopsis for a book means knowing not just what a synopsis is, but what a synopsis isn’t. Below, we’ll discuss some other types of summaries that differ from synopses.

Synopsis vs. outline

It’s important to know the difference between a synopsis and an outline. An outline is like a “skeleton” for your book that you can create to help you write by then fleshing out your outline with details. A synopsis, on the other hand, is a complete summary of your book that you use to give agents and editors an in-depth, complete account of all the key details from beginning to end.

Synopsis vs. abstract

An abstract is a short and general book summary and doesn’t include every detail. The goal of an abstract is to give a brief and general summary of the book. A synopsis goes into every detail, with a deeper dive into specifics.

A good synopsis vs. abstract rule of thumb is to consider whether you need a very general summary or a specific and detailed one. If you need a detailed one, then you need to know how to write a synopsis.

Synopsis vs. pitch

When considering the question of synopsis vs. pitch, remember that a pitch is the shortest type of summary, and a synopsis is one of the longest. A pitch is designed to make your book sound appealing in just a few sentences, so it’s designed for maximum impact—sort of like a marketing tagline or log line. Pitches are quick and impactful, whereas synopses give all the important details.

Sometimes a synopsis is a dry, straight summary that is written for informational purposes rather than emotional impact. Other times, it is written to be entertaining and showcase the writer’s creative voice. This will depend on the target audience of your synopsis.

Types of Synopsis

There are several different types of synopses, depending on what you are writing about.

Project synopsis

A project synopsis is often used in science and engineering fields and summarizes a project’s goals, processes, and conclusions. It often starts with a statement summarizing the problem that the project aims to solve. It delves into methods used and other details that are important to the project, such as relevant details about the project’s participants.

Research synopsis

Of the three main types of synopses, research and project synopses are most often used by research and scientific institutions. Like a project synopsis, a research synopsis summarizes the problem or question the research is attempting to solve and then describes how the research was conducted.

Research synopses also give details on the researchers themselves, such as any relevant academic degrees they hold.

Literary synopsis

A literary synopsis is a synopsis of a work of fiction. It summarizes all the critical elements of a book so that an agent or publisher understands, to a high level of detail, what a book is about without having read it.

How to Write a Synopsis for Your Finished Manuscript in Five Easy Steps

• Make a list of your book’s key elements.  These include the most critical story and plot points, conflict, characters, settings, themes, and tone. For the plot, go through each chapter, and write down one to three of the most important plot developments from each. Then flesh out each item on your list with any other important details.
• Write a good opening sentence.  This should summarize your character, setting, and the immediate conflict, ensuring you make it clear what’s at stake. Then link together your detailed list from step 1 to form a first draft of your synopsis.
• Read through the synopsis.  Then add any details you may have forgotten. Also, look for details you included that are not critical—and cut them.
• Read through it again.  Ensure that the plot and character arcs are clearly defined.
• Give it a final edit and proofread. A one-page synopsis is often ideal, but publishers may request a synopsis of three to five pages or specify some other length.

That’s it! Now you know how to write a synopsis.

One-Page Synopsis

A one-page synopsis has to be even leaner than a three- or four-page synopsis, so it’s important that it contain only the most important details. If you find that your synopsis is too long, find ways to be more succinct, cutting out any information that isn’t absolutely critical to understanding the book. For example, did you describe characters that aren’t essential to the most important plot plots? Did you include details that do nothing to move the actual story along? Cut them out to strengthen—and shorten—your synopsis.

Once you know how to write a synopsis for a book, research project, or study, the process is the same every time. So whether you’re a budding novelist or a student working on an English-class project, use the information in this post to build a formula for writing different types of synopses.

Other Resources You Might Like

Crafting Timeless Content

Mastering the Art of Persuasive White Papers

Writing Effective Press Releases in a Digital Age

Get elite updates straight to your inbox..

• Content Writing
• Marketing and Sales Enablement
• Program Management
• AI Implementation

Who We Help

• Thought Leaders
• Cybersecurity
• Health Care
• Full-Time Careers
• Freelance Opportunities
• Press and Awards
• Success Stories
• About Elite

In the News

• Elite Creative Makes the Inc. 5000 for the Third Year in a Row

•   ---Citations---

Translate this page into:

Guidelines for writing a research project synopsis or protocol

"Success is often the result of taking a mis - step in the right direction. "

Al Bernstein

A protocol or a synopsis of a research project is a document submitted to an authority or an institution for the purpose of

• Ethical clearance
• Formal registration to universities for the award of a degree or doctorate
• Peer review
• Financial assistance from organizations like ICMR, DST, NACO, DGHS, and MHRD

Synopsis is the gist of your planned project submitted for approval from competent authorities. It gives a panoramic view of your research for quick analysis by the reviewers.

Thus, a protocol or a synopsis forms an integral part of a research project or a thesis. Many universities have made it mandatory for the postgraduate degree student to prepare a thesis as a part of their postgraduate training. A good knowledge about how a protocol or a synopsis is written is imperative to all people involved in medical research.

Literally, protocol (Greek word, protokollon - first page) means a format procedure for carrying out a scientific research. Synopsis (Greek word, sun - together, opsis - seeing) means brief summary of something. Frequently, both the terms are used as synonyms but the term ′synopsis′ is used more often.

A synopsis should be constructed in a manner that facilitates the reviewer to understand the research project at a glance. It should be brief but precise. A synopsis can be structured in the following manner:

• Statement of the problem and hypothesis
• Aims and objectives
• Review of literature
• Research methodology
• Official requirements

Title The title of the research project should be brief but informative; sensationalization of the title is best avoided. It should neither be too short nor too long. Any name of the institution, the number of cases to be studied should not be included. The hypothesis to be studied can be included.

a. "Study of ectopic pregnancy"

This was a title chosen for university registration. The title is too short. It does not state the problem or the hypothesis and is least informative. More meaningful title shall be, "Study of ectopic pregnancy in relation to morbidity, mortality, and intervention in a referral hospital".

b. "A novel sustained release matrix based on biodegradable poly (esteramides) and, impregnated with bacteriophages and an antibiotic shows promise in management of infected venous stasis ulcer and other poorly healing wounds", (Int. J Dermat vol 8 2002). The title is long and ill conceived. It gives a confusing picture about the study problem. Such long titles are best avoided. Certain amount of sensationalization is also present by using term ′novel′. More meaningful title shall be, "Response of venous stasis ulcers and other poorly healing wounds to a biodegradable matrix impregnated with bacteriophages and an antibiotic". The other details about the new method can be mentioned while stating the problem.

c. "Fine needle aspiration, as a diagnostic tool for papulonodular skin lesions". This is an acceptable, informative, and precise title. It states the hypothesis correctly.

Statement of the problem or hypothesis The problem being studied should be mentioned in precise and clear terms. Understanding the problem aids the researcher in constructing the research proposal. It also allows the person to formulate the hypothesis. The problem under study should be relevant to the present. A brief account of its utility at the local or national level has to be discussed. The present status of the problem and the necessity for taking up the study needs to be mentioned.

Hypothesis is mentioned as a tentative prediction or explanation of the relationship between two or more variables. Hypothesis should not be a haphazard guess but should reflect the knowledge, imagination, and experience of the investigator. Hypothesis can be formulated by understanding the problem, reviewing the literature on it, and considering other factors. A researcher can state the problem and the hypothesis in about 200 words covering all the aspects described above.

Aims and objectives All research projects should have objectives and aims and every effort should be made to achieve them. The objectives and aims should be only a few (2-3). They must pertain to the study problem. Usages of terms like "first study", "the only study", etc. should be avoided.

Review of literature Review of literature is a very important part of a research project. It achieves the following:

• Familiarizes the reader to the problem under study.
• It describes the work done by others either at local or international level on it or similar subject.
• It helps the researcher to understand the difficulties faced by others and the corrective steps taken or modifications made by them. The researcher can anticipate similar or additional problems during the study and review of literature helps him in anticipating them.
• Research methodology of the researcher can be structured and modified after reviewing the literature.
• The review assists in identifying various variables in the research project and conceptualizes their relationship.
• Review of literature in a synopsis helps the reviewer in assessing the knowledge of the researcher. The reviewer can assess the work put in by the researcher and also assists in assessing the feasibility of the study.

The review of literature in a synopsis need not be exhaustive. The relevant information should be covered in about 300 words quoting 8-10 authentic, easily retrievable references. Literature can be reviewed by using various scientific-information-gathering methods. These are journals, national or international; bulletins of organizations like WHO, CDC, and ICMR; books; computer-assisted searches like Medline and Medlar; and personal communications with other researchers. Internet provides a vast avenue for information gathering. Care must be taken to retrieve only relevant information. In this era of information technology review of literature is literally "just a click away".

Research methodology In a synopsis the research methodology adopted should be mentioned in about 150-200 words. The research methodology forms the core of the research project. The methodology should cover the following aspects:

• Study design

Study settings

• Study methods - examinations or investigations
• Data collection
• Data analysis

Study design The methodology starts with selection of study design. A single study design or a combination can be selected e.g.:

Descriptive designs

Cross-sectional study or survey

Epidemiological description of disease occurrence

Community diagnosis

Study of natural history of a disease

Observational analytical designs

Prospective study

Retrospective study

Follow-up study

Experimental designs

Animal studies

Therapeutic clinical trials - drugs

Prophylactic clinical trials- vaccines

Field trials

Operational designs

A mention about the research setting should be made. This includes information about the institution, facilities available, time of study, and population of study.

Sampling Sampling is selecting a sample of appropriate size for the study. The sample size depends on the study design. The study population can be population of cases, population of people, or population of recipients of certain treatment.

There are many methods for sampling like simple random, systemic and stratified sampling, cluster sampling, etc. Care should be taken to ensure that the sample size is adequate to produce meaningful results. The sample size should be adequate to apply all relevant tests of statistical significance. The samples should be representative of the population and should be reliable. This minimizes sampling errors.

Variables Variables are the factors that can change. These changes can affect the outcome of a research project. Thus, it is important to identify the variables at the planning stage. They should be quantified with a measurable unit. Knowledge of the various variables in a research project will assist in refining the objectives. Usually, objectives of a research will be to see the effect of independent variables on dependent variables. There are four types of variables.

Independent variables

These are the variables that can be manipulated by the researcher and the effects of that are observed on the other variables. For example, predisposing factors, risk factors and cause.

Dependent variables

The changes occur as a result of independent variables. For example, disease and outcome.

Intervening variables

These may influence the effect of independent variables on the dependent variables. For example, while studying the response of HIV-AIDS to HAART the outcome may be influenced by the presence of antitubercular drugs.

Background variables

These are changes that are relevant in the groups or population under study. These need to be included in the study. For example, age, sex, and ethnic origin.

Controls Control groups increase the validity of the research project. They usually consist of units of same population but differ in some respects. Controls are not necessary for all research projects. As far as possible they should be used in all analytical studies, drug trials, and intervention programs.

Study methods Here the researcher will have to describe the method of data collection, which may be in the form of:

• Questionnaire
• Medical examination
• Laboratory investigations
• Screening procedures

A sample of the proforma should be prepared and attached. The possible cost involved and any financial assistance received must be mentioned.

Data collection A brief note on how data are collected should be included. The information should be about:

• The organizational setup
• Training to data collecting team
• Logistic support
• Plans for collaboration with other organization should be included

Data analysis Data analysis is an important part of a research project. A good analysis leads to good results. The plans for data analysis should be mentioned under the following heads Statistical methods, Computer program used, and Data sorting method. A general statement "appropriate statistical methods will be used." must be avoided.

Ethical clearance Wherever necessary, ethical committee clearance from the institute should be obtained. The certificate must be attached. Ethical clearance is required in all human and animal studies.

References All references quoted in review of literature and anywhere else in the synopsis should be listed here. There are two styles for writing references, Vancouver style and Harvard style. Vancouver style is easy to follow as it depends on the numbers as quoted in text.

Official requirements A synopsis is incomplete if it does not contain the following information:

• Name of the researcher and designation
• Name and designation of the guide
• Name and designation of head of department\institution
• Name of the institution
• Signatures of all with official seal

Synopsis writing is an important step in a research project. A good synopsis will give maximum information in minimum words. A well-conceived synopsis will go a long way in convincing the reviewer about the ability of the researcher to conduct the project. In cases of need for financial assistance, the request will be considered favorably. Thus, all research workers should make efforts to prepare a well-structured synopsis.

Acknowledgments

The author is thankful to M/s Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers for their permission to reproduce this article from the "Handbook on Health Professional Education" published by them. [21] [Table 1]

Suggested read for related articles:

• Eat Coat, Eat! Writing style and Indian Dermatology… October 28, 2023
• Equipoise: Where does it stand in current clinical research February 25, 2022
• Research waste is universal June 1, 2022

© Copyright 2024 – Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology – All rights reserved. Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists & Leprologists (IADVL), India.

ISSN (Print): 0378-6323 ISSN (Online): 0973-3922

Research guidance, Research Journals, Top Universities

Format of synopsis for PhD | Download Sample.

Guidelines for Writing Ph. D Synopsis.

FORMAT OF SYNOPSIS (MS/MPHIL & PHD). Given below is an outline for synopsis writing. It provides guidelines for organization and presentation of research.

INTRODUCTION OF 2-3 PAGES

• Identify a real world problem
• Describe the undesirable symptoms
• Identify the knowledge gap that needs to be filled in order to help solve the problem
• Support your discussion with solid peer-reviewed references

LITERATURE REVIEW

• Create an Outline or “mindmap” of the key theories and concepts.
• Dig deep into the “ Peer-reviewed” literature for each theory and concept and create an annotated bibliography and literature map
• Write literature review
• Map out the research gap
• Identify the “type(s)” of question that need to be answer to fulfill the purpose
• Develop the main research question and sub-questions
• Develop hypotheses as appropriate
• Identify and diagram the key variables in the research question
• Identify and diagram the key relationships between the variables
• Identify and diagram the key context factors
• Describe the framework
• Research Process
• Based on the research questions, the overall approach (Data Collection, Analysis methods, Validity and Reliability test process)

POSSIBLE OUTCOME AND LIMITATIONS OF YOUR STUDY

• Identify the larger application(s) and meaning(s) of the findings.
• Identify the limitations associated with the findings and conclusion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OR REFERENCES

Most preferable format:

Font: Times New Roman

Title of the thesis: 18

Main Heading: 14 Bold

Sub Heading: 12 Bold

Spacing 1.5

Reference style: APA/IEEE/Harvard

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research synopsis writing

Related Papers

International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Science Archive

Mohammed Ismael Rushdi

An abstract is like a movie trailer. People will only consider reading the rest of the manuscript if they find your abstract interesting. It is an outline/brief summary of your paper and your whole project. Keywords: , research, descriptive and informative research.

Langley, BC: Trinity Western University. …

Paul T P Wong

Shubham Mishra

Alex Galarosa

William Schafer

The abstract serves two major purposes: it helps a person decide whether to read the paper, and it provides the reader with a framework for understanding the paper if they decide to read it. Thus, your abstract should describe the most important aspects of the study within the word-limit provided by the journal. As appropriate for your research, try to include a statement of the problem, the people you studied, the dependent and independent variables, the instruments, the design, major findings, and conclusions. If pressed for space, concentrate on the problem and,

UncleChew Bah

Parlindungan Pardede

Amir siddiqui

Hira Qureshi

Synopsis is a short summary of your Ph.D thesis work. This paper suggests some ideas to motivate the young researchers for effectively writing the Ph.D synopsis with essential tips and tricks.This can act as a reference and help young researcher to going to write Ph.D synopsis.

RELATED PAPERS

Health Economics

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Marco Ruzzi

Chemical Communications

Ravindra Dubey

Irena Katanec

International Journal of African and Asian Studies

Kifle Zerga

Usha Chakraborty

Antonio Cano-Orellana

Biology of the cell

Manoel Costa

Bogotá : Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2018.

Catherine Gonzalez Gaviria

ANNAMARIA SILEO

International Journal of Engineering Science

alinur buyukaksoy

Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária

Rosangela Machado

Journal of Applied Sciences

Prof. Saeid Eslamian

Land Use Policy

jose-manuel álvarez martínez

Monthly Weather Review

Tendencias Pedagogicas

LUIS PALOMARES

Neurosurgery

Naoyuki Uchiyama

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Dr.E Hartung

Agricultural Economics

Tassew Woldehanna

Dian Phylipsen

Treasury Working Paper Series

Francois GRIN

frans leeuw

Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy

prakash diwan

Call Girls in Sector 16 Rohini

preeya khan

Journal of Catalysis

Erika Silveira

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Office of Science Policy

News & Announcements

Home » NIH Publishes Revisions to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines)

NIH Publishes Revisions to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines)

NIH has revised the NIH Guidelines to specify biosafety practices for research involving gene drive modified organisms (GDMOs) in contained research settings.  These revisions include: 

Specifying the minimum containment requirement for research involving GDMOs;  

Articulating considerations for risk assessment and additional responsibilities for Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) and Biosafety Officers 

NIH previously published a Request for Information (RFI) in August 2023 seeking public input on proposed revisions. The proposed revisions were informed by recommendations contained in the Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee (NExTRAC) report, Gene Drives in Biomedical Research .   

The revised version of the NIH Guidelines is available at https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/NIH_Guidelines.htm . To assist IBCs, biosafety professionals, and investigators with implementation of these changes, OSP has developed a reference document to help ensure the safe and responsible conduct of research involving GDMOs in contained research settings.   Questions may be sent to [email protected] .  Also, please consider following us on X @ NIH_OSP .

Recent News & Announcements

Nih office of science policy currently recruiting for supervisory health science policy analyst.

April 12, 2024

April 4, 2024

Summary of OSP Workshop on Transforming Discoveries into Products Now Available

March 11, 2024

Wait! Try this Special Offer

Subscribe now and save 15%, wait – try this special offer.

Plus 2 free gifts

• Facebook . opens in new tab
• Twitter . opens in new tab
• LinkedIn . opens in new tab
• Open Athens/Shibboleth
• Activate Print Subscription
• Create Account
• Renew subscription

Stay Informed, with Concise, Evidence Based Information

Renew today to continue your uninterrupted access to NEJM Journal Watch.

Subscribe or Renew

Sign into your account

Forgot Password? Login via Athens or your Institution

Already a print subscriber? Activate your online access.

• SUMMARY AND COMMENT | 
• General Medicine
• Ambulatory Medicine
• Hospital Medicine

April 9, 2024

Managing Elevated Blood Pressure in Hospitalized Patients

Neil H. Winawer, MD, SFHM , reviewing Wilson LM et al. Ann Intern Med 2024 Apr 2

Practice patterns vary for asymptomatic patients, and guidelines for management are lacking.

Management of elevated blood pressure (BP) in hospitalized patients varies widely. In this systematic review of 14 clinical practice guidelines on BP management in adults, researchers examined whether (and how) these guidelines addressed managing hypertension in hospitalized patients, with particular attention to hypertensive urgencies or emergencies. Findings were as follows:

No guideline recommended specific BP targets or provided goals for managing asymptomatic moderately elevated BP in hospitalized patients.

Hypertensive emergency (i.e., BP >180/120 mm Hg with end-organ damage) recommendations consistently included use of intravenous antihypertensive agents in intensive care settings.

Recommendations for managing hypertensive urgency (i.e., BP >180/120 mm Hg without end-organ damage) were inconsistent.

No recommendations addressed management of elevated inpatient BP for transitions from hospital to home. Outpatient treatment with oral medications and follow-up in days to weeks were advised most often.

Unlike inpatient management of elevated BP, outpatient BP goals were defined clearly, varying between 130/80 mm Hg and 140/90 mm Hg.

Clear practice guidelines exist for managing elevated BP for hypertensive emergency or for outpatients, but those strategies are not applicable to treatment of asymptomatic inpatients. In this population, use of parenteral agents often yields adverse outcomes ( NEJM JW Gen Med Mar 15 2023 and J Hypertens 2023; 41:288), and titrating up oral medications can lead to serious adverse events and excess readmissions ( NEJM JW Gen Med Oct 15 2019 and JAMA Intern Med 2019; 179:1528). For asymptomatic hypertensive inpatients, the most prudent approach for hospitalists is communicating BP concerns to primary care clinicians and arranging close outpatient follow-up, rather than treating BP elevations during hospital stays or at discharge.

Wilson LM et al. Management of inpatient elevated blood pressures: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 2024 Apr 2; [e-pub]. ( https://doi.org/10.7326/M23-3251 )

Facebook  |  Twitter  |  LinkedIn  |  Email  |  Copy URL

• Disclosures

Disclosures for Neil H. Winawer, MD, SFHM, at time of publication

Topics hypertension, latest in general medicine.

• Apr 9, 2024

Mixed Connective Tissue Disease: A Large Case Series

Allan S. Brett, MD

Should Patients with COVID-19 Who Are at Standard Risk Take Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir?

Molly S. Brett, MD

The Role of Imaging in Managing Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Aaron J. Calderon, MD, FACP, SFHM

• Apr 8, 2024

No Benefit of Beta-Blockers in Revascularized Patients with Normal Ejection Fraction After MI

Frederick A. Masoudi, MD, MSPH, MACC, FAHA

Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Low-Risk Patients

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc

Neil H. Winawer, MD, SFHM

Editor-in-Chief

NEJM Journal Watch Hospital Medicine

Stay Informed, with Concise, Evidence-Based Information.

• Open access
• Published: 29 March 2023

Mapping ethical issues in the use of smart home health technologies to care for older persons: a systematic review

• Nadine Andrea Felber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8207-2996 1 ,
• Yi Jiao (Angelina) Tian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2969-9655 1 ,
• Félix Pageau   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4249-7399 2 ,
• Bernice Simone Elger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0857-0510 1 &
• Tenzin Wangmo 1  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  24 , Article number:  24 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

6110 Accesses

7 Citations

17 Altmetric

Metrics details

The worldwide increase in older persons demands technological solutions to combat the shortage of caregiving and to enable aging in place. Smart home health technologies (SHHTs) are promoted and implemented as a possible solution from an economic and practical perspective. However, ethical considerations are equally important and need to be investigated.

We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines to investigate if and how ethical questions are discussed in the field of SHHTs in caregiving for older persons.

156 peer-reviewed articles published in English, German and French were retrieved and analyzed across 10 electronic databases. Using narrative analysis, 7 ethical categories were mapped: privacy, autonomy, responsibility, human vs. artificial interactions, trust, ageism and stigma, and other concerns.

The findings of our systematic review show the (lack of) ethical consideration when it comes to the development and implementation of SHHTs for older persons. Our analysis is useful to promote careful ethical consideration when carrying out technology development, research and deployment to care for older persons.

Registration

We registered our systematic review in the PROSPERO network under CRD42021248543.

Peer Review reports

Introduction/background

Significant advancements in medicine, public health and technology are allowing the world population to grow increasingly older adding to the steady rise in the proportion of senior citizens (aged over 65) [ 1 ]. Because of this growth in the aging population, the demand for and financial costs of caring for older adults are both rising [ 2 ]. That older persons generally wish to age in place and receive healthcare at home [ 2 ] may mean accepting risks such as falling, a risk that increases with frailty [ 3 ]. However, many prefer accepting these risks rather than moving into long term care facilities [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

A solution to this multi-facetted problem of ageing safely at home and receiving appropriate care, while keeping costs at bay may be the use of smart home health technologies (SHHTs). A smart home is defined by Demiris and colleagues as “ residence wired with technology features that monitor the well-being and activities of their residents to improve overall quality of life, increase independence and prevent emergencies” [ 7 ]. SHHTs then, represent a certain type of smart home technology, which include non-invasive, unobtrusive, interoperable and possibly wearable technologies that use a concept called the Internet-of-Things (IoT) [ 8 ]. These technologies could thereby remotely monitor the older resident and register any abnormal deviations in the daily habits and vital signs while sending alerts to their formal and informal caregivers when necessary. These SHHTs could permit older people (and their caregivers) to receive the necessary medical support and attention at their convenience and will, thereby allowing them to continue living independently in their home environment.

All of these functions offer benefits to older persons wishing to age at home. While focusing on practical advantages is important, an equally important question to ask is how ethical these technologies are when used in the care of older persons. Principles of biomedical ethics, such as autonomy, justice [ 9 ], privacy [ 10 ], and responsibility [ 11 ] should not only be respected by medical professionals, but by technology developers and build-into the technologies as well.

The goal of our systematic review is therefore to investigate whether and which ethical concerns are discussed in the pertinent theoretical and empirical research on SHHTs for older persons between 2000 and 2020. Different from previous literature reviews [ 12 , 13 , 14 ],, which only explored practical aspects, we explicitly examined if and how researchers treated the ethical aspects of SHHTs in their studies, adding an important, yet often overlooked aspect to the systematic literature. Moreover, we present how and which ethical concerns are discussed in the theoretical literature and which ones in empirical literature, to shed light on possible gaps regarding which and how different ethical concerns are developed. Identifying these gaps is the first important step to eventually connecting bioethical considerations to the real world, adapting policies, guidelines and technologies itself [ 15 ]. Thus, our systematic review is the first one to do so in the context of ethical issues in SHHTs used for caregiving for older persons.

Search strategy

With the guidance of an information specialist from the University of Basel, our team developed a search strategy according to the PICO principle: Population 1 (Older adults), Population 2 (Caregivers), Intervention (Smart home health technologies), and Context (Home). The outcome of ethics was intentionally omitted as we wanted to capture all relevant studies without narrowing concerns that we would classify as “ethical”. Within each category, synonyms and spelling variations for the keywords were used to include all relevant studies. We then adapted the search string by using database-specific thesaurus terms in all ten searched electronic databases: EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SocIndex, SCOPUS, IEEE, Web of Science, Philpapers, and Philosophers Index. We limited the search to peer-reviewed papers published between January 1st, 2000 and December 31st, 2020, written in the English, French, and German languages. This time frame allowed us to map the evolution to SHHTs as a new field.

The inclusion criteria were the following: (1) The article must be an empirical or theoretical original research contribution. Hence, book chapters, conference proceedings, newspaper articles, commentary, dissertations, and thesis were excluded. Also excluded were other systematic reviews since their inclusion would duplicate findings from our individual studies. (2) When the included study was empirical, the study’s population of interest must be older persons over 65 years of age, and/or professional or informal caregivers who provide care to older persons. Informal caregivers include anyone in the community who provided support without financial compensation. Professional caregivers include nurses and related professions who receive financial compensation for their caregiving services. (3) The included study must investigate SHHTs and their use in the older persons’ place of dwelling.

First, we carried out the systematic search across databases and removed all duplicates through EndNote (see supplementary Table  1 in appendix part 1 for a list of all included articles). One member of the research team screened all titles manually and excluded irrelevant papers. Then, two authors screened the abstracts and excluded irrelevant papers, and any disagreements were solved by a third author. She then also combined all included articles and removed further duplicates.

PRISMA 2020 Flowchart

Final inclusion and data extraction

All included articles were searched and retrieved online (and excluded if full text was not available). Three co-authors then started data extraction, where several papers were excluded due to irrelevant content. To code the extracted data, a template was developed, which was tested in a first round of data extraction and then used in Microsoft Excel during the remaining extraction process. Study demographics and ethical considerations were recorded. Each extracting author was responsible for a portion of articles. If uncertainties or disputes occurred, they were solved by discussion. To ensure that our data extraction was not biased, 10% of the articles were reviewed independently. Upon comparing data extracted of those 10% of our overall sample, we found that items extracted reached 80% consistency.

Data synthesis

The extracted datasets were combined and ethical discussions encountered in the publications were analyzed using narrative synthesis [ 16 ]. During this stage, the authors discussed the data and recognized seven first-order ethical categories. Information within these categories were further analyzed to form sub-categories that describe and/or add further information to the key ethical category.

Nature of included articles

Our search initially identified 10,924 papers in ten databases. After the duplicates were removed, 9067 papers remained whose titles were screened resulting in exclusion of 5215 papers (Fig.  1 ). The examination of remaining 3845 abstracts of articles led to the inclusion of 374 papers for full-texts for retrieval. As we were unable to find 20 papers after several attempts, the remaining 354 full-texts were included for full-text review. In this full-text review phase, we further excluded 198 full-texts with reasons (such as technologies employed in hospitals, or technologies unrelated to health). Ultimately, this systematic review included 144 empirical and 12 theoretical papers specifying normative considerations of SHHTs in the context of caregiving for older persons.

Almost all publications (154 out of 156) were written in English, and over 67% [ 105 ] were published between 2014 and 2020. About a quarter (26%; 41 papers) were published between 2007 and 2013 and only 7% (10 articles) were from 2000 to 2006. Apart from the 12 theoretical papers, the methodology used in the 144 empirical papers included the following: 42 articles (29%) used a mixed-methods approach, 39 (27%) experimental, 38 (26%) qualitative, 15 (10%) quantitative, and the remaining were of an observational, ethnographical, case-study, or iterative testing nature.

The functions of SHHTs tested or studied in the included empirical papers were categorized as such: 29 articles (20.14%) were solely involved with (a) physiological and functioning monitoring technologies, 16 (11.11%) solely with (b) safety/security monitoring and assistance functions, 23 (15.97%) solely promoted (c) social interactions, and 9 (6.25%) solely for (d) cognitive and sensory assistance. However, 46 articles (29%) also involved technologies that fulfilled more than one of the categorized functions. The specific types of SHHTs included in this review comprised: intelligent homes (71 articles, 49.3%); assistive autonomous robots (49 articles, 34.03%); virtual/augmented/mixed reality (7, 4.4%); and AI-enabled health smart apps and wearables (4 articles, 1.39%). Likewise, the remaining 20 articles (12.8.8%) involved either multiple technologies or those that did not fall into any of the above categories.

Ethical considerations

Of the 156 papers included, 55 did not mention any ethical considerations (See supplementary Table  1 in appendix part 1). Among the 101 papers that noted one or more ethical considerations, we grouped them into 7 main categories (1) privacy, (2) human vs. artificial relationships, (3) autonomy, (4) responsibility, (5) social stigma and ageism, (6) trust, and (7) other normative issues (see Table  1 ). Each of these categories consists of various sub-categories that provided more information on how smart home health technologies (possibly) affected or interacted with the older persons or caregivers in the context of caregiving (Table  2 ). Each of the seven ethical considerations are explained in depth in the following paragraphs.

This key category was cited across 58 articles. In theoretical articles, privacy was one of the most often discussed ethical consideration, as 9 out of 12 mentioned privacy related concerns. Among the 58 articles, four sub-issues within privacy were discussed.

(A)The awareness of privacy was reported as varying according to the type of SHHT end-user. Whereas some end-users were more aware or privacy in relation to SHHTs, others denoted little or a total lack of consideration, while some had differing levels of concerns for privacy that changed as it is weighed against other values, such as access to healthcare [ 17 ] or feeling of safety [ 18 ]. Both caregivers and researchers often took privacy concerns into account [ 19 , 20 , 21 ], while older persons themselves did not share the same degree of fears or concerns [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Older persons in fact were less concerned about privacy than costs and usability [ 23 ]. Furthermore, they were willing to trade privacy for safety and the ability to live at home. Nevertheless, several papers acknowledged that privacy is an individualized value, whereby its significance depends on both the person and their context, thus their preferences cannot be generalized [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Lastly, there were also some papers that explicitly stated that there were no privacy concerns found by the participants, or that participants found it useful to have monitoring without mentioning privacy as a barrier [ 29 , 30 , 31 ].

The second prevalent sub-issue within privacy was (B) privacy by choice. Both older persons and their caregivers expressed a preference for having a choice in technology used, in what data is collected, and where technology should or should not be to installed [ 32 , 33 ]. For example, some spaces were perceived as more private and thus monitoring felt more intrusive [ 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Formal caregivers were concerned about monitoring technologies being used as a recording device for their work [ 37 , 38 ]. Furthermore, older persons were often worried about cameras [ 39 , 40 ] and “eyes watching”, even if no cameras were involved [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].

The third privacy concern was (C) risk and regulation of privacy, which included discussions surrounding dissemination of data or active data theft [ 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 ], as well as change in behavior or relationships due to interaction with technology [ 48 , 49 ]. Researchers were aware of both legal and design-contextual measures that must be observed in order to ensure that these risks were minimized [ 45 , 50 , 51 ].

The final sub-issue that we categorized was (D) privacy in the case of cognitive impairment. This included disagreements if cognitive impairment warrants more intrusive measures or if privacy should be protected for everyone in the same way [ 52 , 53 ].

Human versus artificial relationships

54 articles in our review contained data pertinent to trade-offs between human and artificial caregiving. Firstly, (A) there was a general fear that robots would replace humans in providing care for older persons [ 28 , 54 , 55 , 56 ], along with related concerns such as losing jobs [ 40 , 57 ], disadvantages with substituting real interpersonal contact [ 17 , 46 ], and thus increasing the negative effects associated with social isolation [ 41 , 58 ].

Many papers also emphasized (B) the importance of human caregiving, underlining the necessity of human touch [ 26 , 47 , 50 , 59 ] believing that technology should and could not replace humans in connections [ 17 ], love [ 33 ], relationships [ 60 ], and care through attention to subtle signs of health decline in every in-person visit [ 57 ]. Older persons also preferred human contact over machines and had guarded reactions to purely virtual relationships[ 31 , 61 , 62 ]. The use of technology was seen to dehumanize care, as care should be inherently human-oriented [ 27 , 48 ].

There was data alluding to (C) the positive reactions to technologies performing caregiving tasks and possibly forming attachments with the technology[ 47 , 49 , 58 ]. Furthermore, some papers cited participants reacting positively to robots replacing human care, where the concept of “good care” could be redefined [ 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 ]. Solely theoretical papers also identified possible benefits of tech for socialization and relationship building [ 67 , 68 ].

Finally, many articles raised the idea of (D) collaboration between machine and human to provide caregiving to older persons [ 69 ]. These studies highlighted the possible harms if such collaboration was not achieved, such as informal caregivers withdrawing from care responsibilities [ 70 ] or the reinforcement of oppressive care relations [ 71 ]. Interestingly, opinions varied on whether the caregiving technology, such as a robot should have “life-like” appearance, voices, and emotional expressions, while recognizing the current technological limits in actually providing those features to a satisfactory level [ 46 ]. For example, some users preferred for the robot to communicate with voice commands, while others wanted to further customize this function with specific requests on the types of voices generated [ 65 , 72 ].

40 papers mentioned autonomy of the older person with respect to the use of SHHTs. The first sub-theme categorized was in relation to (A) control, which encompassed positive aspects like (possible) empowerment through technology [ 25 , 26 , 73 , 74 ] and negative aspects such as the possibility of technology taking control over the older person, thus increasing dependence [ 55 , 75 ] or decreasing freedom of decision making [ 48 ]. Several studies reported the wishes of older persons to be in control when using the technology (e.g. technology should be easily switched off or on) and be in control of its potential, meaning the extend of data collected or transferred, for example [ 17 , 30 , 70 , 76 ]. Furthermore, they should have the option to not use technology in spaces where they do not wish to, e.g., public spaces [ 35 ]. The issue of increased dependency was discussed as a loss or rather, fear of the loss of autonomy due to greater reliance on technology as well as the fear of being monitored all the time [ 28 , 48 ]. In addition, using technology was deemed to make older persons more dependent and to increase isolation [ 77 ].

The second sub-category within autonomy highlighted the need for the technology to (B) protect the autonomy and dignity of its older end-users, which also included the unethical practice of deception (e.g.[ 46 , 49 , 54 , 78 ], infantilization [ 31 , 60 ], or paternalism [ 17 , 27 , 57 ], as a way to disrespect older persons’ dignity and autonomy [ 79 , 80 , 81 ]. Also reported was that these users may accept technology to avoid being a burden on others, thus underscoring the value of technology to enhance functional autonomy, understood here as independent functioning [ 52 , 82 , 83 ]. Other studies mentioned this kind of trade-off between autonomy and other values or interests as well. For example, between respecting the autonomy of the older persons versus nudging them towards certain behavior (perceived as beneficial for them) through the help of technology [ 32 ], or between autonomy and safety [ 24 ].

Two sub-issues within autonomy primarily discussed in the theoretical publications were (C) relational autonomy [ 27 , 41 , 49 , 58 ] and (D) explanations on why autonomy should actually be preserved. The former emphasized the fact that older persons do not and should not live isolated lives and that there should be respect and promotion of their relationships with family members, friends, caregivers, and the community as a whole [ 27 , 47 ]. The latter described the benefits of respecting autonomy, such as increased happiness and well-being [ 65 , 67 ] or a sense of purpose [ 84 ], and thus favoring the promotion of autonomy and choice also from a normative perspective.

Responsibility

This theme included data across 25 articles that mentioned concerns such as the effect of using technologies on the current responsibilities of caregivers and older persons themselves. Specifically, the papers discussed (A) the downsides of assistive home technology on responsibility. That is, the use of technology conflicted with moral ideas around responsibility [ 58 ], especially for caregivers [ 57 , 59 ]. Its use also raised more practical concerns, such as the fear of shifting the responsibility onto the technology and thus, diminishing vigilance and/or care. Related to this thought was also a fear of increased responsibility on both older persons [ 60 ] and their caregivers, who were worried about extra work time was needed to integrate technology into their work, learn its functions, analyze data, and respond to potentially higher frequencies of alerts [ 18 , 35 , 36 , 53 , 85 ].

Additionally, studies reported (B) continuous negotiation between (formal) caregivers’ (professional) responsibilities of care and the opportunities that smart technologies could provide [ 26 , 47 , 55 , 70 , 82 ]. For example, increased need for cooperation between informal and formal caregivers due to technology was foreseen [ 81 ] and fear expressed that over-reliance on female caregivers was exacerbated [ 71 ]. Nevertheless, the use of smart home health technologies was often seen to (C) reduce the burden of care, where caregivers could direct their attention and time to the most-needed situations and better align the responsibilities of care [ 5 , 18 , 49 , 74 , 80 , 81 ]. This shift of burden onto a technology was also reported by older persons as freeing [ 48 ].

Ageism and stigma

24 articles discussed ageism and stigma, which included discussions about fear of (A) being stigmatized by others with the use of SHHTs [ 73 , 86 ]. Older persons thought acceptance of such technologies also alluded to an admission of failure [ 82 ], or being perceived by others as frail, old, forgetful [ 77 , 87 ], or even stupid [ 26 , 33 , 88 ]. This resulted in them expressing ageist views stating that they did not need the technology “yet” [ 84 , 89 ]. Some papers reported the belief that the presence of robots was disrespectful for older people [ 52 , 85 , 90 ] and technologies do little to alleviate frustration and the impression of “being stupid” that older persons may have when they are faced with the complexities of the healthcare system [ 73 ]. Furthermore, older persons in a few studies did express unfamiliarity with learning new technologies in old age [ 42 , 66 , 91 ], coupled with fears of falling behind and not keeping up with their development, and feeling pressured to use technology [ 62 , 89 ].

Within ageism and stigma, (B) social influence was deemed to cause older persons to believe that the longer they have been using technology, the more their loved ones want them to use it as well, creating a sort of reinforcing loop [ 27 ]. Other social points were related to self-esteem, meaning that older persons needed to reach a certain threshold first to publicly admit that they need technology [ 85 ], or doubts by caregivers if they were able to use the devices [ 36 ]. This possibly led older persons to prefer unobtrusive technology and those that could not be noticed by visitors [ 22 , 55 , 88 ].

Lastly, (C) two theoretical articles raised concerns in regard to technology exacerbating stigmatization of women and migrants in caregiving. Both Parks [ 47 ] and Roberts & Mort [ 71 ] suggested that caregiving technology which does not question the underlying expectation that women give care to their relatives will worsen such gendered expectations in caregiving.

We identified 18 articles that mentioned some aspect of trust. For both older persons and caregivers, there was often (A) a general mistrust with technologies compared with existing human caregiving [ 33 , 42 ]. Therefore, caregivers became proxies and were relied on to “understand it” and continue providing care [ 48 ]. For caregivers the lack of trust was associated with the use of technologies, for example, leaving older persons alone with technology [ 81 ], worrying that older persons would not trust the technology [ 29 , 32 ] or that it could change their professional role [ 23 ]. One paper even reported that using technology meant caregivers themselves are not trusted [ 92 ]. Surprisingly, some studies found that older persons had no problem trusting technology, even considering it safer and more reliable than humans [ 58 , 70 ].

The second sub-theme concerned (B) characteristics promoting trust. That is, the degree of automation [ 30 ](, the involvement of trusted humans in design and use [ 34 , 93 ], perceived usefulness of the technology and spent time with the technology all influenced trust [ 59 , 72 , 94 ]. For robots specifically, they were trusted more than virtual agents, such as Alexa [ 60 , 65 ]. Taking this step further, studies discovered that robots with a higher degree of automation or a lower degree in anthropomorphism level increased trust [ 30 ].

There were several miscellaneous considerations not fitting the ones already mentioned above, and we categorized them as follows. Firstly, two theoretical articles mentioned (A) considerations related to research. Ho, [ 27 ] pointed out that empirical evidence of the usefulness of SHHTs is lacking, which therefore may make them less relevant as a possible solution for aging in place. Palm et al. (2013) suggested that, if research would consider the fact that many costs of caregiving are hidden because of non-paid informal caregivers, the actual economic benefits of SHHTs are unknown. Lastly, two articles alluded to (B) psychological phenomena related to the use of SHHTs. Pirhonen et al., [ 58 ] suggested that robots can promote the ethical value of well-being through the promotion of feelings of hope. The other phenomenon was feeling of blame and fear associated with the adoption of the technology, as caregivers may be pushed to use SHHTs in order to not be blamed for failing to use technology [ 18 ]. This then also nudged caregivers to think that using SHHTs cannot do any harm, so it is better to use it than not use it.

Our systematic review investigated if and how ethical considerations appear in the current research on SHHTs in the context of caregiving for older persons. As we included both empirical and theoretical works of literature, our review is more comprehensive that existing systematic reviews (e.g.[ 12 , 13 , 14 ], that have either only explored the empirical side of the research and neglected to study ethical concerns. Our review offers an informative and useful insights on dominant ethical issues related to caregiving, such as autonomy and trust [ 95 , 96 ]. At the same time, the study findings brings forth less known ethical concerns that arise when using technologies in the caregiving context, such as responsibility [ 97 ] and ageism and stigma.

The first key finding of our systematic review is the silence on ethics in SHHTs research for caregiving purposes. Over a third of the reviewed publications did not mention any ethical concern. One possible explanation is related to scarcity [ 98 ]. In the context of research in caregiving for older persons, “scarcity” can be understood in a variety of ways: one way is to see the available space for ethical principles in medical technology research as scarce. For example, according to Einav & Ranzani [ 99 ] “Medical technology itself is not required to be ethical; the ethics of medical technology revolves around when, how and on whom each technology is used” (p.1612). Determining the answers to these questions is done empirically, by providing proof of benefit of the technology, ongoing reporting on (possibly harmful) long term effects, and so on [ 99 ]. Given that publication space in journal is limited to a certain amount of text, the available space that ethical considerations can take up is scarce. Therefore, adding deliberations about the unearthed values or issues in our systematic review, like trust, responsibility or ageism, may simply not fit in the space available in research publications. This may also be the reason why the values of beneficence and non-maleficence were not found through our narrative analysis. While both values are considered crucial in biomedical ethics [ 9 ], the empirically measured benefits may be considered enough by the authors to demonstrate beneficence (and non-maleficence), leading them to not mention the ethical values explicitly again in their publications.

Another interpretation is the scarcity of time, and the felt pressure to “solve” the problem of limited resources in caregiving [ 2 ]. Researchers might be therefore more inclined to focus on the empirical data showing benefits, rather than to engage in elaborations on ethical issues that arise with those benefits. Lastly, as researchers have to compete for limited funding [ 100 ] and given that technological research receives more funding than biomedical ethics [ 101 ], it is likely that the numbers of publications mentioning purely empirical studies exceeds those publications that solely mention the ethical issues (as our theoretical papers did) or that combine empirical and ethical parts. Further research needs to investigate these hypotheses further.

It is not surprising that privacy was the most discussed ethical issue in relation to SHHTs in caregiving. The topic of privacy, especially in relation to monitoring technologies and/or health, has been widely discussed (see for example [ 102 , 103 , 104 ]. A particularly interesting finding within this ethical concern was related to privacy and cognitive impairment. While discussions around autonomy and cognitive impairment are popular in bioethical research (see e.g. [ 105 , 106 ], privacy, on the other hand, has recently gained more attention for both researchers and designers [ 107 ]. The relation in the reviewed studies between cognitive impairment and privacy seemed to be reversely correlated –intrusions into the privacy of older persons with cognitive impairments were deemed as more justified [ 35 , 53 ], which necessarily does not mean that its ethical, but a practical fact that such intrusions become possible or necessary in the given context. A possible explanation lies in the connectedness of autonomy and privacy, in the sense that autonomy is needed to consent for any sort of intrusions [ 108 ].

Surprisingly, more research papers mentioned the topic of human vs. artificial relationships as an ethical concern than autonomy. Autonomy is often the most discussed ethics topic when it comes to use of technology [ 96 ]. However, fears associated with technology replacing human care has recently gained traction [ 109 , 110 , 111 ].The significance of this theme is likely due to the fact that caregiving for older persons has been (and is) a very human-centric activity [ 112 ]. As mentioned before, the persons willing and able to do this labor (both paid and unpaid caregiver) are limited and their pool is shrinking [ 113 ]. The idea of technology possibly filling this gap is not new [ 114 ], but is also clearly causing wariness among both older persons and caregivers, as we have discovered [ 56 , 61 ]. Frequently mentioned was the fear of care being replaced by technology. This finding was to be expected, as nursing is not the only profession where introduction of technology caused fears of job loss [ 115 ]. Within this ethical concern, the importance of human touch and human interaction was underlined [ 110 , 111 ]. Human touch is an important asset for caregivers when they care for older patients, particularly those with dementia, as it is one of the few ways to establish connection and to calm the patient with dementia [ 116 ]. Similarly, human touch and face-to-face interactions are mentioned as a critical aspect of caregiving in general, both for the care recipient and the caregiver [ 117 , 118 ]. While caregivers see the aspect of touching and interacting with older care recipients as a way to make their actions more meaningful and healing [ 90 , 117 ], for care recipients being touched, talked and listened to is part of feeling respected and experiencing dignity [ 118 , 119 ]. Introducing technology into the caregiving profession may therefore quickly elicit associations with cold and lifeless objects [ 59 ]. Future developments, both in the design of the technologies themselves and their implementation in caregiving will require critical discussion among concerned stakeholders and careful decision on how and to what extent the human touch and human care must be preserved.

A unique ethical concern that we have not seen in previous research [ 120 , 121 ] is responsibility, and remarkable within this concern was SHHTs’ negative impact on it. As previously mentioned, the human being and human interaction are seen as central to caregiving [ 117 , 118 ]. This can possibly be extended to concepts exclusively attributable to humans, such as the concept of moral responsibility [ 122 ]. Shifting caregiving tasks onto a technological device, which, by being a device and not a human carer, cannot be morally responsible in the same way as a human being can [ 123 ], may introduce a sense of void that caregivers are reluctant to create. Studies have shown that a mismatch in professional and personal values in nursing causes emotional discomfort and stress [ 124 ], therefore the shift in the professional environment caused by SHHTs is likely to be met with aversion. Additionally, the negative impact of SHHTs on caregiving responsibility was also tied to practical concerns, like not having enough time to learn how to use the technology by the caregivers [ 35 ], or needing to have access to and checking the older person’s health data [ 36 ]. Such concerns point to the possibility that SHHTs can create unforeseen tasks, which could turn into true burdens, instead of alleviating caregivers. Indeed, there are indications that the increase in information about the older person through monitoring technologies causes stress for both caregivers and older persons, as the former feel pressure to look at the available data, while the latter prefer to hide unfavorable information to not seem burdensome for their caregivers [ 125 ]. Another consequence of SHHTs that emerged as a sub-category was the renegotiation of responsibilities among the different stakeholders. In the field of (assistive) technology, this renegotiation is an ongoing process with efforts to make technology and its developers more accountable, through new policies and regulations [ 126 ]. In the realm of assistive technology in healthcare, these negotiations focus on high-risk cases and emergencies [ 127 ]. Who is responsible for the death of a person if the assistive technology failed to recognize an emergency, or to alert humans in time? Such issues around responsibility and legal liability are partially responsible for the slow uptake of technology in caregiving [ 128 ].

Another important but less discussed ethical concern was ageism and stigma. Ageist prejudices include being perceived as slow, useless, burdensome, and incompetent [ 129 ]. Fear of aging and becoming a burden to others is a fear many older persons have, as current social norms demand independence until death [ 130 ]. Furthermore, the general ubiquitous use of technology has possibly exacerbated the issue of ageism, as life became fast paced and more pressure is placed on aging persons to keep up [ 131 ]. While this would call for more attention to studying ageism in relation to technology, our findings indicate that, it does not unfortunately seem at the forefront of concerns that are prevalent in the literature (and thereby the society).

Related to ageism, is the wish of older persons to not be perceived as old and/or in the need of assistance (in the form of technology) explains the prevalent demand for unobtrusive technology. Obtrusiveness, in the context of SHHTs, is defined as “undesirably prominent and or/noticeable”, yet this definition should include the user’s perception and environment, and is thus not an objectively applicable definition [ 132 ]. Nevertheless, we can infer that by “unobtrusive”, users mean SHHTs that is not noticeable by them or, mostly importantly, by other persons to possibly reduce stigma associated with using a technology deemed to be for persons with certain limitations. Further research will have to confirm if unobtrusive technology actually reduces stigma and/or fosters acceptance of such SHHTs in caregiving.

Lastly, the sub-theme of stigmatization of women and immigrants in caregiving and possibly exacerbating their caregiving burden through technology was only discovered in two theoretical publications [ 47 , 71 ]. While it is well known that caregiving burden mostly falls upon women [ 133 , 134 ], many of them with a migration background when it comes to live-in caregivers [ 135 , 136 ]. It is surprising that we found no redistribution of burden of care with technology. This is likely due to the fact that caregiving – be it technologically assisted or not – remains perceived as a more feminine and, unfortunately, low status profession [ 137 ]. The development of technology, however, are still mostly associated with masculinity This tension between the innovators and actual users of technology can lead to the exacerbation of stigma for female and migrant caregivers, as the human bias is conserved by the technology, instead of disrupted through it [ 137 ].

Finally, trust was an expected ethical concern, given that it is a widely discussed topic in relation to technology (see for example, [ 123 , 138 ] and also in the context of nursing [ 95 , 139 ]. Older persons were trusting caregivers to understand SHHTs [ 48 ], while caregivers feared that older persons would not trust the used technology, even though said persons did not express such concerns [ 32 ]. A possibility to mitigate such misunderstandings and put both caregivers and care recipients on an equal understanding of the technology are education tools [ 140 ]. Another surprising finding was that some older persons were inclined to trust SHHTs even more than human caregivers, as they were seen as more reliable [ 70 ]. This trust in technology was increased when a physical robot instead of an only virtual agent was involved [ 60 , 65 ]. Studies in the realm of embodiment of virtual agents and robots suggest that the presence of a body or face promotes human-like interactions with said agents [ 51 ]. Furthermore, our systematic review discovered other characteristics which promote trust in SHHTs, such as perceived usefulness [ 94 ] or time spent with the technology [ 59 ]. Another important aspect is the already existing trust in the person introducing the technology to the user [ 34 , 93 ]. In combining these characteristics in the design and implementation of SHHTs in caregiving, researchers and technology developers need to find creative mechanisms to facilitate trustworthiness and foster adoption of new technologies in caregiving.

Limitations

While we searched 10 databases for publications over a span of 20 years, we are aware that older or newer publications will have escaped our systematic review. Relevant new literature that we have found when writing our results have been incorporated in this manuscript. Furthermore, as we specifically refrained from using terms related to ethics in our search strings to also capture the instances of absence of ethical concerns, this choice may have led to missing a few articles as a consequence, especially in regards to theoretical publications. Lastly, due to lack of resources, we were unable to carry out independent data extraction for all included papers (N = 156) and chose to validate the quality of extracted data by using a random selection of 10% of the included sample. Since there was high agreement on extracted data, we are confident about the quality of our study findings.

SHHTs offer the possibility to mitigate the shortage of human caregiving resources and to enable older persons to age in place, being adequately supported by technology. However, this shift in caregiving comes with ethical challenges. If and how these ethical challenges are mentioned in the current research around SHHTs in caregiving for older persons was the goal of this systematic review. Through analyzing 156 articles, both empirical and theoretical, we discovered that, while over one third of articles did not mention any ethical concerns whatsoever, the other two thirds discussed a plethora of ethical issues. Specifically, we discovered the emergence of concerns with the use of technology in the care of older persons around the theme of human vs. artificial relationships, ageism and stigma, and responsibility. In short, our systematic review offers a comprehensive overview of the currently discussed ethical issues in the context of SHHTs in caregiving for older persons. However, scholars in the fields of gerontology, ethics, and technology working on such issues would be already (or should be) aware that ethical concerns will change with each developing technology and the population it is used for. For instance, with the rise of Artificial intelligence/Machine Learning, new intelligent or smart technologies will continue to mature with use and time. Thus, ethical value such as autonomy will require re-evaluation with this significant content development as well as deciding, if the person would/should be asked to re-consent or how should this decision making proceed should he or she have developed dementia. In sum, more critical work is necessary to prospectively act on ethical concerns that may arise with new and developing technologies that could be used in reducing caregiving burden now and in the future.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this systematic review are included in this published article and its appendices. Appendix part 1 contains all included articles and their characteristics. Appendix part 2 contains the search strategy and all search strings for all searched databases, as well as the PROSPERO registration number.

Hertog S, Cohen B, Population. 2030: Demographic challenges and opportunities for sustainable development planning. undefined [Internet]. 2015 [zitiert 11. Juli 2022]; Verfügbar unter: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Population-2030%3A-Demographic-challenges-and-for-Hertog-Cohen/f0c 5c06b4bf7b53f7cb61fe155e762ec23edbc0b

Bosch-Farré C, Malagón-Aguilera MC, Ballester-Ferrando D, Bertran-Noguer C, Bonmatí-Tomàs A, Gelabert-Vilella S. u. a. healthy ageing in place: enablers and barriers from the perspective of the elderly. A qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):1–23.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cuvillier B, Chaumon M, Body S, Cros F. Detecting falls at home: user-centered design of a pervasive technology. Hum Technol November. 2016;12(2):165–92.

Fitzpatrick JM, Tzouvara V. Facilitators and inhibitors of transition for older people who have relocated to a long-term care facility: a systematic review. Health Soc Care Community Mai. 2019;27(3):e57–81.

Lee DTF, Woo J, Mackenzie AE. A review of older people’s experiences with residential care placement. J Adv Nurs Januar. 2002;37(1):19–27.

Rohrmann S. Epidemiology of Frailty in Older People. In: Veronese N, Herausgeber. Frailty and Cardiovascular Diseases: Research into an Elderly Population [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020 [zitiert 10. Februar 2022]. S. 21–7. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology). Verfügbar unter: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33330-0_3

Demiris G, Hensel BK, Skubic M, Rantz M. Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care Januar. 2008;24(01):120–4.

Majumder S, Aghayi E, Noferesti M, Memarzadeh-Tehran H, Mondal T, Pang Z. u. a. Smart Homes for Elderly Healthcare-Recent advances and Research Challenges. Sens 31 Oktober. 2017;17(11):E2496.

Google Scholar  

Holm S. Autonomy, authenticity, or best interest: everyday decision-making and persons with dementia. Med Health Care Philos 1 Mai. 2001;4(2):153–9.

Trothen TJ. Intelligent Assistive Technology Ethics for Aging Adults: Spiritual Impacts as a Necessary Consideration | EndNote Click [Internet]. 2022 [zitiert 12. Juli 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://click.endnote.com/viewer?doi=10.3390%2Frel13050452 &token=WzMxNTc3MzUsIjEwLjMzOTAvcmVsMTMwNTA0NTIiXQ.zGm-wqWo8mCI5L8GIchNEsUCQjg

Cook AM. Ethical issues related to the Use/Non-Use of Assistive Technologies. Dev Disabil Bull. 2009;37:127–52.

Demiris G, Hensel BK. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of „smart home“ applications.Yearb Med Inform. 2008;33–40.

Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, Miguel-Cruz A, Rios Rincon A. Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int J Med Inf Juli. 2016;91:44–59.

Moraitou M, Pateli A, Fotiou S. Smart Health Caring Home: a systematic review of Smart Home Care for Elders and Chronic Disease Patients. In: Vlamos P, editor. Herausgeber. GeNeDis 2016. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 255–64. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology).

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Klingler C, Silva DS, Schuermann C, Reis AA, Saxena A, Strech D. Ethical issues in public health surveillance: a systematic qualitative review. BMC Public Health 4 April. 2017;17(1):295.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rogers M. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1 | Semantic Scholar [Internet]. 2006 [zitiert 15. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Guidance-on-the-conduct-of-narrative-synthesis-in-A-Popay-Roberts/ed8b23836338f 6fdea0cc55e161b0fc5805f9e27

Draper H, Sorell T. Ethical values and social care robots for older people: an international qualitative study. Ethics Inf Technol 1 März. 2017;19(1):49–68.

Hall A, Wilson CB, Stanmore E, Todd C. Implementing monitoring technologies in care homes for people with dementia: a qualitative exploration using normalization process theory. Int J Nurs Stud Juli. 2017;72:60–70.

Airola E, Rasi P. [PDF] Domestication of a Robotic Medication-Dispensing Service Among Older People in Finnish Lapland | Semantic Scholar [Internet]. 2020 [zitiert 6. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Domestication-of-a-Robotic-Medication-Dispensing-in-Airola-Rasi/c8a 84330af2410efdc0c6efcf56fbaf3490a8292

Aloulou H, Mokhtari M, Tiberghien T, Biswas J, Phua C, Kenneth Lin. JH, u. a. Deployment of assistive living technology in a nursing home environment: methods and lessons learned. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 8 April. 2013;13:42.

Bankole A, Anderson M, Homdee N. BESI: Behavioral and Environmental Sensing and Intervention for Dementia Caregiver Empowerment—Phases 1 and 2 [Internet]. 2020 [zitiert 6. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1533317520906686

Alexander GL, Rantz M, Skubic M, Aud MA, Wakefield B, Florea E. u. a. sensor systems for monitoring functional status in assisted living facility residents. Res Gerontol Nurs Oktober. 2008;1(4):238–44.

Cavallo F, Aquilano M, Arvati M. An ambient assisted living approach in designing domiciliary services combined with innovative technologies for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a case study. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Februar. 2015;30(1):69–77.

Hunter I, Elers P, Lockhart C, Guesgen H, Singh A, Whiddett D. Issues Associated With the Management and Governance of Sensor Data and Information to Assist Aging in Place: Focus Group Study With Health Care Professionals. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2. Dezember 2020;8(12):e24157.

Cahill J, Portales R, McLoughin S, Nagan N, Henrichs B, Wetherall S. IoT/Sensor-Based infrastructures promoting a sense of Home, Independent Living, Comfort and Wellness. Sens 24 Januar. 2019;19(3):485.

Demiris G, Hensel B. Smart Homes” for patients at the end of life. J Hous Elder 20 Februar. 2009;23(1–2):106–15.

Ho A. Are we ready for artificial intelligence health monitoring in elder care? BMC Geriatr Dezember. 2020;20(1):358.

Kang HG, Mahoney DF, Hoenig H, Hirth VA, Bonato P. Hajjar I, u. a. In situ monitoring of Health in older adults: Technologies and Issues: ISSUES IN IN SITU GERIATRIC HEALTH MONITORING. J Am Geriatr Soc August. 2010;58(8):1579–86.

Arthanat S, Begum M, Gu T, LaRoche DP, Xu D, Zhang N. Caregiver perspectives on a smart home-based socially assistive robot for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2 Oktober. 2020;15(7):789–98.

Erebak S, Turgut T. Caregivers’ attitudes toward potential robot coworkers in elder care. Cogn Technol Work Mai. 2019;21(2):327–36.

Meiland FJM, Hattink BJJ, Overmars-Marx T, de Boer ME, Jedlitschka A, Ebben PWG. u. a. participation of end users in the design of assistive technology for people with mild to severe cognitive problems; the european Rosetta project. Int Psychogeriatr Mai. 2014;26(5):769–79.

Bedaf S, Marti P, De Witte L. What are the preferred characteristics of a service robot for the elderly? A multi-country focus group study with older adults and caregivers. Assist Technol 27 Mai. 2019;31(3):147–57.

Epstein I, Aligato A, Krimmel T, Mihailidis A. Older adults’ and caregivers’ perspectives on In-Home Monitoring Technology. J Gerontol Nurs 15 März. 2016;42:1–8.

Chung J, Demiris G, Thompson HJ, Chen KY, Burr R, Patel S. u. a. feasibility testing of a home-based sensor system to monitor mobility and daily activities in korean American older adults. Int J Older People Nurs. 2017;12(1):e12127.

Niemelä M, van Aerschot L, Tammela A, Aaltonen I, Lammi H. Towards ethical guidelines of using Telepresence Robots in Residential Care. Int J Soc Robot 1 Juni. 2019;13(3):431–9.

Robinson EL, Park G, Lane K, Skubic M, Rantz M. Technology for healthy independent living: creating a tailored In-Home Sensor System for older adults and family caregivers. J Gerontol Nurs Juli. 2020;46(7):35–40.

Barnier F, Chekkar R. Building automation, an acceptable solution to dependence? Responses through an Acceptability Survey about a Sensors platform. IRBM Juni. 2018;39(3):167–79.

Birks M, Bodak M, Barlas J, Harwood J, Pether M. Robotic Seals as Therapeutic Tools in an aged care facility: a qualitative study. J Aging Res 1 Januar. 2016;2016:1–7.

Bertera E, Tran B, Wuertz E, Bonner A. A study of the receptivity to telecare technology in a community-based elderly minority population. J Telemed Telecare 1 Februar. 2007;13:327–32.

Mahoney D. An evidence-based adoption of Technology Model for Remote Monitoring of Elders’ Daily Activities. Ageing Int 1 September. 2010;36:66–81.

Boissy P, Corriveau H, Michaud F, Labonte D, Royer MP. A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects. J Telemed Telecare 1 Februar. 2007;13:79–84.

Bradford DK, Kasteren YV, Zhang Q, Karunanithi M. Watching over me: positive, negative and neutral perceptions of in-home monitoring held by independent-living older residents in an australian pilot study. Ageing Soc Juli. 2018;38(7):1377–98.

Cohen C, Kampel T, Verloo H. Acceptability Among Community Healthcare Nurses of Intelligent Wireless Sensor-system Technology for the Rapid Detection of Health Issues in Home-dwelling Older Adults. Open Nurs J [Internet]. 17. April 2017 [zitiert 6. September 2022];11(1). Verfügbar unter: https://opennursingjournal.com/VOLUME/11/PAGE/54/

Boise L, Wild K, Mattek N, Ruhl M, Dodge HH, Kaye J. Willingness of older adults to share data and privacy concerns after exposure to unobtrusive in-home monitoring. Gerontechnology 22 Januar. 2013;11(3):428–35.

Li CZ, Borycki EM. Smart Homes for Healthcare. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;257:283–7.

Moyle W. The promise of technology in the future of dementia care. Nat Rev Neurol Juni. 2019;15(6):353–9.

Parks JA. Home-Based Care, Technology, and the maintenance of selves. HEC Forum Juni. 2015;27(2):127–41.

Essén A. The two facets of electronic care surveillance: An exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices | Request PDF [Internet]. 2008 [zitiert 6. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5457066_The_two_facets_of_electronic_care_surveillance_An_exploration_of_the_views_of_older_people_who_live_with_monitoring_devices

Preuß D, Legal F. Living with the animals: animal or robotic companions for the elderly in smart homes? J Med Ethics Juni. 2017;43(6):407–10.

Geier J, Mauch M, Patsch M, Paulicke D. Wie Pflegekräfte im ambulanten Bereich den Einsatz von Telepräsenzsystemen einschätzen - eine qualitative studie. Pflege Februar. 2020;33(1):43–51.

Kim JY, Liu N, Tan HX, Chu CH. Unobtrusive monitoring to Detect Depression for Elderly with Chronic Illnesses. IEEE Sens J September. 2017;17(17):5694–704.

Barrett E, Burke M, Whelan S, Santorelli A, Oliveira BL, Cavallo F. u. a. evaluation of a companion robot for individuals with dementia: quantitative findings of the MARIO project in an irish residential care setting. J Gerontol Nurs 1 Januar. 2019;47(7):36–45.

Kinney JM, Kart CS, Murdoch LD, Conley CJ. Striving to provide Safety assistance for families of Elders: the SAFE House Project. Dement 1 Oktober. 2004;3(3):351–70.

Baisch S, Kolling T, Rühl S, Klein B, Pantel J, Oswald F. Emotionale Roboter im Pflegekontext: Empirische Analyse des bisherigen Einsatzes und der Wirkungen von Paro und Pleo. Z Für Gerontol Geriatr. Januar 2018;51(1):16–24.

Bobillier Chaumon ME, Cuvillier B, Body Bekkadja S, Cros F. Detecting falls at home: user-centered design of a Pervasive Technology. Hum Technol 29 November. 2016;12:165–92.

Lussier M, Couture M, Moreau M, Laliberté C, Giroux S, Pigot H. u. a. integrating an ambient assisted living monitoring system into clinical decision-making in home care: an embedded case study. Gerontechnology 15 März. 2020;19:77–92.

Klein B, Schlömer I. A robotic shower system: Acceptance and ethical issues. Z Gerontol Geriatr Januar. 2018;51(1):25–31.

Pirhonen J, Melkas H, Laitinen A, Pekkarinen S. Could robots strengthen the sense of autonomy of older people residing in assisted living facilities?—A future-oriented study. Ethics Inf Technol Juni. 2020;22(2):151–62.

Kleiven HH, Ljunggren B, Solbjør M. Health professionals’ experiences with the implementation of a digital medication dispenser in home care services - a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 16 April. 2020;20(1):320.

Görer B, Salah AA, Akın HL. An autonomous robotic exercise tutor for elderly people. Auton Robots 1 März. 2017;41(3):657–78.

Berridge C, Chan KT, Choi Y. Sensor-Based Passive Remote Monitoring and Discordant Values: Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Low-Income Immigrant Elders in the United States. JMIR MHealth UHealth.25. März 2019;7(3):e11516.

Frennert S, Forsberg A, Östlund B. Elderly People’s Perceptions of a Telehealthcare System: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity and Observability.J Technol Hum Serv. 1. Juli2013;31.

Huisman C, Kort H. Two-year use of Care Robot Zora in dutch nursing Homes: an evaluation study. Healthc Basel Switz 19 Februar. 2019;7(1):E31.

Libin A, Cohen-Mansfield J. Therapeutic robocat for nursing home residents with dementia: preliminary inquiry. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen April. 2004;19(2):111–6.

Marti P, Stienstra JT. Exploring empathy in interaction: scenarios of respectful robotics. GeroPsych J Gerontopsychology Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;26:101–12.

Wang RH, Sudhama A, Begum M, Huq R, Mihailidis A. Robots to assist daily activities: views of older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers. Int Psychogeriatr Januar. 2017;29(1):67–79.

Mitzner TL, Chen TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA. Identifying the potential for Robotics to assist older adults in different living environments. Int J Soc Robot April. 2014;6(2):213–27.

Kelly D. Smart support at home: the integration of telecare technology with primary and community care systems. Br J Healthc Comput Inform Manage 1 April. 2005;22(3):19–21.

Woods O. Subverting the logics of “smartness” in Singapore: Smart eldercare and parallel regimes of sustainability. Sustain Cities Soc Februar. 2020;53:101940.

Jenkins S, Draper H, Care. Monitoring, and companionship: views on Care Robots from Older People and their carers. Int J Soc Robot 1 November. 2015;7(5):673–83.

Roberts C, Mort M. Reshaping what counts as care: older people, work and new technologies. Alter April. 2009;3(2):138–58.

Lee S, Naguib AM. Toward a sociable and dependable Elderly Care Robot: design, implementation and user study. J Intell Robot Syst April. 2020;98(1):5–17.

Bowes A, McColgan G. Telecare for Older People: promoting independence, participation, and identity. Res Aging Januar. 2013;35(1):32–49.

Morris ME. Social networks as health feedback displays. IEEE Internet Comput September. 2005;9(5):29–37.

Milligan C, Roberts C, Mort M. Telecare and older people: who cares where? Soc Sci Med 1982 Februar. 2011;72(3):347–54.

Sánchez VG, Anker-Hansen C, Taylor I, Eilertsen G. Older people’s attitudes and perspectives of Welfare Technology in Norway. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:841–53.

Faucounau V, Wu YH, Boulay M, Maestrutti M, Rigaud AS. Caregivers’ requirements for in-home robotic agent for supporting community-living elderly subjects with cognitive impairment. Technol Health Care 30 April. 2009;17(1):33–40.

Ropero F, Vaquerizo-Hdez D, Muñoz P, Barrero D, R-Moreno M. LARES: An AI-based teleassistance system for emergency home monitoring. Cogn Syst Res. 1. April2019;56.

Naick M. Innovative approaches of using assistive technology to support carers to care for people with night-time incontinence issues. World Fed Occup Ther Bull 3 Juli. 2017;73(2):128–30.

Obayashi K, Kodate N, Shigeru M. Can connected technologies improve sleep quality and safety of older adults and care-givers? An evaluation study of sleep monitors and communicative robots at a residential care home in Japan. Technol Soc 1 Juli. 2020;62:101318.

Palm E. Who cares? Moral Obligations in formal and Informal Care Provision in the light of ICT-Based Home Care. Health Care Anal Juni. 2013;21(2):171–88.

Korchut A, Szklener S, Abdelnour C, Tantinya N, Hernández-Farigola J, Ribes JC. u. a. challenges for Service Robots-Requirements of Elderly adults with cognitive impairments. Front Neurol. 2017;8:228.

O’Brien K, Liggett A, Ramirez-Zohfeld V, Sunkara P, Lindquist LA. Voice-Controlled Intelligent Personal Assistants to support aging in place. J Am Geriatr Soc Januar. 2020;68(1):176–9.

Londei ST, Rousseau J, Ducharme F, St-Arnaud A, Meunier J, Saint-Arnaud J. u. a. An intelligent videomonitoring system for fall detection at home: perceptions of elderly people. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(8):383–90.

Melkas H. Innovative assistive technology in finnish public elderly-care services: a focus on productivity. Work Read Mass 1 Januar. 2013;46(1):77–91.

Peter C, Kreiner A, Schröter M, Kim H, Bieber G, Öhberg F. u. a. AGNES: connecting people in a multimodal way. J Multimodal User Interfaces 1 November. 2013;7(3):229–45.

Rawtaer I, Mahendran R, Kua EH, Tan HP, Tan HX, Lee TS. u. a. early detection of mild cognitive impairment with In-Home sensors to monitor behavior patterns in Community-Dwelling Senior Citizens in Singapore: cross-sectional feasibility study. J Med Internet Res 5 Mai. 2020;22(5):e16854.

Gokalp H, de Folter J, Verma V, Fursse J, Jones R, Clarke M. Integrated Telehealth and Telecare for Monitoring Frail Elderly with Chronic Disease. Telemed J E-Health Off J Am Telemed Assoc. Dezember 2018;24(12):940–57.

Holthe T, Halvorsrud L, Lund A. A critical occupational perspective on user engagement of older adults in an assisted living facility in technology research over three years. J Occup Sci 2 Juli. 2020;27(3):376–89.

Wright J. Tactile care, mechanical hugs: japanese caregivers and robotic lifting devices. Asian Anthropol 2 Januar. 2018;17(1):24–39.

Mitseva A, Peterson CB, Karamberi C, Oikonomou LC, Ballis AV, Giannakakos C. u. a. gerontechnology: providing a helping hand when caring for cognitively impaired older adults-intermediate results from a controlled study on the satisfaction and acceptance of informal caregivers. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2012;2012:401705.

Snyder M, Dringus L, Maitland Schladen, Chenall R, Oviawe E. „Remote Monitoring Technologies in Dementia Care: An Interpretative Phe“ by Martha Snyder, Laurie Dringus[Internet]. 2020 [zitiert 13. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss5/5/

Suwa S, Tsujimura M, Ide H, Kodate N, Ishimaru M, Shimamura A. u. a. home-care professionals’ ethical perceptions of the Development and Use of Home-care Robots for older adults in Japan. Int J Human–Computer Interact 26 August. 2020;36(14):1295–303.

Torta E, Werner F, Johnson D, Juola J, Cuijpers R, Bazzani M. Evaluation of a Small Socially-Assistive Humanoid Robot in Intelligent Homes for the Care of the Elderly. J Intell Robot Syst. 1. Februar2014

Dinç L, Gastmans C. Trust and trustworthiness in nursing: an argument-based literature review. Nurs Inq September. 2012;19(3):223–37.

Moilanen T, Suhonen R, Kangasniemi M. Nursing support for older people’s autonomy in residential care: an integrative review. Int J Older People Nurs März. 2022;17(2):e12428.

Doorn N. Responsibility ascriptions in technology development and engineering: three perspectives. Sci Eng Ethics März. 2012;18(1):69–90.

Kooli C. COVID-19: public health issues and ethical dilemmas. Ethics Med Public Health Juni. 2021;17:100635.

Einav S, Ranzani OT. Focus on better care and ethics: are medical ethics lagging behind the development of new medical technologies? Intensive Care Med 1 August. 2020;46(8):1611–3.

Bahl R, Bahl S. Publication pressure versus Ethics, in Research and Publication. Indian J Community Med Off Publ Indian Assoc Prev Soc Med Dezember. 2021;46(4):584–6.

Pratt B, Hyder A. Fair Resource Allocation to Health Research: Priority Topics for Bioethics Scholarship - Pratt – 2017 - Bioethics - Wiley Online Library [Internet]. 2017 [zitiert 2. September 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/ https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12350

Malin B, Goodman K. Section editors for the IMIA Yearbook Special Section. Between Access and privacy: Challenges in sharing Health Data. Yearb Med Inform August. 2018;27(1):55–9.

Martani A, Egli P, Widmer M, Elger B. Data protection and biomedical research in Switzerland: setting the record straight. Swiss Med Wkly 24 August. 2020;150:w20332.

Price WN, Cohen IG. Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nat Med Januar. 2019;25(1):37–43.

Brady Wagner LC. Clinical ethics in the context of language and cognitive impairment: rights and protections. Semin Speech Lang November. 2003;24(4):275–84.

Sharkey A, Sharkey N. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol März. 2012;14(1):27–40.

Berridge C, Demiris G, Kaye J. Domain experts on Dementia-Care Technologies: mitigating risk in design and implementation. Sci Eng Ethics 18 Februar. 2021;27(1):14.

Greshake Tzovaras B, Angrist M, Arvai K, Dulaney M, Estrada-Galiñanes V, Gunderson B. u. a. open humans: a platform for participant-centered research and personal data exploration. GigaScience 1 Juni. 2019;8(6):giz076.

Ienca M, Lipps M, Wangmo T, Jotterand F, Elger B, Kressig R. Health professionals’ and researchers’ views on Intelligent Assistive Technology for psychogeriatric care. Gerontechnology 8 Oktober. 2018;17:139–50.

Ienca M, Schneble C, Kressig RW, Wangmo T. Digital health interventions for healthy ageing: a qualitative user evaluation and ethical assessment. BMC Geriatr 2 Juli. 2021;21(1):412.

Wangmo T, Lipps M, Kressig RW, Ienca M. Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. BMC Med Ethics 19 Dezember. 2019;20(1):98.

Caregiving AARP. NA for. Caregiving in the United States 2020 [Internet]. AARP. 2020 [zitiert 31. August 2022]. Verfügbar unter: https://www.aarp.org/ppi/info-2020/caregiving-in-the-united-states.html

McGilton KS, Vellani S, Yeung L, Chishtie J, Commisso E, Ploeg J. u. a. identifying and understanding the health and social care needs of older adults with multiple chronic conditions and their caregivers: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 1 Oktober. 2018;18(1):231.

Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M. Informal carers’ experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 14 Juni. 2019;19(1):160.

Schwabe H, Castellacci F. Automation, workers’ skills and job satisfaction. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(11):e0242929.

Huelat B, Pochron S. Stress in the Volunteer Caregiver: Human-Centric Technology Can Support Both Caregivers and People with Dementia. Medicina (Mex). 26. Mai 2020;56:257.

Edvardsson JD, Sandman PO, Rasmussen BH. Meanings of giving touch in the care of older patients: becoming a valuable person and professional. J Clin Nurs Juli. 2003;12(4):601–9.

Stöckigt B, Suhr R, Sulmann D, Teut M, Brinkhaus B. Implementation of intentional touch for geriatric patients with Chronic Pain: a qualitative pilot study. Complement Med Res. 2019;26(3):195–205.

Felber NA, Pageau F, McLean A, Wangmo T. The concept of social dignity as a yardstick to delimit ethical use of robotic assistance in the care of older persons. Med Health Care Philos März. 2022;25(1):99–110.

Ienca M, Wangmo T, Jotterand F, Kressig RW, Elger BS. Ethical design of intelligent assistive technologies for dementia: a descriptive review. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(4):1035.

Zhu J, Shi K, Yang C, Niu Y, Zeng Y, Zhang N. Ethical issues of smart home-based elderly care: A scoping review. J Nurs Manag [Internet]. 22. November 2021 [zitiert 15. September 2022];n/a(n/a). Verfügbar unter: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13521

Talbert M. Moral Responsibility. In: Zalta EN, Herausgeber. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Internet]. Winter 2019. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2019 [zitiert 1. Juli 2020]. Verfügbar unter: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/moral-responsibility/

DeCamp M, Tilburt JC. Why we cannot trust artificial intelligence in medicine. Lancet Digit Health Dezember. 2019;1(8):e390.

Dall’Ora C, Ball J, Reinius M, Griffiths P. Burnout in nursing: a theoretical review. Hum Resour Health 5 Juni. 2020;18(1):41.

Madara Marasinghe K. Assistive technologies in reducing caregiver burden among informal caregivers of older adults: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(5):353–60.

Shah H. Algorithmic accountability. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 13 September. 2018;376(2128):20170362.

Fiske A, Henningsen P, Buyx A. Your Robot Therapist will see you now: ethical implications of embodied Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy. J Med Internet Res 9 Mai. 2019;21(5):e13216.

Scott Kruse C, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M. Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare Januar. 2018;24(1):4–12.

Chasteen AL, Horhota M, Crumley-Branyon JJ. Overlooked and underestimated: experiences of Ageism in Young, Middle-Aged, and older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 13 August. 2021;76(7):1323–8.

Svidén G, Wikström BM, Hjortsjö-Norberg M. Elderly Persons’ reflections on relocating to living at Sheltered Housing. Scand J Occup Ther 1 Januar. 2002;9(1):10–6.

McLean A. Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues. Ethics Inf Technol 1 Dezember. 2011;13(4):313–26.

Zwijsen SA, Niemeijer AR, Hertogh CMPM. Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview of the literature. Aging Ment Health Mai. 2011;15(4):419–27.

Jeong JS, Kim SY, Kim JN, Ashamed, Caregivers. Self-Stigma, information, and coping among dementia patient families. J Health Commun 1 November. 2020;25(11):870–8.

Mackinnon CJ. Applying feminist, multicultural, and social justice theory to diverse women who function as caregivers in end-of-life and palliative home care. Palliat Support Care Dezember. 2009;7(4):501–12.

Ha NHL, Chong MS, Choo RWM, Tam WJ, Yap PLK. Caregiving burden in foreign domestic workers caring for frail older adults in Singapore. Int Psychogeriatr August. 2018;30(8):1139–47.

Morales-Gázquez MJ, Medina-Artiles EN, López-Liria R, Aguilar-Parra JM, Trigueros-Ramos R, González-Bernal. JJ, u. a. migrant caregivers of older people in Spain: qualitative insights into relatives’ Experiences. Int J Environ Res Public Health 24 April. 2020;17(8):E2953.

Frennert S. Gender blindness: on health and welfare technology, AI and gender equality in community care. Nurs Inq Dezember. 2021;28(4):e12419.

Starke G, van den Brule R, Elger BS, Haselager P. Intentional machines: a defence of trust in medical artificial intelligence. Bioethics. 2022;36(2):154–61.

Ozaras G, Abaan S. Investigation of the trust status of the nurse-patient relationship. Nurs Ethics August. 2018;25(5):628–39.

Berridge C, Turner NR, Liu L, Karras SW, Chen A, Fredriksen-Goldsen K. u. a. Advance Planning for Technology Use in Dementia Care: Development, Design, and feasibility of a Novel Self-administered decision-making Tool. JMIR Aging 27 Juli. 2022;5(3):e39335.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the information specialist of the University of Basel who advised us on our search strategy.

Open access funding provided by University of Basel. This study was supported financially by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF NRP-77 Digital Transformation, Grant Number 407740_187464/1) as part of the SmaRt homES, Older adUlts, and caRegivers: Facilitating social aCceptance and negotiating rEsponsibilities [RESOURCE] project. The funder neither took part in the writing process, nor does any part of the views expressed in the review belong to the funder.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland

Nadine Andrea Felber, Yi Jiao (Angelina) Tian, Bernice Simone Elger & Tenzin Wangmo

Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050 Av. de la Médecine, G1V0A6, Québec, QC, Canada

Félix Pageau

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Creation of the search strategy and data extraction was a joint effort of NAF and AT. FP and TW extracted data and prepared it for analysis. AT contributed majorly to the data analysis, together with NAF who is the first author of this manuscript. TW and BE provided final comments and edits. All authors read and approved the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Andrea Felber .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Additional File 1: PRISMA 2020 checklist

Additional file 2: appendix part 1, additional file 3: appendix part 2, 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.

Felber, N.A., Tian, Y., Pageau, F. et al. Mapping ethical issues in the use of smart home health technologies to care for older persons: a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics 24 , 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00898-w

Download citation

Received : 15 September 2022

Accepted : 02 March 2023

Published : 29 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00898-w

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

• Biomedical ethics
• Older persons
• Health technology

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Gender medicine ‘built on shaky foundations’, Cass review finds

Analysis finds most research underpinning clinical guidelines, hormone treatments and puberty blockers to be low quality

Review of gender services has major implications for mental health services

The head of the world’s largest review into children’s care has said that gender medicine is “built on shaky foundations”.

Dr Hilary Cass, the paediatrician commissioned to conduct a review of the services provided by the NHS to children and young people questioning their gender identity, said that while doctors tended to be cautious in implementing new findings in emerging areas of medicine, “quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children”.

Cass commissioned the University of York to conduct a series of analyses as part of her review.

Two papers examined the quality and development of current guidelines and recommendations for managing gender dysphoria in children and young people. Most of the 23 clinical guidelines reviewed were not independent or evidence based, the researchers found.

A third paper on puberty blockers found that of 50 studies, only one was of high quality.

Similarly, of 53 studies included in a fourth paper on the use of hormone treatment, only one was of sufficiently high quality, with little or only inconsistent evidence on key outcomes.

Here are the main findings of the reviews:

Clinical guidelines

Increasing numbers of children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria are being referred to specialist gender services. There are various guidelines outlining approaches to the clinical care of these children and adolescents.

In the first two papers, the York researchers examined the quality and development of published guidelines or clinical guidance containing recommendations for managing gender dysphoria in children and young people up to the age of 18.

They studied a total of 23 guidelines published in different countries between 1998 and 2022. All but two were published after 2010.

Most of them lacked “an independent and evidence-based approach and information about how recommendations were developed”, the researchers said.

Few guidelines were informed by a systematic review of empirical evidence and they lack transparency about how their recommendations were developed. Only two reported consulting directly with children and young people during their development, the York academics found.

“Healthcare services and professionals should take into account the poor quality and interrelated nature of published guidance to support the management of children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence,” the researchers wrote.

Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) , Cass said that while medicine was usually based on the pillars of integrating the best available research evidence with clinical expertise, and patient values and preferences, she “found that in gender medicine those pillars are built on shaky foundations”.

She said the World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) had been “highly influential in directing international practice, although its guidelines were found by the University of York’s appraisal to lack developmental rigour and transparency”.

In the foreword to her report, Cass said while doctors tended to be cautious in implementing new findings “quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children”.

In one example, she said a single Dutch medical study, “suggesting puberty blockers may improve psychological wellbeing for a narrowly defined group of children with gender incongruence”, had formed the basis for their use to “spread at pace to other countries”. Subsequently, there was a “greater readiness to start masculinising/feminising hormones in mid-teens”.

She added: “Some practitioners abandoned normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment, which has meant that this group of young people have been exceptionalised compared to other young people with similarly complex presentations. They deserve very much better.”

Both papers repeatedly pointed to a key problem in this area of medicine: a dearth of good data.

She said: “Filling this knowledge gap would be of great help to the young people wanting to make informed choices about their treatment.”

Cass said the NHS should put in place a “full programme of research” looking at the characteristics, interventions and outcomes of every young person presenting to gender services, with consent routinely sought for enrolment in a research study that followed them into adulthood.

Gender medicine was “an area of remarkably weak evidence”, her review found, with study results also “exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint”.

Alongside a puberty blocker trial, which could be in place by December, there should be research into psychosocial interventions and the use of the masculinising and feminising hormones testosterone and oestrogen, the review found.

Hormone treatment

Many trans people who seek medical intervention in their transition opt to take hormones to masculinise or feminise their body, an approach that has been used in transgender adults for decades.

“It is a well-established practice that has transformed the lives of many transgender people,” the Cass review notes, adding that while these drugs are not without long-term problems and side-effects, for many they are dramatically outweighed by the benefits.

For birth-registered females, the approach means taking testosterone, which brings about changes including the growth of facial hair and a deepening of the voice, while for birth-registered males, it involves taking hormones including oestrogen to promote changes including the growth of breasts and an increase in body fat. Some of these changes may be irreversible.

However, in recent years a growing proportion of adolescents have begun taking these cross-sex, or gender-affirming, hormones, with the vast majority who are prescribed puberty blockers subsequently moving on to such medication.

This growing take-up among young people has led to questions over the impact of these hormones in areas ranging from mental health to sexual functioning and fertility.

Now researchers at the University of York have carried out a review of the evidence, comprising an analysis of 53 previously published studies, in an attempt to set out what is known – and what is not – about the risks, benefits and possible side-effects of such hormones on young people.

All but one study, which looked at side-effects, were rated of moderate or low quality, with the researchers finding limited evidence for the impact of such hormones on trans adolescents with respect to outcomes, including gender dysphoria and body satisfaction.

The researchers noted inconsistent findings around the impact of such hormones on growth, height, bone health and cardiometabolic effects, such as BMI and cholesterol markers. In addition, they found no study assessed fertility in birth-registered females, and only one looked at fertility in birth-registered males.

“These findings add to other systematic reviews in concluding there is insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the risks and benefits of hormone interventions in this population,” the authors write.

However, the review did find some evidence that masculinising or feminising hormones might help with psychological health in young trans people. An analysis of five studies in the area suggested hormone treatment may improve depression, anxiety and other aspects of mental health in adolescents after 12 months of treatment, with three of four studies reporting an improvement around suicidality and/or self-harm (one reported no change).

But unpicking the precise role of such hormones is difficult. “Most studies included adolescents who received puberty suppression, making it difficult to determine the effects of hormones alone,” the authors write, adding that robust research on psychological health with long-term follow-up was needed.

The Cass review has recommended NHS England should review the current policy on masculinising or feminising hormones, advising that while there should be the option to provide such drugs from age 16, extreme caution was recommended, and there should be a clear clinical rationale for not waiting until an individual reached 18.

Puberty blockers

Treatments to suppress puberty in adolescents became available through routine clinical practice in the UK a decade ago.

While the drugs have long been used to treat precocious puberty – when children start puberty at an extremely young age – they have only been used off-label in children with gender dysphoria or incongruence since the late 1990s. The rationale for giving puberty blockers, which originated in the Netherlands, was to buy thinking time for young people and improve their ability to smooth their transition in later life.

Data from gender clinics reported in the Cass review showed the vast majority of people who started puberty suppression went on to have masculinising or feminising hormones, suggesting that puberty blockers did not buy people time to think.

To understand the broader effects of puberty blockers, researchers at the University of York identified 50 papers that reported on the effects of the drugs in adolescents with gender dysphoria or incongruence. According to their systematic review, only one of these studies was high quality, with a further 25 papers regarded as moderate quality. The remaining 24 were deemed too weak to be included in the analysis.

Many of the reports looked at how well puberty was suppressed and the treatment’s side-effects, but fewer looked at whether the drugs had their intended benefits.

Of two studies that investigated gender dysphoria and body satisfaction, neither found a change after receiving puberty blockers. The York team found “very limited” evidence that puberty blockers improved mental health.

Overall, the researchers said “no conclusions” could be drawn about the impact on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health or cognitive development, though there was some evidence bone health and height may be compromised during treatment.

Based on the York work, the Cass review finds that puberty blockers offer no obvious benefit in helping transgender males to help their transition in later life, particularly if the drugs do not lead to an increase in height in adult life. For transgender females, the benefits of stopping irreversible changes such as a deeper voice and facial hair have to be weighed up against the need for penile growth should the person opt for vaginoplasty, the creation of a vagina and vulva.

In March, NHS England announced that children with gender dysphoria would no longer receive puberty blockers as routine practice. Instead, their use will be confined to a trial that the Cass review says should form part of a broader research programme into the effects of masculinising and feminising hormones.

• Transgender
• Young people

More on this story

Veteran trans campaigner: ‘Cass review has potential for positive change’

Cass review must be used as ‘watershed moment’ for NHS gender services, says Streeting

‘This isn’t how good scientific debate happens’: academics on culture of fear in gender medicine research

Five thousand children with gender-related distress awaiting NHS care in England

Ban on children’s puberty blockers to be enforced in private sector in England

What Cass review says about surge in children seeking gender services

Adult transgender clinics in England face inquiry into patient care

‘Children are being used as a football’: Hilary Cass on her review of gender identity services

Thousands of children unsure of gender identity ‘let down by NHS’, report finds

Most viewed