research background in the study

• Privacy Policy

Home » Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Background of The Study

Definition:

Background of the study refers to the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being studied. It provides the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and the significance of the study.

The background of the study usually includes a discussion of the relevant literature, the gap in knowledge or understanding, and the research questions or hypotheses to be addressed. It also highlights the importance of the research topic and its potential contributions to the field. A well-written background of the study sets the stage for the research and helps the reader to appreciate the need for the study and its potential significance.

How to Write Background of The Study

Here are some steps to help you write the background of the study:

Identify the Research Problem

Start by identifying the research problem you are trying to address. This problem should be significant and relevant to your field of study.

Provide Context

Once you have identified the research problem, provide some context. This could include the historical, social, or political context of the problem.

Review Literature

Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature on the topic. This will help you understand what has been studied and what gaps exist in the current research.

Identify Research Gap

Based on your literature review, identify the gap in knowledge or understanding that your research aims to address. This gap will be the focus of your research question or hypothesis.

State Objectives

Clearly state the objectives of your research . These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

Discuss Significance

Explain the significance of your research. This could include its potential impact on theory , practice, policy, or society.

Finally, summarize the key points of the background of the study. This will help the reader understand the research problem, its context, and its significance.

How to Write Background of The Study in Proposal

The background of the study is an essential part of any proposal as it sets the stage for the research project and provides the context and justification for why the research is needed. Here are the steps to write a compelling background of the study in your proposal:

• Identify the problem: Clearly state the research problem or gap in the current knowledge that you intend to address through your research.
• Provide context: Provide a brief overview of the research area and highlight its significance in the field.
• Review literature: Summarize the relevant literature related to the research problem and provide a critical evaluation of the current state of knowledge.
• Identify gaps : Identify the gaps or limitations in the existing literature and explain how your research will contribute to filling these gaps.
• Justify the study : Explain why your research is important and what practical or theoretical contributions it can make to the field.
• Highlight objectives: Clearly state the objectives of the study and how they relate to the research problem.
• Discuss methodology: Provide an overview of the methodology you will use to collect and analyze data, and explain why it is appropriate for the research problem.
• Conclude : Summarize the key points of the background of the study and explain how they support your research proposal.

How to Write Background of The Study In Thesis

The background of the study is a critical component of a thesis as it provides context for the research problem, rationale for conducting the study, and the significance of the research. Here are some steps to help you write a strong background of the study:

• Identify the research problem : Start by identifying the research problem that your thesis is addressing. What is the issue that you are trying to solve or explore? Be specific and concise in your problem statement.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the relevant literature on the topic. This should include scholarly articles, books, and other sources that are directly related to your research question.
• I dentify gaps in the literature: After reviewing the literature, identify any gaps in the existing research. What questions remain unanswered? What areas have not been explored? This will help you to establish the need for your research.
• Establish the significance of the research: Clearly state the significance of your research. Why is it important to address this research problem? What are the potential implications of your research? How will it contribute to the field?
• Provide an overview of the research design: Provide an overview of the research design and methodology that you will be using in your study. This should include a brief explanation of the research approach, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• State the research objectives and research questions: Clearly state the research objectives and research questions that your study aims to answer. These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
• Summarize the chapter: Summarize the chapter by highlighting the key points and linking them back to the research problem, significance of the study, and research questions.

How to Write Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are the steps to write the background of the study in a research paper:

• Identify the research problem: Start by identifying the research problem that your study aims to address. This can be a particular issue, a gap in the literature, or a need for further investigation.
• Conduct a literature review: Conduct a thorough literature review to gather information on the topic, identify existing studies, and understand the current state of research. This will help you identify the gap in the literature that your study aims to fill.
• Explain the significance of the study: Explain why your study is important and why it is necessary. This can include the potential impact on the field, the importance to society, or the need to address a particular issue.
• Provide context: Provide context for the research problem by discussing the broader social, economic, or political context that the study is situated in. This can help the reader understand the relevance of the study and its potential implications.
• State the research questions and objectives: State the research questions and objectives that your study aims to address. This will help the reader understand the scope of the study and its purpose.
• Summarize the methodology : Briefly summarize the methodology you used to conduct the study, including the data collection and analysis methods. This can help the reader understand how the study was conducted and its reliability.

Examples of Background of The Study

Here are some examples of the background of the study:

Problem : The prevalence of obesity among children in the United States has reached alarming levels, with nearly one in five children classified as obese.

Significance : Obesity in childhood is associated with numerous negative health outcomes, including increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.

Gap in knowledge : Despite efforts to address the obesity epidemic, rates continue to rise. There is a need for effective interventions that target the unique needs of children and their families.

Problem : The use of antibiotics in agriculture has contributed to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which poses a significant threat to human health.

Significance : Antibiotic-resistant infections are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and are a major public health concern.

Gap in knowledge: While there is a growing body of research on the use of antibiotics in agriculture, there is still much to be learned about the mechanisms of resistance and the most effective strategies for reducing antibiotic use.

Edxample 3:

Problem : Many low-income communities lack access to healthy food options, leading to high rates of food insecurity and diet-related diseases.

Significance : Poor nutrition is a major contributor to chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Gap in knowledge : While there have been efforts to address food insecurity, there is a need for more research on the barriers to accessing healthy food in low-income communities and effective strategies for increasing access.

Examples of Background of The Study In Research

Here are some real-life examples of how the background of the study can be written in different fields of study:

Example 1 : “There has been a significant increase in the incidence of diabetes in recent years. This has led to an increased demand for effective diabetes management strategies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a new diabetes management program in improving patient outcomes.”

Example 2 : “The use of social media has become increasingly prevalent in modern society. Despite its popularity, little is known about the effects of social media use on mental health. This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health in young adults.”

Example 3: “Despite significant advancements in cancer treatment, the survival rate for patients with pancreatic cancer remains low. The purpose of this study is to identify potential biomarkers that can be used to improve early detection and treatment of pancreatic cancer.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Proposal

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in a proposal:

Example 1 : The prevalence of mental health issues among university students has been increasing over the past decade. This study aims to investigate the causes and impacts of mental health issues on academic performance and wellbeing.

Example 2 : Climate change is a global issue that has significant implications for agriculture in developing countries. This study aims to examine the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change and identify effective strategies to enhance their resilience.

Example 3 : The use of social media in political campaigns has become increasingly common in recent years. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of social media campaigns in mobilizing young voters and influencing their voting behavior.

Example 4 : Employee turnover is a major challenge for organizations, especially in the service sector. This study aims to identify the key factors that influence employee turnover in the hospitality industry and explore effective strategies for reducing turnover rates.

Examples of Background of The Study in Thesis

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in the thesis:

Example 1 : “Women’s participation in the workforce has increased significantly over the past few decades. However, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions, particularly in male-dominated industries such as technology. This study aims to examine the factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles in the technology industry, with a focus on organizational culture and gender bias.”

Example 2 : “Mental health is a critical component of overall health and well-being. Despite increased awareness of the importance of mental health, there are still significant gaps in access to mental health services, particularly in low-income and rural communities. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based mental health intervention in improving mental health outcomes in underserved populations.”

Example 3: “The use of technology in education has become increasingly widespread, with many schools adopting online learning platforms and digital resources. However, there is limited research on the impact of technology on student learning outcomes and engagement. This study aims to explore the relationship between technology use and academic achievement among middle school students, as well as the factors that mediate this relationship.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are some examples of how the background of the study can be written in various fields:

Example 1: The prevalence of obesity has been on the rise globally, with the World Health Organization reporting that approximately 650 million adults were obese in 2016. Obesity is a major risk factor for several chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. In recent years, several interventions have been proposed to address this issue, including lifestyle changes, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. However, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective intervention for obesity management. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of different interventions for obesity management and identify the most effective one.

Example 2: Antibiotic resistance has become a major public health threat worldwide. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are associated with longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality. The inappropriate use of antibiotics is one of the main factors contributing to the development of antibiotic resistance. Despite numerous efforts to promote the rational use of antibiotics, studies have shown that many healthcare providers continue to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This study aims to explore the factors influencing healthcare providers’ prescribing behavior and identify strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing practices.

Example 3: Social media has become an integral part of modern communication, with millions of people worldwide using platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Social media has several advantages, including facilitating communication, connecting people, and disseminating information. However, social media use has also been associated with several negative outcomes, including cyberbullying, addiction, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on mental health and identify the factors that mediate this relationship.

Purpose of Background of The Study

The primary purpose of the background of the study is to help the reader understand the rationale for the research by presenting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem.

More specifically, the background of the study aims to:

• Provide a clear understanding of the research problem and its context.
• Identify the gap in knowledge that the study intends to fill.
• Establish the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field.
• Highlight the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.
• Provide a rationale for the research questions or hypotheses and the research design.
• Identify the limitations and scope of the study.

When to Write Background of The Study

The background of the study should be written early on in the research process, ideally before the research design is finalized and data collection begins. This allows the researcher to clearly articulate the rationale for the study and establish a strong foundation for the research.

The background of the study typically comes after the introduction but before the literature review section. It should provide an overview of the research problem and its context, and also introduce the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.

Writing the background of the study early on in the research process also helps to identify potential gaps in knowledge and areas for further investigation, which can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design. By establishing the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field, the background of the study can also help to justify the research and secure funding or support from stakeholders.

Advantage of Background of The Study

The background of the study has several advantages, including:

• Provides context: The background of the study provides context for the research problem by highlighting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem. This allows the reader to understand the research problem in its broader context and appreciate its significance.
• Identifies gaps in knowledge: By reviewing the existing literature related to the research problem, the background of the study can identify gaps in knowledge that the study intends to fill. This helps to establish the novelty and originality of the research and its potential contribution to the field.
• Justifies the research : The background of the study helps to justify the research by demonstrating its significance and potential impact. This can be useful in securing funding or support for the research.
• Guides the research design: The background of the study can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design by identifying key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem. This ensures that the research is grounded in existing knowledge and is designed to address the research problem effectively.
• Establishes credibility: By demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the field and the research problem, the background of the study can establish the researcher’s credibility and expertise, which can enhance the trustworthiness and validity of the research.

Disadvantages of Background of The Study

Some Disadvantages of Background of The Study are as follows:

• Time-consuming : Writing a comprehensive background of the study can be time-consuming, especially if the research problem is complex and multifaceted. This can delay the research process and impact the timeline for completing the study.
• Repetitive: The background of the study can sometimes be repetitive, as it often involves summarizing existing research and theories related to the research problem. This can be tedious for the reader and may make the section less engaging.
• Limitations of existing research: The background of the study can reveal the limitations of existing research related to the problem. This can create challenges for the researcher in developing research questions or hypotheses that address the gaps in knowledge identified in the background of the study.
• Bias : The researcher’s biases and perspectives can influence the content and tone of the background of the study. This can impact the reader’s perception of the research problem and may influence the validity of the research.
• Accessibility: Accessing and reviewing the literature related to the research problem can be challenging, especially if the researcher does not have access to a comprehensive database or if the literature is not available in the researcher’s language. This can limit the depth and scope of the background of the study.

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 an Effective Background of the Study: A Comprehensive Guide

Table of Contents

The background of the study in a research paper offers a clear context, highlighting why the research is essential and the problem it aims to address.

As a researcher, this foundational section is essential for you to chart the course of your study, Moreover, it allows readers to understand the importance and path of your research.

Whether in academic communities or to the general public, a well-articulated background aids in communicating the essence of the research effectively.

While it may seem straightforward, crafting an effective background requires a blend of clarity, precision, and relevance. Therefore, this article aims to be your guide, offering insights into:

• Understanding the concept of the background of the study.
• Learning how to craft a compelling background effectively.
• Identifying and sidestepping common pitfalls in writing the background.
• Exploring practical examples that bring the theory to life.
• Enhancing both your writing and reading of academic papers.

Keeping these compelling insights in mind, let's delve deeper into the details of the empirical background of the study, exploring its definition, distinctions, and the art of writing it effectively.

What is the background of the study?

The background of the study is placed at the beginning of a research paper. It provides the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being explored.

It offers readers a snapshot of the existing knowledge on the topic and the reasons that spurred your current research.

When crafting the background of your study, consider the following questions.

• What's the context of your research?
• Which previous research will you refer to?
• Are there any knowledge gaps in the existing relevant literature?
• How will you justify the need for your current research?
• Have you concisely presented the research question or problem?

In a typical research paper structure, after presenting the background, the introduction section follows. The introduction delves deeper into the specific objectives of the research and often outlines the structure or main points that the paper will cover.

Together, they create a cohesive starting point, ensuring readers are well-equipped to understand the subsequent sections of the research paper.

While the background of the study and the introduction section of the research manuscript may seem similar and sometimes even overlap, each serves a unique purpose in the research narrative.

Difference between background and introduction

A well-written background of the study and introduction are preliminary sections of a research paper and serve distinct purposes.

Here’s a detailed tabular comparison between the two of them.

What is the relevance of the background of the study?

It is necessary for you to provide your readers with the background of your research. Without this, readers may grapple with questions such as: Why was this specific research topic chosen? What led to this decision? Why is this study relevant? Is it worth their time?

Such uncertainties can deter them from fully engaging with your study, leading to the rejection of your research paper. Additionally, this can diminish its impact in the academic community, and reduce its potential for real-world application or policy influence .

To address these concerns and offer clarity, the background section plays a pivotal role in research papers.

The background of the study in research is important as it:

• Provides context: It offers readers a clear picture of the existing knowledge, helping them understand where the current research fits in.
• Highlights relevance: By detailing the reasons for the research, it underscores the study's significance and its potential impact.
• Guides the narrative: The background shapes the narrative flow of the paper, ensuring a logical progression from what's known to what the research aims to uncover.
• Enhances engagement: A well-crafted background piques the reader's interest, encouraging them to delve deeper into the research paper.
• Aids in comprehension: By setting the scenario, it aids readers in better grasping the research objectives, methodologies, and findings.

How to write the background of the study in a research paper?

The journey of presenting a compelling argument begins with the background study. This section holds the power to either captivate or lose the reader's interest.

An effectively written background not only provides context but also sets the tone for the entire research paper. It's the bridge that connects a broad topic to a specific research question, guiding readers through the logic behind the study.

But how does one craft a background of the study that resonates, informs, and engages?

Here, we’ll discuss how to write an impactful background study, ensuring your research stands out and captures the attention it deserves.

Identify the research problem

The first step is to start pinpointing the specific issue or gap you're addressing. This should be a significant and relevant problem in your field.

A well-defined problem is specific, relevant, and significant to your field. It should resonate with both experts and readers.

Here’s more on how to write an effective research problem .

Provide context

Here, you need to provide a broader perspective, illustrating how your research aligns with or contributes to the overarching context or the wider field of study. A comprehensive context is grounded in facts, offers multiple perspectives, and is relatable.

In addition to stating facts, you should weave a story that connects key concepts from the past, present, and potential future research. For instance, consider the following approach.

• Offer a brief history of the topic, highlighting major milestones or turning points that have shaped the current landscape.
• Discuss contemporary developments or current trends that provide relevant information to your research problem. This could include technological advancements, policy changes, or shifts in societal attitudes.
• Highlight the views of different stakeholders. For a topic like sustainable agriculture, this could mean discussing the perspectives of farmers, environmentalists, policymakers, and consumers.
• If relevant, compare and contrast global trends with local conditions and circumstances. This can offer readers a more holistic understanding of the topic.

Literature review

For this step, you’ll deep dive into the existing literature on the same topic. It's where you explore what scholars, researchers, and experts have already discovered or discussed about your topic.

Conducting a thorough literature review isn't just a recap of past works. To elevate its efficacy, it's essential to analyze the methods, outcomes, and intricacies of prior research work, demonstrating a thorough engagement with the existing body of knowledge.

• Instead of merely listing past research study, delve into their methodologies, findings, and limitations. Highlight groundbreaking studies and those that had contrasting results.
• Try to identify patterns. Look for recurring themes or trends in the literature. Are there common conclusions or contentious points?
• The next step would be to connect the dots. Show how different pieces of research relate to each other. This can help in understanding the evolution of thought on the topic.

By showcasing what's already known, you can better highlight the background of the study in research.

Highlight the research gap

This step involves identifying the unexplored areas or unanswered questions in the existing literature. Your research seeks to address these gaps, providing new insights or answers.

A clear research gap shows you've thoroughly engaged with existing literature and found an area that needs further exploration.

How can you efficiently highlight the research gap?

• Find the overlooked areas. Point out topics or angles that haven't been adequately addressed.
• Highlight questions that have emerged due to recent developments or changing circumstances.
• Identify areas where insights from other fields might be beneficial but haven't been explored yet.

State your objectives

Here, it’s all about laying out your game plan — What do you hope to achieve with your research? You need to mention a clear objective that’s specific, actionable, and directly tied to the research gap.

How to state your objectives?

• List the primary questions guiding your research.
• If applicable, state any hypotheses or predictions you aim to test.
• Specify what you hope to achieve, whether it's new insights, solutions, or methodologies.

Discuss the significance

This step describes your 'why'. Why is your research important? What broader implications does it have?

The significance of “why” should be both theoretical (adding to the existing literature) and practical (having real-world implications).

How do we effectively discuss the significance?

• Discuss how your research adds to the existing body of knowledge.
• Highlight how your findings could be applied in real-world scenarios, from policy changes to on-ground practices.
• Point out how your research could pave the way for further studies or open up new areas of exploration.

Summarize your points

A concise summary acts as a bridge, smoothly transitioning readers from the background to the main body of the paper. This step is a brief recap, ensuring that readers have grasped the foundational concepts.

How to summarize your study?

• Revisit the key points discussed, from the research problem to its significance.
• Prepare the reader for the subsequent sections, ensuring they understand the research's direction.

Include examples for better understanding

Research and come up with real-world or hypothetical examples to clarify complex concepts or to illustrate the practical applications of your research. Relevant examples make abstract ideas tangible, aiding comprehension.

How to include an effective example of the background of the study?

• Use past events or scenarios to explain concepts.
• Craft potential scenarios to demonstrate the implications of your findings.
• Use comparisons to simplify complex ideas, making them more relatable.

Crafting a compelling background of the study in research is about striking the right balance between providing essential context, showcasing your comprehensive understanding of the existing literature, and highlighting the unique value of your research .

While writing the background of the study, keep your readers at the forefront of your mind. Every piece of information, every example, and every objective should be geared toward helping them understand and appreciate your research.

How to avoid mistakes in the background of the study in research?

To write a well-crafted background of the study, you should be aware of the following potential research pitfalls .

• Stay away from ambiguity. Always assume that your reader might not be familiar with intricate details about your topic.
• Avoid discussing unrelated themes. Stick to what's directly relevant to your research problem.
• Ensure your background is well-organized. Information should flow logically, making it easy for readers to follow.
• While it's vital to provide context, avoid overwhelming the reader with excessive details that might not be directly relevant to your research problem.
• Ensure you've covered the most significant and relevant studies i` n your field. Overlooking key pieces of literature can make your background seem incomplete.
• Aim for a balanced presentation of facts, and avoid showing overt bias or presenting only one side of an argument.
• While academic paper often involves specialized terms, ensure they're adequately explained or use simpler alternatives when possible.
• Every claim or piece of information taken from existing literature should be appropriately cited. Failing to do so can lead to issues of plagiarism.
• Avoid making the background too lengthy. While thoroughness is appreciated, it should not come at the expense of losing the reader's interest. Maybe prefer to keep it to one-two paragraphs long.
• Especially in rapidly evolving fields, it's crucial to ensure that your literature review section is up-to-date and includes the latest research.

Example of an effective background of the study

Let's consider a topic: "The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance." The ideal background of the study section for this topic would be as follows.

In the last decade, the rise of the internet has revolutionized many sectors, including education. Online learning platforms, once a supplementary educational tool, have now become a primary mode of instruction for many institutions worldwide. With the recent global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid shift from traditional classroom learning to online modes, making it imperative to understand its effects on student performance.

Previous studies have explored various facets of online learning, from its accessibility to its flexibility. However, there is a growing need to assess its direct impact on student outcomes. While some educators advocate for its benefits, citing the convenience and vast resources available, others express concerns about potential drawbacks, such as reduced student engagement and the challenges of self-discipline.

This research aims to delve deeper into this debate, evaluating the true impact of online learning on student performance.

Why is this example considered as an effective background section of a research paper?

This background section example effectively sets the context by highlighting the rise of online learning and its increased relevance due to recent global events. It references prior research on the topic, indicating a foundation built on existing knowledge.

By presenting both the potential advantages and concerns of online learning, it establishes a balanced view, leading to the clear purpose of the study: to evaluate the true impact of online learning on student performance.

As we've explored, writing an effective background of the study in research requires clarity, precision, and a keen understanding of both the broader landscape and the specific details of your topic.

From identifying the research problem, providing context, reviewing existing literature to highlighting research gaps and stating objectives, each step is pivotal in shaping the narrative of your research. And while there are best practices to follow, it's equally crucial to be aware of the pitfalls to avoid.

Remember, writing or refining the background of your study is essential to engage your readers, familiarize them with the research context, and set the ground for the insights your research project will unveil.

Drawing from all the important details, insights and guidance shared, you're now in a strong position to craft a background of the study that not only informs but also engages and resonates with your readers.

Now that you've a clear understanding of what the background of the study aims to achieve, the natural progression is to delve into the next crucial component — write an effective introduction section of a research paper. Read here .

Frequently Asked Questions

The background of the study should include a clear context for the research, references to relevant previous studies, identification of knowledge gaps, justification for the current research, a concise overview of the research problem or question, and an indication of the study's significance or potential impact.

The background of the study is written to provide readers with a clear understanding of the context, significance, and rationale behind the research. It offers a snapshot of existing knowledge on the topic, highlights the relevance of the study, and sets the stage for the research questions and objectives. It ensures that readers can grasp the importance of the research and its place within the broader field of study.

The background of the study is a section in a research paper that provides context, circumstances, and history leading to the research problem or topic being explored. It presents existing knowledge on the topic and outlines the reasons that spurred the current research, helping readers understand the research's foundation and its significance in the broader academic landscape.

The number of paragraphs in the background of the study can vary based on the complexity of the topic and the depth of the context required. Typically, it might range from 3 to 5 paragraphs, but in more detailed or complex research papers, it could be longer. The key is to ensure that all relevant information is presented clearly and concisely, without unnecessary repetition.

You might also like

The Impact of Visual Abstracts on Boosting Citations

Introducing SciSpace’s Citation Booster To Increase Research Visibility

AI for Meta-Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide

• Manuscript Preparation

What is the Background of a Study and How Should it be Written?

• 3 minute read

Table of Contents

The background of a study is one of the most important components of a research paper. The quality of the background determines whether the reader will be interested in the rest of the study. Thus, to ensure that the audience is invested in reading the entire research paper, it is important to write an appealing and effective background. So, what constitutes the background of a study, and how must it be written?

What is the background of a study?

The background of a study is the first section of the paper and establishes the context underlying the research. It contains the rationale, the key problem statement, and a brief overview of research questions that are addressed in the rest of the paper. The background forms the crux of the study because it introduces an unaware audience to the research and its importance in a clear and logical manner. At times, the background may even explore whether the study builds on or refutes findings from previous studies. Any relevant information that the readers need to know before delving into the paper should be made available to them in the background.

How is a background different from the introduction?

The introduction of your research paper is presented before the background. Let’s find out what factors differentiate the background from the introduction.

• The introduction only contains preliminary data about the research topic and does not state the purpose of the study. On the contrary, the background clarifies the importance of the study in detail.
• The introduction provides an overview of the research topic from a broader perspective, while the background provides a detailed understanding of the topic.
• The introduction should end with the mention of the research questions, aims, and objectives of the study. In contrast, the background follows no such format and only provides essential context to the study.

How should one write the background of a research paper?

The length and detail presented in the background varies for different research papers, depending on the complexity and novelty of the research topic. At times, a simple background suffices, even if the study is complex. Before writing and adding details in the background, take a note of these additional points:

• Start with a strong beginning: Begin the background by defining the research topic and then identify the target audience.
• Cover key components: Explain all theories, concepts, terms, and ideas that may feel unfamiliar to the target audience thoroughly.
• Take note of important prerequisites: Go through the relevant literature in detail. Take notes while reading and cite the sources.
• Maintain a balance: Make sure that the background is focused on important details, but also appeals to a broader audience.
• Include historical data: Current issues largely originate from historical events or findings. If the research borrows information from a historical context, add relevant data in the background.
• Explain novelty: If the research study or methodology is unique or novel, provide an explanation that helps to understand the research better.
• Increase engagement: To make the background engaging, build a story around the central theme of the research

Avoid these mistakes while writing the background:

• Ambiguity: Don’t be ambiguous. While writing, assume that the reader does not understand any intricate detail about your research.
• Unrelated themes: Steer clear from topics that are not related to the key aspects of your research topic.
• Poor organization: Do not place information without a structure. Make sure that the background reads in a chronological manner and organize the sub-sections so that it flows well.

Writing the background for a research paper should not be a daunting task. But directions to go about it can always help. At Elsevier Author Services we provide essential insights on how to write a high quality, appealing, and logically structured paper for publication, beginning with a robust background. For further queries, contact our experts now!

How to Use Tables and Figures effectively in Research Papers

• Research Process

The Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher

You may also like.

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

The Essentials of Writing to Communicate Research in Medicine

Changing Lines: Sentence Patterns in Academic Writing

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• Affiliate Program

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

What is the Background of the Study and How to Write It

What is the Background of the Study in Research? 

The background of the study is the first section of a research paper and gives context surrounding the research topic. The background explains to the reader where your research journey started, why you got interested in the topic, and how you developed the research question that you will later specify. That means that you first establish the context of the research you did with a general overview of the field or topic and then present the key issues that drove your decision to study the specific problem you chose.

Once the reader understands where you are coming from and why there was indeed a need for the research you are going to present in the following—because there was a gap in the current research, or because there is an obvious problem with a currently used process or technology—you can proceed with the formulation of your research question and summarize how you are going to address it in the rest of your manuscript.

Why is the Background of the Study Important?

No matter how surprising and important the findings of your study are, if you do not provide the reader with the necessary background information and context, they will not be able to understand your reasons for studying the specific problem you chose and why you think your study is relevant. And more importantly, an editor who does not share your enthusiasm for your work (because you did not fill them in on all the important details) will very probably not even consider your manuscript worthy of their and the reviewers’ time and will immediately send it back to you.

To avoid such desk rejections , you need to make sure you pique the reader’s interest and help them understand the contribution of your work to the specific field you study, the more general research community, or the public. Introducing the study background is crucial to setting the scene for your readers.

Table of Contents:

• What is “Background Information” in a Research Paper?
• What Should the Background of a Research Paper Include?
• Where Does the Background Section Go in Your Paper?

Background of the Study Structure

Before writing your study background, it is essential to understand what to include. The following elements should all be included in the background and are presented in greater detail in the next section:

• A general overview of the topic and why it is important (overlaps with establishing the “importance of the topic” in the Introduction)
• The current state of the research on the topic or on related topics in the field
• Controversies about current knowledge or specific past studies that undergird your research methodology
• Any claims or assumptions that have been made by researchers, institutions, or politicians that might need to be clarified
• Methods and techniques used in the study or from which your study deviated in some way

Presenting the Study Background

As you begin introducing your background, you first need to provide a general overview and include the main issues concerning the topic. Depending on whether you do “basic” (with the aim of providing further knowledge) or “applied” research (to establish new techniques, processes, or products), this is either a literature review that summarizes all relevant earlier studies in the field or a description of the process (e.g., vote counting) or practice (e.g., diagnosis of a specific disease) that you think is problematic or lacking and needs a solution.

Example s of a general overview

If you study the function of a Drosophila gene, for example, you can explain to the reader why and for whom the study of fly genetics is relevant, what is already known and established, and where you see gaps in the existing literature. If you investigated how the way universities have transitioned into online teaching since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic has affected students’ learning progress, then you need to present a summary of what changes have happened around the world, what the effects of those changes have been so far, and where you see problems that need to be addressed. Note that you need to provide sources for every statement and every claim you make here, to establish a solid foundation of knowledge for your own study. 

Describing the current state of knowledge

When the reader understands the main issue(s), you need to fill them in more specifically on the current state of the field (in basic research) or the process/practice/product use you describe (in practical/applied research). Cite all relevant studies that have already reported on the Drosophila gene you are interested in, have failed to reveal certain functions of it, or have suggested that it might be involved in more processes than we know so far. Or list the reports from the education ministries of the countries you are interested in and highlight the data that shows the need for research into the effects of the Corona-19 pandemic on teaching and learning.

Discussing controversies, claims, and assumptions

Are there controversies regarding your topic of interest that need to be mentioned and/or addressed? For example, if your research topic involves an issue that is politically hot, you can acknowledge this here. Have any earlier claims or assumptions been made, by other researchers, institutions, or politicians, that you think need to be clarified?

Mentioning methodologies and approaches

While putting together these details, you also need to mention methodologies : What methods/techniques have been used so far to study what you studied and why are you going to either use the same or a different approach? Are any of the methods included in the literature review flawed in such a way that your study takes specific measures to correct or update? While you shouldn’t spend too much time here justifying your methods (this can be summarized briefly in the rationale of the study at the end of the Introduction and later in the Discussion section), you can engage with the crucial methods applied in previous studies here first.

When you have established the background of the study of your research paper in such a logical way, then the reader should have had no problem following you from the more general information you introduced first to the specific details you added later. You can now easily lead over to the relevance of your research, explain how your work fits into the bigger picture, and specify the aims and objectives of your study. This latter part is usually considered the “ statement of the problem ” of your study. Without a solid research paper background, this statement will come out of nowhere for the reader and very probably raise more questions than you were planning to answer.   

Where does the study background section go in a paper?

Unless you write a research proposal or some kind of report that has a specific “Background” chapter, the background of your study is the first part of your introduction section . This is where you put your work in context and provide all the relevant information the reader needs to follow your rationale. Make sure your background has a logical structure and naturally leads into the statement of the problem at the very end of the introduction so that you bring everything together for the reader to judge the relevance of your work and the validity of your approach before they dig deeper into the details of your study in the methods section .

Consider Receiving Professional Editing Services

Now that you know how to write a background section for a research paper, you might be interested in our AI text editor at Wordvice AI. And be sure to receive professional editing services , including academic editing and proofreading , before submitting your manuscript to journals. On the Wordvice academic resources website, you can also find many more articles and other resources that can help you with writing the other parts of your research paper , with making a research paper outline before you put everything together, or with writing an effective cover letter once you are ready to submit.

What Is Background in a Research Paper?

So you have carefully written your research paper  and probably ran it through your colleagues ten to fifteen times. While there are many elements to a good research article, one of the most important elements for your readers is the background of your study.

What is Background of the Study in Research

The background of your study will provide context to the information discussed throughout the research paper . Background information may include both important and relevant studies. This is particularly important if a study either supports or refutes your thesis.

Why is Background of the Study Necessary in Research?

The background of the study discusses your problem statement, rationale, and research questions. It links  introduction to your research topic  and ensures a logical flow of ideas.  Thus, it helps readers understand your reasons for conducting the study.

Providing Background Information

The reader should be able to understand your topic and its importance. The length and detail of your background also depend on the degree to which you need to demonstrate your understanding of the topic. Paying close attention to the following questions will help you in writing background information:

• Are there any theories, concepts, terms, and ideas that may be unfamiliar to the target audience and will require you to provide any additional explanation?
• Any historical data that need to be shared in order to provide context on why the current issue emerged?
• Are there any concepts that may have been borrowed from other disciplines that may be unfamiliar to the reader and need an explanation?

Related: Ready with the background and searching for more information on journal ranking? Check this infographic on the SCImago Journal Rank today!

Is the research study unique for which additional explanation is needed? For instance, you may have used a completely new method

How to Write a Background of the Study

The structure of a background study in a research paper generally follows a logical sequence to provide context, justification, and an understanding of the research problem. It includes an introduction, general background, literature review , rationale , objectives, scope and limitations , significance of the study and the research hypothesis . Following the structure can provide a comprehensive and well-organized background for your research.

Here are the steps to effectively write a background of the study.

1. Identify Your Audience:

Determine the level of expertise of your target audience. Tailor the depth and complexity of your background information accordingly.

2. Understand the Research Problem:

Define the research problem or question your study aims to address. Identify the significance of the problem within the broader context of the field.

3. Review Existing Literature:

Conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known in the area. Summarize key findings, theories, and concepts relevant to your research.

4. Include Historical Data:

Integrate historical data if relevant to the research, as current issues often trace back to historical events.

5. Identify Controversies and Gaps:

Note any controversies or debates within the existing literature. Identify gaps , limitations, or unanswered questions that your research can address.

6. Select Key Components:

Choose the most critical elements to include in the background based on their relevance to your research problem. Prioritize information that helps build a strong foundation for your study.

7. Craft a Logical Flow:

Organize the background information in a logical sequence. Start with general context, move to specific theories and concepts, and then focus on the specific problem.

8. Highlight the Novelty of Your Research:

Clearly explain the unique aspects or contributions of your study. Emphasize why your research is different from or builds upon existing work.

Here are some extra tips to increase the quality of your research background:

Example of a Research Background

Here is an example of a research background to help you understand better.

The above hypothetical example provides a research background, addresses the gap and highlights the potential outcome of the study; thereby aiding a better understanding of the proposed research.

What Makes the Introduction Different from the Background?

Your introduction is different from your background in a number of ways.

• The introduction contains preliminary data about your topic that  the reader will most likely read , whereas the background clarifies the importance of the paper.
• The background of your study discusses in depth about the topic, whereas the introduction only gives an overview.
• The introduction should end with your research questions, aims, and objectives, whereas your background should not (except in some cases where your background is integrated into your introduction). For instance, the C.A.R.S. ( Creating a Research Space ) model, created by John Swales is based on his analysis of journal articles. This model attempts to explain and describe the organizational pattern of writing the introduction in social sciences.

Points to Note

Your background should begin with defining a topic and audience. It is important that you identify which topic you need to review and what your audience already knows about the topic. You should proceed by searching and researching the relevant literature. In this case, it is advisable to keep track of the search terms you used and the articles that you downloaded. It is helpful to use one of the research paper management systems such as Papers, Mendeley, Evernote, or Sente. Next, it is helpful to take notes while reading. Be careful when copying quotes verbatim and make sure to put them in quotation marks and cite the sources. In addition, you should keep your background focused but balanced enough so that it is relevant to a broader audience. Aside from these, your background should be critical, consistent, and logically structured.

Writing the background of your study should not be an overly daunting task. Many guides that can help you organize your thoughts as you write the background. The background of the study is the key to introduce your audience to your research topic and should be done with strong knowledge and thoughtful writing.

The background of a research paper typically ranges from one to two paragraphs, summarizing the relevant literature and context of the study. It should be concise, providing enough information to contextualize the research problem and justify the need for the study. Journal instructions about any word count limits should be kept in mind while deciding on the length of the final content.

The background of a research paper provides the context and relevant literature to understand the research problem, while the introduction also introduces the specific research topic, states the research objectives, and outlines the scope of the study. The background focuses on the broader context, whereas the introduction focuses on the specific research project and its objectives.

When writing the background for a study, start by providing a brief overview of the research topic and its significance in the field. Then, highlight the gaps in existing knowledge or unresolved issues that the study aims to address. Finally, summarize the key findings from relevant literature to establish the context and rationale for conducting the research, emphasizing the need and importance of the study within the broader academic landscape.

The background in a research paper is crucial as it sets the stage for the study by providing essential context and rationale. It helps readers understand the significance of the research problem and its relevance in the broader field. By presenting relevant literature and highlighting gaps, the background justifies the need for the study, building a strong foundation for the research and enhancing its credibility.

The presentation very informative

It is really educative. I love the workshop. It really motivated me into writing my first paper for publication.

an interesting clue here, thanks.

thanks for the answers.

Good and interesting explanation. Thanks

Thank you for good presentation.

Hi Adam, we are glad to know that you found our article beneficial

The background of the study is the key to introduce your audience to YOUR research topic.

Awesome. Exactly what i was looking forwards to 😉

Hi Maryam, we are glad to know that you found our resource useful.

my understanding of ‘Background of study’ has been elevated.

Hi Peter, we are glad to know that our article has helped you get a better understanding of the background in a research paper.

thanks to give advanced information

Hi Shimelis, we are glad to know that you found the information in our article beneficial.

When i was studying it is very much hard for me to conduct a research study and know the background because my teacher in practical research is having a research so i make it now so that i will done my research

Very informative……….Thank you.

The confusion i had before, regarding an introduction and background to a research work is now a thing of the past. Thank you so much.

Thanks for your help…

Thanks for your kind information about the background of a research paper.

Thanks for the answer

Very informative. I liked even more when the difference between background and introduction was given. I am looking forward to learning more from this site. I am in Botswana

Hello, I am Benoît from Central African Republic. Right now I am writing down my research paper in order to get my master degree in British Literature. Thank you very much for posting all this information about the background of the study. I really appreciate. Thanks!

The write up is quite good, detailed and informative. Thanks a lot. The article has certainly enhanced my understanding of the topic.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

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

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

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

Abstract Vs. Introduction — Do you know the difference?

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

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Demystifying Research Methodology With Field Experts

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

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

How to Choose Best Research Methodology for Your Study

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

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

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

How to Draft the Acknowledgment Section of a Manuscript

Discussion Vs. Conclusion: Know the Difference Before Drafting Manuscripts

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Background Information
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Background information identifies and describes the history and nature of a well-defined research problem with reference to contextualizing existing literature. The background information should indicate the root of the problem being studied, appropriate context of the problem in relation to theory, research, and/or practice , its scope, and the extent to which previous studies have successfully investigated the problem, noting, in particular, where gaps exist that your study attempts to address. Background information does not replace the literature review section of a research paper; it is intended to place the research problem within a specific context and an established plan for its solution.

Fitterling, Lori. Researching and Writing an Effective Background Section of a Research Paper. Kansas City University of Medicine & Biosciences; Creating a Research Paper: How to Write the Background to a Study. DurousseauElectricalInstitute.com; Background Information: Definition of Background Information. Literary Devices Definition and Examples of Literary Terms.

Importance of Having Enough Background Information

Background information expands upon the key points stated in the beginning of your introduction but is not intended to be the main focus of the paper. It generally supports the question, what is the most important information the reader needs to understand before continuing to read the paper? Sufficient background information helps the reader determine if you have a basic understanding of the research problem being investigated and promotes confidence in the overall quality of your analysis and findings. This information provides the reader with the essential context needed to conceptualize the research problem and its significance before moving on to a more thorough analysis of prior research.

Forms of contextualization included in background information can include describing one or more of the following:

• Cultural -- placed within the learned behavior of a specific group or groups of people.
• Economic -- of or relating to systems of production and management of material wealth and/or business activities.
• Gender -- located within the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with being self-identified as male, female, or other form of  gender expression.
• Historical -- the time in which something takes place or was created and how the condition of time influences how you interpret it.
• Interdisciplinary -- explanation of theories, concepts, ideas, or methodologies borrowed from other disciplines applied to the research problem rooted in a discipline other than the discipline where your paper resides.
• Philosophical -- clarification of the essential nature of being or of phenomena as it relates to the research problem.
• Physical/Spatial -- reflects the meaning of space around something and how that influences how it is understood.
• Political -- concerns the environment in which something is produced indicating it's public purpose or agenda.
• Social -- the environment of people that surrounds something's creation or intended audience, reflecting how the people associated with something use and interpret it.
• Temporal -- reflects issues or events of, relating to, or limited by time. Concerns past, present, or future contextualization and not just a historical past.

Background information can also include summaries of important research studies . This can be a particularly important element of providing background information if an innovative or groundbreaking study about the research problem laid a foundation for further research or there was a key study that is essential to understanding your arguments. The priority is to summarize for the reader what is known about the research problem before you conduct the analysis of prior research. This is accomplished with a general summary of the foundational research literature [with citations] that document findings that inform your study's overall aims and objectives.

NOTE : Research studies cited as part of the background information of your introduction should not include very specific, lengthy explanations. This should be discussed in greater detail in your literature review section. If you find a study requiring lengthy explanation, consider moving it to the literature review section.

ANOTHER NOTE : In some cases, your paper's introduction only needs to introduce the research problem, explain its significance, and then describe a road map for how you are going to address the problem; the background information basically forms the introduction part of your literature review. That said, while providing background information is not required, including it in the introduction is a way to highlight important contextual information that could otherwise be hidden or overlooked by the reader if placed in the literature review section.

Background of the Problem Section: What do you Need to Consider? Anonymous. Harvard University; Hopkins, Will G. How to Write a Research Paper. SPORTSCIENCE, Perspectives/Research Resources. Department of Physiology and School of Physical Education, University of Otago, 1999; Green, L. H. How to Write the Background/Introduction Section. Physics 499 Powerpoint slides. University of Illinois; Pyrczak, Fred. Writing Empirical Research Reports: A Basic Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences . 8th edition. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing, 2014; Stevens, Kathleen C. “Can We Improve Reading by Teaching Background Information?.” Journal of Reading 25 (January 1982): 326-329; Woodall, W. Gill. Writing the Background and Significance Section. Senior Research Scientist and Professor of Communication. Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions. University of New Mexico.

Structure and Writing Style

Providing background information in the introduction of a research paper serves as a bridge that links the reader to the research problem . Precisely how long and in-depth this bridge should be is largely dependent upon how much information you think the reader will need to know in order to fully understand the problem being discussed and to appreciate why the issues you are investigating are important.

From another perspective, the length and detail of background information also depends on the degree to which you need to demonstrate to your professor how much you understand the research problem. Keep this in mind because providing pertinent background information can be an effective way to demonstrate that you have a clear grasp of key issues, debates, and concepts related to your overall study.

The structure and writing style of your background information can vary depending upon the complexity of your research and/or the nature of the assignment. However, in most cases it should be limited to only one to two paragraphs in your introduction.

Given this, here are some questions to consider while writing this part of your introduction :

• Are there concepts, terms, theories, or ideas that may be unfamiliar to the reader and, thus, require additional explanation?
• Are there historical elements that need to be explored in order to provide needed context, to highlight specific people, issues, or events, or to lay a foundation for understanding the emergence of a current issue or event?
• Are there theories, concepts, or ideas borrowed from other disciplines or academic traditions that may be unfamiliar to the reader and therefore require further explanation?
• Is there a key study or small set of studies that set the stage for understanding the topic and frames why it is important to conduct further research on the topic?
• Y our study uses a method of analysis never applied before;
• Your study investigates a very esoteric or complex research problem;
• Your study introduces new or unique variables that need to be taken into account ; or,
• Your study relies upon analyzing unique texts or documents, such as, archival materials or primary documents like diaries or personal letters that do not represent the established body of source literature on the topic?

Almost all introductions to a research problem require some contextualizing, but the scope and breadth of background information varies depending on your assumption about the reader's level of prior knowledge . However, despite this assessment, background information should be brief and succinct and sets the stage for the elaboration of critical points or in-depth discussion of key issues in the literature review section of your paper.

Writing Tip

Background Information vs. the Literature Review

Incorporating background information into the introduction is intended to provide the reader with critical information about the topic being studied, such as, highlighting and expanding upon foundational studies conducted in the past, describing important historical events that inform why and in what ways the research problem exists, defining key components of your study [concepts, people, places, phenomena] and/or placing the research problem within a particular context. Although introductory background information can often blend into the literature review portion of the paper, essential background information should not be considered a substitute for a comprehensive review and synthesis of relevant research literature.

Hart, Cris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998; Pyrczak, Fred. Writing Empirical Research Reports: A Basic Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences . 8th edition. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing, 2014.

• << Previous: The C.A.R.S. Model
• Next: The Research Problem/Question >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

What is the Background in a Research Paper?

An effective Background section in your manuscript establishes the context for your study. And while original research requires novel findings, providing the necessary background information for these findings may be just as important. It lets your readers know that your findings are novel, important, and worthy of their time and attention.

Updated on October 3, 2022

A good Background section explains the history and nature of your research question in relation to existing literature – a “state of the art.” This section, along with the rationale, helps readers understand why you chose to study this problem and why your study is worthwhile. This article will show you how to do this.

Read on to better understand the:

• Real purpose of the Background section
• Typical length of a Background section and its placement
• Elements of an effective Background

What is the Background section of a research paper?

The Background section is an essential element of every study, answering:

• What do we already know about the topic?
• How does your study relate to what's been done so far in your field?
• What is its scope?
• Why does the topic warrant your interest and their interest?
• How did you develop the research question that you'll later introduce?

In grant writing, a Background section is often referred to as the “state of the art,” and this is a useful term to have in mind when writing this part of your paper.

What comes next?

After you make the above points,

• Formulate your research question/hypothesis . Research aims and objectives should be closely related to how you'll fill the gap you've identified in the literature. Your research gap is the central theme of your article and why people should read it.
• Summarize how you'll address it in the paper . Your methodology needs to be appropriate for addressing the “problem” you've identified.
• Describe the significance of your study . Show how your research fits into the bigger picture.

Note that the Background section isn't the same as the research rationale. Rather, it provides the relevant information the reader needs so they can follow your rationale. For example, it

• Explains scientific terms
• Provides available data and statistics on the topic
• Describes the methods used so far on your topic. Especially if these are different from what you're going to do. Take special care here, because this is often where peer reviewers focus intently.

This is a logical approach to what comes after the study's background. Use it and the reader can easily follow along from the broader information to the specific details that come later. Crucially, they'll have confidence that your analysis and findings are valid.

Where should the background be placed in a research paper?

Usually, the background comes after the statement of the problem, in the Introduction section. Logically, you need to provide the study context before discussing the research questions, methodology, and results.

The background can be found in:

The abstract

The background typically forms the first few sentences of the abstract. Why did you do the study? Most journals state this clearly. In an unstructured (no subheadings) abstract, it's the first sentence or two. In a structured abstract, it might be called the Introduction, Background, or State-of-the-Art.

PLOS Medicine , for example, asks for research article abstracts to be split into three sections: Background, Methods and Findings, and Conclusions. Journals in the humanities or social sciences might not clearly ask for it because articles sometimes have a looser structure than STEM articles.

The first part of the Introduction section

In the journal Nature , for example, the Introduction should be around 200 words and include

• Two to three sentences giving a basic introduction to the field.
• The background and rationale of the study are stated briefly.
• A simple phrase “Here we show ...”, or “In this study, we show ....” (to round out the Introduction).

The Journal of Organic Chemistry has similar author guidelines.

The Background as a distinct section

This is often the case for research proposals or some types of reports, as discussed above. Rather than reviewing the literature, this is a concise summary of what's currently known in the field relevant to the question being addressed in this proposed study.

How long should the Background section be?

As mentioned, there's no set length for the Background section. It generally depends on the journal and the content of your manuscript. Check the journal's author guidelines, the research center, granting agency, etc. If it's still not clear or if the instructions are contradictory, email or phone them directly.

The length of your background will depend on:

The manuscript length and content

A book-length study needs a more extensive Background than a four-page research article. Exploring a relatively unknown method or question might also need a longer Background.

For example, see this Frontiers article on the applications of artificial intelligence for developing COVID-19 vaccines. It has a seven-paragraph long Background (1,200 words) in a separate section. The authors need to discuss earlier successful uses of machine learning for therapy discovery to make a convincing case.

An academic paper published in an international journal is usually around 5,000 words. Your paper needs to be balanced, with appropriate text lengths used for the different sections: It would make no sense to have a 300-word introduction and then 4,000 words for the methods, for example. In a 5,000-word manuscript, you'll be able to use about 1,500 for the introduction, which includes the background.

How much you need to show your understanding of the topic

A lengthy grant application might need a longer Background (sub-)section. That's because if they're going to grant you money, they need a very good reason to. You'll need to show that the work is both interesting and doable. The Background is where you can do this.

What should the Background of a research manuscript include?

The Background of a research paper needs to show two things:

The study's territory ( scope )

First, provide a general overview of the field. Scientists in most disciplines should find it relatively easy to understand. Be broad, keep it interesting. Don't go into the specifics of your particular study.

Let's look at two examples:

• one from basic research (seeking to generate new knowledge)
• one from applied research (trying to solve or improve existing processes or products)

Applied research

This Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence article explores how AI can help discover treatments for COVID-19.

The background of the study can be found (i) in the abstract and (ii) in a separate section discussed at the end of this article. The abstract starts with this general overview: “SARS-COV-2 has roused the scientific community with a call to action to combat the growing pandemic.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 ). This is broad, and it's interesting. This is a topic that many researchers (even from outside this specific area) may want to learn more about.

Think of any theories, models, concepts, or terms (maybe borrowed from different disciplines) that may be unfamiliar to your reader. Be sure to clarify them in plainer language, if necessary.

For example, this systematic review looks at the connections of physician burnout with career engagement and quality of patient care. The Background is in the Introduction section. It starts by defining what burnout is:

• “Burnout is defined as a syndrome related to work that involves three key dimensions.” ( Hodkinson et al., 2022 )

The authors go on to explain its three aspects: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a sense of reduced personal accomplishment.

Basic research

Imagine you're investigating how universities' moves to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted students' learning outcomes in the United Kingdom. The overview could be:

• The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdown generated tremendous challenges across the higher education sector. University campuses were forced to close. Face-to-face teaching and assessment transitioned into a virtual format.

2. The niche in the field (motivation)

To establish the niche in your field, describe what drove you to explore this specific topic.

• Explain how (un)successfully previous studies have investigated the problem.
• Note the knowledge gap or present a problem with a currently used process/practice/product.

After setting the stage, the abstract of the Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence article identifies a problem:

• “At the time of this writing, there are as yet no novel antiviral agents or approved vaccines available for deployment as a frontline defense.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 )

The authors need to support their claim that computational methods can help discover new COVID-19 treatments. They do so by referring to previous research findings:

• “In the last decade, machine learning-based models, trained on specific biomolecules, have offered inexpensive and rapid implementation methods for the discovery of effective viral therapies.” ( Arshadi et al., 2020 )

Going back to the study on students' learning outcomes after universities introduced e-learning. The background section will next identify and describe the current knowledge gap and your proposed method of fixing it. It may be something like:

• Existing literature and studies by the UK Department for Education reveal x + y changes and effects on teaching and learning. Yet they provide little to no information on students' learning outcomes. Understanding the impact of online teaching and assessments on student outcomes is key to adopting future teaching practices and ensuring students from disadvantaged backgrounds are not left behind.

How is the background different from the literature review?

Both the background and literature review sections compile previous studies that are relevant and important to the topic.

Despite their similarities, they're different in scope and aims.

Overall, the research background could be seen as a small part of the detailed critical discussion in the literature review. Almost always, primary research articles do not include a detailed literature review.

How is the Background different from the Introduction section?

Although often part of the Introduction, the Background differs from the Introduction in scope and aim.

Breakdown of the Background in published articles

Consider this systematic review looking at the connections of physician burnout with career engagement and quality of patient care.

The Background is placed in the Introduction section. It's critical, consistent, and logically structured, moving from general to specific information.

You can also check out the summary paragraph breakdown provided by Nature. (Nature's “summary paragraph” is essentially an abstract.)

And if you're looking for some help, or have an article that's finished but needs a pre-submission review click here to connect with one of our expert AJE editors.

Gareth Dyke, PhD

Director of Global Content

See our "Privacy Policy"

Writing Research Background

Research background is a brief outline of the most important studies that have been conducted so far presented in a chronological order. Research background part in introduction chapter can be also headed ‘Background of the Study.” Research background should also include a brief discussion of major theories and models related to the research problem.

Specifically, when writing research background you can discuss major theories and models related to your research problem in a chronological order to outline historical developments in the research area.  When writing research background, you also need to demonstrate how your research relates to what has been done so far in the research area.

Research background is written after the literature review. Therefore, literature review has to be the first and the longest stage in the research process, even before the formulation of research aims and objectives, right after the selection of the research area. Once the research area is selected, the literature review is commenced in order to identify gaps in the research area.

Research aims and objectives need to be closely associated with the elimination of this gap in the literature. The main difference between background of the study and literature review is that the former only provides general information about what has been done so far in the research area, whereas the latter elaborates and critically reviews previous works.

John Dudovskiy

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

Tips for Writing an Effective Background of the Study

The Background of the Study is an integral part of any research paper that sets the context and the stage for the research presented in the paper. It's the section that provides a detailed context of the study by explaining the problem under investigation, the gaps in existing research that the study aims to fill, and the relevance of the study to the research field. It often incorporates aspects of the existing literature and gives readers an understanding of why the research is necessary and the theoretical framework that it is grounded in.

The Background of the Study holds a significant position in the process of research. It serves as the scaffold upon which the entire research project is built. It helps the reader understand the problem, its significance, and how your research will contribute to the existing body of knowledge. A well-articulated background can provide a clear roadmap for your study and assist others in understanding the direction and value of your research. Without it, readers may struggle to grasp the purpose and importance of your work.

The aim of this blog post is to guide budding researchers, students, and academicians on how to craft an effective Background of the Study section for their research paper. It is designed to provide practical tips, highlight key components, and elucidate common mistakes to avoid. By the end of this blog post, readers should have a clear understanding of how to construct a compelling background that successfully contextualizes their research, highlights its significance, and sets a clear path for their investigation.

Understanding the background of the study

The Background of the Study in a research context refers to a section of your research paper that discloses the basis and reasons behind the conduction of the study. It sets the broader context for your research by presenting the problem that your study intends to address, giving a brief overview of the subject domain, and highlighting the existing gaps in knowledge. This section also presents the theoretical or conceptual framework and states the research objectives, and often includes the research question or hypothesis . The Background of the Study gives your readers a deeper understanding of the purpose, importance, and direction of your study.

How it fits into the overall structure of a research paper

The Background of the Study typically appears after the introduction and before the literature review in the overall structure of a research paper. It acts as a bridge between the general introduction, where the topic is initially presented, and the more specific aspects of the paper such as the literature review, methodology , results , and discussion. It provides necessary information to help readers understand the relevance and value of the study in a wider context, before zooming in to specific details of your research.

Difference between the background of the study, introduction, and literature review

Now that we understand the role of the Background of the Study within a research paper, let's delve deeper to differentiate it from two other crucial components of the paper - the Introduction and the Literature Review.

• Background of the Study: This section provides a comprehensive context for the research, including a statement of the problem , the theoretical or conceptual framework, the gap that the study intends to fill, and the overall significance of the research. It guides the reader from a broad understanding of the research context to the specifics of your study.
• Introduction: This is the first section of the research paper that provides a broad overview of the topic , introduces the research question or hypothesis , and briefly mentions the methodology used in the study. It piques the reader's interest and gives them a reason to continue reading the paper.
• Literature Review: This section presents an organized summary of the existing research related to your study. It helps identify what we already know and what we do not know about the topic, thereby establishing the necessity for your research. The literature review allows you to demonstrate how your study contributes to and extends the existing body of knowledge.

While these three sections may overlap in some aspects, each serves a unique purpose and plays a critical role in the research paper.

Components of the background of the study

Statement of the problem.

This is the issue or situation that your research is intended to address. It should be a clear, concise declaration that explains the problem in detail, its context, and the negative impacts if it remains unresolved. This statement also explains why there's a need to study the problem, making it crucial for defining the research objectives.

Importance of the study

In this component, you outline the reasons why your research is significant. How does it contribute to the existing body of knowledge? Does it provide insights into a particular issue, offer solutions to a problem, or fill gaps in existing research? Clarifying the importance of your study helps affirm its value to your field and the larger academic community.

Relevant previous research and literature

Present an overview of the major studies and research conducted on the topic. This not only shows that you have a broad understanding of your field, but it also allows you to highlight the knowledge gaps that your study aims to fill. It also helps establish the context of your study within the larger academic dialogue.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study. It presents the theories, concepts, or ideas which are relevant to the study and explains how these theories apply to your research. It helps to connect your findings to the broader constructs and theories in your field.

Research questions or hypotheses

These are the specific queries your research aims to answer or the predictions you are testing. They should be directly aligned with your problem statement and clearly set out what you hope to discover through your research.

Potential implications of the research

This involves outlining the potential applications of your research findings in your field and possibly beyond. What changes could your research inspire? How might it influence future studies? By explaining this, you underscore the potential impact of your research and its significance in a broader context.

How to write a comprehensive background of the study

Identify and articulate the problem statement.

To successfully identify and articulate your problem statement, consider the following steps:

• Start by clearly defining the problem your research aims to solve. The problem should be specific and researchable.
• Provide context for the problem. Where does it arise? Who or what is affected by it?
• Clearly articulate why the problem is significant. Is it a new issue, or has it been a long-standing problem in your field? How does it impact the broader field or society at large?
• Express the potential adverse effects if the problem remains unresolved. This can help underscore the urgency or importance of your research.
• Remember, while your problem statement should be comprehensive, aim for conciseness. You want to communicate the gravity of the issue in a precise and clear manner.

Conduct and summarize relevant literature review

A well-executed literature review is fundamental for situating your study within the broader context of existing research. Here's how you can approach it:

• Begin by conducting a comprehensive search for existing research that is relevant to your problem statement. Make use of academic databases, scholarly journals, and other credible sources of research.
• As you read these studies, pay close attention to their key findings, research methodologies, and any gaps in the research that they've identified. These elements will be crucial in the summary of your literature review.
• Make an effort to analyze, rather than just list, the studies. This means drawing connections between different research findings, contrasting methodologies, and identifying overarching trends or conflicts in the field.
• When summarizing the literature review, focus on synthesis . Explain how these studies relate to each other and how they collectively relate to your own research. This could mean identifying patterns, themes, or gaps that your research aims to address.

Describe the theoretical framework

The theoretical framework of your research is crucial as it grounds your work in established concepts and provides a lens through which your results can be interpreted. Here's how to effectively describe it:

• Begin by identifying the theories, ideas, or models upon which your research is based. These may come from your literature review or your understanding of the subject matter.
• Explain these theories or concepts in simple terms, bearing in mind that your reader may not be familiar with them. Be sure to define any technical terms or jargon that you use.
• Make connections between these theories and your research. How do they relate to your study? Do they inform your research questions or hypotheses?
• Show how these theories guide your research methodology and your analysis. For instance, do they suggest certain methods for data collection or specific ways of interpreting your data?
• Remember, your theoretical framework should act as the "lens" through which your results are viewed, so it needs to be relevant and applicable to your study.

Formulate your research questions or hypotheses

Crafting well-defined research questions or hypotheses is a crucial step in outlining the scope of your research. Here's how you can effectively approach this process:

• Begin by establishing the specific questions your research aims to answer. If your study is more exploratory in nature, you may formulate research questions. If it is more explanatory or confirmatory, you may state hypotheses.
• Ensure that your questions or hypotheses are researchable. They should be specific, clear, and measurable with the methods you plan to use.
• Check that your research questions or hypotheses align with your problem statement and research objectives. They should be a natural extension of the issues outlined in your background of the study.
• Finally, remember that well-crafted research questions or hypotheses will guide your research design and help structure your entire paper. They act as the anchors around which your research revolves.

Highlight the potential implications and significance of your research

To conclude your Background of the Study, it's essential to highlight the potential implications and significance of your work. Here's how to do it effectively:

• Start by providing a clear explanation of your research's potential implications. This could relate to the advancement of theoretical knowledge or practical applications in the real world.
• Discuss the importance of your research within the context of your field. How does it contribute to the existing body of knowledge? Does it challenge current theories or practices?
• Highlight how your research could influence future studies. Could it open new avenues of inquiry? Does it suggest a need for further research in certain areas?
• Finally, consider the practical applications of your research. How could your findings be used in policy-making, business strategies, educational practices, or other real-world scenarios?
• Always keep in mind that demonstrating the broader impact of your research increases its relevance and appeal to a wider audience, extending beyond the immediate academic circle.

Following these guidelines can help you effectively highlight the potential implications and significance of your research, thereby strengthening the impact of your study.

Practical tips for writing the background of the study

Keeping the section concise and focused.

Maintain clarity and brevity in your writing. While you need to provide sufficient detail to set the stage for your research, avoid unnecessary verbosity. Stay focused on the main aspects related to your research problem, its context, and your study's contribution.

Ensuring the background aligns with your research questions or hypotheses

Ensure a clear connection between your background and your research questions or hypotheses. Your problem statement, review of relevant literature, theoretical framework, and the identified gap in research should logically lead to your research questions or hypotheses.

Citing your sources correctly

Always attribute the ideas, theories, and research findings of others appropriately to avoid plagiarism . Correct citation not only upholds academic integrity but also allows your readers to access your sources if they wish to explore them in depth. The citation style may depend on your field of study or the requirements of the journal or institution.

Bridging the gap between existing research and your study

Identify the gap in existing research that your study aims to fill and make it explicit. Show how your research questions or hypotheses emerged from this identified gap. This helps to position your research within the broader academic conversation and highlights the unique contribution of your study.

Avoiding excessive jargon

While technical terms are often unavoidable in academic writing, use them sparingly and make sure to define any necessary jargon for your reader. Your Background of the Study should be understandable to people outside your field as well. This will increase the accessibility and impact of your research.

Common mistakes to avoid while writing the background of the study

Being overly verbose or vague.

While it's important to provide sufficient context, avoid being overly verbose in your descriptions. Also, steer clear of vague or ambiguous phrases. The Background of the Study should be clear, concise, and specific, giving the reader a precise understanding of the study's purpose and context.

Failing to relate the background to the research problem

The entire purpose of the Background of the Study is to set the stage for your research problem. If it doesn't directly relate to your problem statement, research questions, or hypotheses, it may confuse the reader. Always ensure that every element of the background ties back to your study.

Neglecting to mention important related studies

Not mentioning significant related studies is another common mistake. The Background of the Study section should give a summary of the existing literature related to your research. Omitting key pieces of literature can give the impression that you haven't thoroughly researched the topic.

Overusing technical jargon without explanation

While certain technical terms may be necessary, overuse of jargon can make your paper inaccessible to readers outside your immediate field. If you need to use technical terms, make sure you define them clearly. Strive for clarity and simplicity in your writing as much as possible.

Not citing sources or citing them incorrectly

Academic integrity is paramount in research writing. Ensure that every idea, finding, or theory that is not your own is properly attributed to its original source. Neglecting to cite, or citing incorrectly, can lead to accusations of plagiarism and can discredit your research. Always follow the citation style guide relevant to your field.

Writing an effective Background of the Study is a critical step in crafting a compelling research paper. It serves to contextualize your research, highlight its significance, and present the problem your study seeks to address. Remember, your background should provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research, identify gaps in existing literature, and indicate how your research will fill these gaps. Keep your writing concise, focused, and jargon-free, making sure to correctly cite all sources. Avoiding common mistakes and adhering to the strategies outlined in this post will help you develop a robust and engaging background for your study. As you embark on your research journey, remember that the Background of the Study sets the stage for your entire research project, so investing time and effort into crafting it effectively will undoubtedly pay dividends in the end.

Header image by Flamingo Images .

Related Posts

How Does a Hypothesis Differ From a Research Question?

Use These Better Verbs in Academic Writing

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Elevate your research paper with expert editing services

Mastering the Basics of Writing Background of the Study

Table of contents

• 1 Purpose of the Research Paper Background
• 2.1 Starting with Preliminary Research for Broad Context
• 2.2.1 Chronological
• 2.2.2 Thematical
• 2.2.3 Methodological
• 2.3 Link to Your Research Question
• 2.4 Avoid Plagiarism and Ensuring Proper Citation
• 2.5 Using Clear, Academic Language
• 2.6 Don’t Overload with Excessive Details
• 2.7 Review Relevant Literature
• 2.8 Identify Gaps or Contradiction
• 2.9 Keep Your Target Audience in Mind
• 2.10 Stay Objective
• 2.11 Mention Methodologies, Scope, and Limitations
• 3 Bottom Line
• 4.1 How long should background information be?
• 4.2 What is the difference between background of the study and problem statement?
• 4.3 Why is background research important to the research process?

Writing a research paper can be a juggling act, especially for those with little experience. There are so many elements to consider, and you need to cover all the bases if you want your paper to elevate your academic standings.

The background in research paper is where you lay out the topic, the gaps in the literature that this study seeks to fill, and your study’s general and unique contributions. Thus, developing the research paper background section is crucial to give a general overview of the study.

That’s why we’ve decided to give you some pointers, including:

• The purpose of the background of the study;
• Collecting and organizing background information;
• Linking the background to your present study;
• Using proper citation and wording, retaining objectivity.

Purpose of the Research Paper Background

When you write a research background of the study, you explain the rationale and foundation for doing the research. It’s quite different from the research paper introduction section or a literature review. Here, you explore the history, nature, and scope of your research problem. Once you determine how previous studies have covered the problem, you can pinpoint the remaining gaps, discuss their importance, and how your study can fill them.

Essentially, it’s the foundation of your entire study. It determines the structure of your paper, highlights a well-defined research problem, and helps the reader determine your research’s unique and general contributions. Besides serving as a clear roadmap, a well-written background of the study must help the reader understand the value and purpose of your research.

How to Write a Background of the Study

Any researcher needs to understand the steps that go into writing an effective background of the study. Since you don’t have clarity in the early stages, you need to collect more information via preliminary research. Then, you should organize your information in a structure that can seamlessly lead up to your research paper in a way that shows the significance of your study.

So, if you’re wondering what is background of the study in research and how to compose it, here are some tips.

Starting with Preliminary Research for Broad Context

Before delving into writing the background of a research paper, you need a comprehensive review of the most important articles and reports on the subject in a literature review to acquire some introductory background information. Basically, you need to collect as much research data as possible.

To start with the background of an article, look for prior studies that address your issue statement in detail. Refer to reputable resources, such as academic databases and publications, and use their bibliography and literature review section to find new sources. This lets you discover new authors treating your research topic.

Finally, keep note of each piece of material you find if you decide to include it in your thesis. It helps you avoid or at least reduce plagiarism in research when you integrate those sources into your work.

Organize the Information

Now it’s time to discuss a vital writing tip: background information categorization. Most researchers use one of the three approaches: chronological, thematic, or methodological.

Chronological

Here, the study background and contextual information are organized in a chronological structure. As such, the reader can understand how you arrived at your conclusions about the development and the next steps you want to take in your research.

It can also be based on a trend. This method should be used only if you’re sure that the trends build logically upon one another and trace back in time. Overall, you must:

• Highlight only the most crucial background information in research
• Only use facts that can be objectively confirmed
• Find gaps in previous studies
• Give your opinion

When the background of a research paper is thematic, it is structured around the topics comprising your research problem. Start by identifying the main and secondary themes. Then, create hierarchies based on their importance or how they’re related to each other.

In other words, it requires structuring the basic background information into paragraphs that highlight themes and identify patterns in the research topic.

Separate each paragraph with a topic sentence, and ensure that each sentence effectively synthesizes background information from many sources. You can also use the famous inverted pyramid method to go from a general overview to the specifics. Overall, this method gives an overview of all topics and themes of your research subject.

Methodological

This approach for writing background of study in research focuses on the methodology in research paper rather than specific topics or the chronological order. It draws attention to the differences and similarities across research methods and offers alternative insights into the subject.

If you cover a topic where there are many relevant models or theories, it is helpful to highlight the most popular ones. In this manner, you can get a basic understanding of the most common perspectives on your subject by categorizing the paper according to the theoretical framework.

Link to Your Research Question

Be specific about the knowledge gap your research study intends to fill and show how this inspired your research questions or theories. This will help place your study in the context of the larger academic discussion while also highlighting its unique contribution.

Avoid talking about irrelevant topics, and focus on what is most important regarding your subject. In other words, every step or theme you discuss should disclose the problems and explain why you deem it important to solve them.

Avoid Plagiarism and Ensuring Proper Citation

Plagiarism is one of the main reasons for writers to seek professional help with research paper writing. To avoid accusations of plagiarism, it is important to properly credit the ideas, models, and conclusions of others. Accurately citing your sources helps maintain academic honesty and gives readers easy access to further basic research papers.

The citation style you use may be determined by the guidelines of the publication or the institution you’re affiliated with. There are plenty of online resources, including guidelines and generators, that help you adhere to the given requirements.

Using Clear, Academic Language

An effective background should clearly highlight the research problem and how you plan to address it. This can only be achieved by using the correct terminology while keeping the text clear and understandable. Thus, use technical phrases with caution and provide essential context and definitions for any unfamiliar term.

Make sure that even readers who aren’t familiar with your field can understand the rationale and hypothesis in study papers. Your study will be more accessible and appealing if you do this.

Don’t Overload with Excessive Details

Keep your writing simple and to the point. Although providing sufficient background information helps simplify your study, you should avoid using too many words. Going too deeply into the evidence that inspired your research problem might just confuse your readers.

In other words, it is not necessary to describe every step or every point of relevant research studies. In the background section, only discuss the important details and results that led you to formulate your research question.

Review Relevant Literature

Only by knowing and understanding what has been said and discovered before you can hope to give your contribution. When reviewing relevant research literature, you should provide a concise summary of previous studies and other works that have laid the groundwork for your own. Ensuring the material you use comes from credible sources in research is key. Also, remember to explore all nuances that could help with your research topic.

Identify Gaps or Contradiction

Normally, research objectives are based on the gaps and contradictions found in analyzing the literature review and previous research. Failing to do so might create a redundant or meaningless paper. That’s why, in the background section, you must clarify the reasoning behind how you unveiled the problems you seek to solve. You should also detail the methods to test and quantify your study hypothesis and how your findings will add to what’s already known.

Note that you’re also likely to leave a research gap or have some contradictions in your study. Don’t forget to recognize and inform your readers about them. It shows professionalism and enhances your credibility.

Keep Your Target Audience in Mind

It’s crucial to tailor the background of the study to your audience. Whether for an assignment or an academic publishing, you must write in a way that makes your message come across. So, if you know that the paper is going to be read by experts in the field, it’s ok to use a more technical and complex vocabulary.

Conversely, if the audience is more general, consider their scholarly background, avoid jargon, provide contextual information and explain concepts in a simple way.

Stay Objective

Retaining objectivity is one of the defining key components for all academic essay writers . However, having a personal interest or predisposition for a certain point of view might make it difficult to avoid bias and retain impartiality. Using a wide range of sources that address various topics, viewpoints, and research methods is crucial for maintaining objectivity both in the background and literature review section.

Mention Methodologies, Scope, and Limitations

Scientific research demands appropriate and proven methodologies. That’s why it’s important to clarify which ones you used, why and how they fit in the context of your research. The explanation should include the methodology for data collection and analysis, models, and the tools used.

The reasoning must be linked with the scope of your research. This must be clearly stated and intertwined with methods and context.

Finally, identify and discuss the shortcomings of your study background. It demonstrates that you’ve given careful thought to the study’s limits and have a firm grasp of the subject at hand. Researchers and reviewers will respect you more if you are upfront about the limits of your research methodology and go into depth about them rather than pretending they don’t exist.

Bottom Line

The first stage in writing a great research paper is to provide an intriguing background for the study. Its purpose is to explain the bigger picture, stress the importance of your study, and lay out the key issues you chose to study. Don’t forget that the background section of research paper writing isn’t a literature review. It discusses the reasons behind your study, points out any gaps in existing works, and explains how you would help fill those gaps.

All this should have taught you how to write a background for a research paper. But don’t forget that knowing the theory is only the first step. Whenever you feel stuck, don’t be shy to ask for guidance and rely on the help of experts.

How long should background information be?

What is the difference between background of the study and problem statement, why is background research important to the research process, readers also enjoyed.

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

In a research paper, what is the background of study?

Research papers should include a background of study statement that provides context for the study. Read the article and learn more about it!

Unless you provide the background information needed for the reader to understand your choice of the subject and why your study is important, they will not be able to grasp the significance of the findings of your research, regardless of how significant and fascinating they are. 

Research papers should include a background of study statement that provides context for the study. A reader’s interest in the rest of the study is determined by the quality of the background. It is therefore imperative to write an engaging and effective background. How should a study’s background be written, and how should it be presented?

What is the background of study in the research paper?

The background of a study outlines how your research began, your interest in the subject, and the development of your study question. In other words, you should provide a broad overview of the research that you performed, followed by a discussion of what motivated you to choose the particular problem that you studied. 

Your topic should be clearly understood by the reader. Whether and to what extent you need to explain your background depends on what you are writing about. 

A research paper’s background section

The background of a research paper acts as the first element readers will notice; so it is important that it is informative and fascinating enough to get them interested in reading further. In the background, the volume and the specifics vary according to the research paper, particularly if the topic is complex or novel. 

Complex studies can sometimes be simplified by a simple background. Reviewing previous literature on the topic of your study is typically part of your research background. After identifying the gaps in existing knowledge, you should explain how your study will fill them.

The difference between the background of the study and the introduction section

There are a number of ways in which your introduction differs from your background. In the introduction, you provide preliminary information about the paper that is likely to be studied by the reader, but in the background section, you explain why the paper is relevant. 

In your study’s background, you discuss the topic in great detail, in contrast to the introduction, which provides an overall view of the topic. You should conclude your introduction with reasons for conducting research, objectives, and research goals, not your background, other than when it is incorporated into the introduction.

Here are the steps to writing a background of study

• Defining the research topic and identifying the target audience is the best way to start the background.
• Provide a detailed discussion of all concepts, terminology, keywords, and information that may feel new to the intended audience.
• Examine the relevant literature in depth to learn more about the essential requirements. 
• Read carefully and make notes. Cite your sources when you are done.
• Be sure to strike a balance between emphasizing key points, as well as communicating to a wide audience.
• History is a significant source of current issues. Add relevant data in the background if your research relies on historical information.
• Provide an explanation to help people understand the research if it is groundbreaking or novel.
• Develop a compelling narrative around the research theme to increase engagement. Don’t forget to add the necessary infographics.

Here are some things to avoid in a study’s background

In the case of your research paper, when you established the background in an organized manner, you would have been able to lead the reader seamlessly throughout. Nevertheless, you should be careful as well, here are a few points to keep in mind.

• Avoid unclear language at all costs. Consider your reader as unaware of any complex details about your research while writing.
• Avoid writing an excessively long or short background. Write concisely while not forgetting to include everything that is important.  
• Don’t devote time to topics that don’t relate to the main thrust of the research.
• Putting information without a structure is a disorganized approach. A chronology should be followed for the background, and subsections should be ordered logically.
• Be sure to cite every source.

For more information on how to write research articles and papers, please visit our blog . 

Create science-based infographics in a few clicks

That’s right, creating infographics is as easy as clicking a few buttons. With Mind the Graph’s infographic maker, you can create accurate science-based infographics for your research paper effortlessly.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Aayushi Zaveri

Aayushi Zaveri majored in biotechnology engineering. She is currently pursuing a master's degree in Bioentrepreneurship from Karolinska Institute. She is interested in health and diseases, global health, socioeconomic development, and women's health. As a science enthusiast, she is keen in learning more about the scientific world and wants to play a part in making a difference.

Content tags

PHILO-notes

Free Online Learning Materials

How to Write the Background of the Study in Research (Part 1)

Background of the Study in Research: Definition and the Core Elements it Contains

Before we embark on a detailed discussion on how to write the background of the study of your proposed research or thesis, it is important to first discuss its meaning and the core elements that it should contain. This is obviously because understanding the nature of the background of the study in research and knowing exactly what to include in it allow us to have both greater control and clear direction of the writing process.

So, what really is the background of the study and what are the core elements that it should contain?

The background of the study, which usually forms the first section of the introduction to a research paper or thesis, provides the overview of the study. In other words, it is that section of the research paper or thesis that establishes the context of the study. Its main function is to explain why the proposed research is important and essential to understanding the main aspects of the study.

The background of the study, therefore, is the section of the research paper or thesis that identifies the problem or gap of the study that needs to addressed and justifies the need for conducting the study. It also articulates the main goal of the study and the thesis statement, that is, the main claim or argument of the paper.

Given this brief understanding of the background of the study, we can anticipate what readers or thesis committee members expect from it. As we can see, the background of the study should contain the following major points:

1) brief discussion on what is known about the topic under investigation; 2) An articulation of the research gap or problem that needs to be addressed; 3) What the researcher would like to do or aim to achieve in the study ( research goal); 4) The thesis statement, that is, the main argument or contention of the paper (which also serves as the reason why the researcher would want to pursue the study); 5) The major significance or contribution of the study to a particular discipline; and 6) Depending on the nature of the study, an articulation of the hypothesis of the study.

Thus, when writing the background of the study, you should plan and structure it based on the major points just mentioned. With this, you will have a clear picture of the flow of the tasks that need to be completed in writing this section of your research or thesis proposal.

Now, how do you go about writing the background of the study in your proposed research or thesis?

The next lessons will address this question.

How to Write the Opening Paragraphs of the Background of the Study?

To begin with, let us assume that you already have conducted a preliminary research on your chosen topic, that is, you already have read a lot of literature and gathered relevant information for writing the background of your study. Let us also assume that you already have identified the gap of your proposed research and have already developed the research questions and thesis statement. If you have not yet identified the gap in your proposed research, you might as well go back to our lesson on how to identify a research gap.

So, we will just put together everything that you have researched into a background of the study (assuming, again, that you already have the necessary information). But in this lesson, let’s just focus on writing the opening paragraphs.

It is important to note at this point that there are different styles of writing the background of the study. Hence, what I will be sharing with you here is not just “the” only way of writing the background of the study. As a matter of fact, there is no “one-size-fits-all” style of writing this part of the research or thesis. At the end of the day, you are free to develop your own. However, whatever style it would be, it always starts with a plan which structures the writing process into stages or steps. The steps that I will share with below are just some of the most effective ways of writing the background of the study in research.

So, let’s begin.

It is always a good idea to begin the background of your study by giving an overview of your research topic. This may include providing a definition of the key concepts of your research or highlighting the main developments of the research topic.

Let us suppose that the topic of your study is the “lived experiences of students with mathematical anxiety”.

Here, you may start the background of your study with a discussion on the meaning, nature, and dynamics of the term “mathematical anxiety”. The reason for this is too obvious: “mathematical anxiety” is a highly technical term that is specific to mathematics. Hence, this term is not readily understandable to non-specialists in this field.

So, you may write the opening paragraph of your background of the study with this:

“Mathematical anxiety refers to the individual’s unpleasant emotional mood responses when confronted with a mathematical situation.”

Since you do not invent the definition of the term “mathematical anxiety”, then you need to provide a citation to the source of the material from which you are quoting. For example, you may now say:

“Mathematical anxiety refers to the individual’s unpleasant emotional mood responses when confronted with a mathematical situation (Eliot, 2020).”

And then you may proceed with the discussion on the nature and dynamics of the term “mathematical anxiety”. You may say:

“Lou (2019) specifically identifies some of the manifestations of this type of anxiety, which include, but not limited to, depression, helplessness, nervousness and fearfulness in doing mathematical and numerical tasks.”

After explaining to your readers the meaning, nature, and dynamics (as well as some historical development if you wish to) of the term “mathematical anxiety”, you may now proceed to showing the problem or gap of the study. As you may already know, the research gap is the problem that needs to be addressed in the study. This is important because no research activity is possible without the research gap.

Let us suppose that your research problem or gap is: “Mathematical anxiety can negatively affect not just the academic achievement of the students but also their future career plans and total well-being. Also, there are no known studies that deal with the mathematical anxiety of junior high school students in New Zealand.” With this, you may say:

“If left unchecked, as Shapiro (2019) claims, this problem will expand and create a total avoidance pattern on the part of the students, which can be expressed most visibly in the form of cutting classes and habitual absenteeism. As we can see, this will negatively affect the performance of students in mathematics. In fact, the study conducted by Luttenberger and Wimmer (2018) revealed that the outcomes of mathematical anxiety do not only negatively affect the students’ performance in math-related situations but also their future career as professionals. Without a doubt, therefore, mathematical anxiety is a recurring problem for many individuals which will negatively affect the academic success and future career of the student.”

Now that you already have both explained the meaning, nature, and dynamics of the term “mathematical anxiety” and articulated the gap of your proposed research, you may now state the main goal of your study. You may say:

“Hence, it is precisely in this context that the researcher aims to determine the lived experiences of those students with mathematical anxiety. In particular, this proposed thesis aims to determine the lived experiences of the junior high school students in New Zealand and identify the factors that caused them to become disinterested in mathematics.”

Please note that you should not end the first paragraph of your background of the study with the articulation of the research goal. You also need to articulate the “thesis statement”, which usually comes after the research goal. As is well known, the thesis statement is the statement of your argument or contention in the study. It is more of a personal argument or claim of the researcher, which specifically highlights the possible contribution of the study. For example, you may say:

“The researcher argues that there is a need to determine the lived experiences of these students with mathematical anxiety because knowing and understanding the difficulties and challenges that they have encountered will put the researcher in the best position to offer some alternatives to the problem. Indeed, it is only when we have performed some kind of a ‘diagnosis’ that we can offer practicable solutions to the problem. And in the case of the junior high school students in New Zealand who are having mathematical anxiety, determining their lived experiences as well as identifying the factors that caused them to become disinterested in mathematics are the very first steps in addressing the problem.”

If we combine the bits and pieces that we have written above, we can now come up with the opening paragraphs of your background of the study, which reads:

As we can see, we can find in the first paragraph 5 essential elements that must be articulated in the background of the study, namely:

1) A brief discussion on what is known about the topic under investigation; 2) An articulation of the research gap or problem that needs to be addressed; 3) What the researcher would like to do or aim to achieve in the study (research goal); 4) The thesis statement , that is, the main argument or claim of the paper; and 5) The major significance or contribution of the study to a particular discipline. So, that’s how you write the opening paragraphs of your background of the study. The next lesson will talk about writing the body of the background of the study.

How to Write the Body of the Background of the Study?

If we liken the background of the study to a sitting cat, then the opening paragraphs that we have completed in the previous lesson would just represent the head of the cat.

This means we still have to write the body (body of the cat) and the conclusion (tail). But how do we write the body of the background of the study? What should be its content?

Truly, this is one of the most difficult challenges that fledgling scholars faced. Because they are inexperienced researchers and didn’t know what to do next, they just wrote whatever they wished to write. Fortunately, this is relatively easy if they know the technique.

One of the best ways to write the body of the background of the study is to attack it from the vantage point of the research gap. If you recall, when we articulated the research gap in the opening paragraphs, we made a bold claim there, that is, there are junior high school students in New Zealand who are experiencing mathematical anxiety. Now, you have to remember that a “statement” remains an assumption until you can provide concrete proofs to it. This is what we call the “epistemological” aspect of research. As we may already know, epistemology is a specific branch of philosophy that deals with the validity of knowledge. And to validate knowledge is to provide concrete proofs to our statements. Hence, the reason why we need to provide proofs to our claim that there are indeed junior high school students in New Zealand who are experiencing mathematical anxiety is the obvious fact that if there are none, then we cannot proceed with our study. We have no one to interview with in the first. In short, we don’t have respondents.

The body of the background of the study, therefore, should be a presentation and articulation of the proofs to our claim that indeed there are junior high school students in New Zealand who are experiencing mathematical anxiety. Please note, however, that this idea is true only if you follow the style of writing the background of the study that I introduced in this course.

So, how do we do this?

One of the best ways to do this is to look for literature on mathematical anxiety among junior high school students in New Zealand and cite them here. However, if there are not enough literature on this topic in New Zealand, then we need to conduct initial interviews with these students or make actual classroom observations and record instances of mathematical anxiety among these students. But it is always a good idea if we combine literature review with interviews and actual observations.

Assuming you already have the data, then you may now proceed with the writing of the body of your background of the study. For example, you may say:

“According to records and based on the researcher’s firsthand experience with students in some junior high schools in New Zealand, indeed, there are students who lost interest in mathematics. For one, while checking the daily attendance and monitoring of the students, it was observed that some of them are not always attending classes in mathematics but are regularly attending the rest of the required subjects.”

After this sentence, you may insert some literature that will support this position. For example, you may say:

“As a matter of fact, this phenomenon is also observed in the work of Estonanto. In his study titled ‘Impact of Math Anxiety on Academic Performance in Pre-Calculus of Senior High School’, Estonanto (2019) found out that, inter alia, students with mathematical anxiety have the tendency to intentionally prioritize other subjects and commit habitual tardiness and absences.”

Then you may proceed saying:

“With this initial knowledge in mind, the researcher conducted initial interviews with some of these students. The researcher learned that one student did not regularly attend his math subject because he believed that he is not good in math and no matter how he listens to the topic he will not learn.”

Then you may say:

“Another student also mentioned that she was influenced by her friends’ perception that mathematics is hard; hence, she avoids the subject. Indeed, these are concrete proofs that there are some junior high school students in New Zealand who have mathematical anxiety. As already hinted, “disinterest” or the loss of interest in mathematics is one of the manifestations of a mathematical anxiety.”

If we combine what we have just written above, then we can have the first two paragraphs of the body of our background of the study. It reads:

“According to records and based on the researcher’s firsthand experience with students in some junior high schools in New Zealand, indeed there are students who lost interest in mathematics. For one, while checking the daily attendance and monitoring of the students, it was observed that some of them are not always attending classes in mathematics but are regularly attending the rest of the required subjects. As a matter of fact, this phenomenon is also observed in the work of Estonanto. In his study titled ‘Impact of Math Anxiety on Academic Performance in Pre-Calculus of Senior High School’, Estonanto (2019) found out that, inter alia, students with mathematical anxiety have the tendency to intentionally prioritize other subjects and commit habitual tardiness and absences.

With this initial knowledge in mind, the researcher conducted initial interviews with some of these students. The researcher learned that one student did not regularly attend his math subject because he believed that he is not good in math and no matter how he listens to the topic he will not learn. Another student also mentioned that she was influenced by her friends’ perception that mathematics is hard; hence, she avoids the subject. Indeed, these are concrete proofs that there are some junior high school students in New Zealand who have mathematical anxiety. As already hinted, “disinterest” or the loss of interest in mathematics is one of the manifestations of a mathematical anxiety.”

And then you need validate this observation by conducting another round of interview and observation in other schools. So, you may continue writing the body of the background of the study with this:

“To validate the information gathered from the initial interviews and observations, the researcher conducted another round of interview and observation with other junior high school students in New Zealand.”

“On the one hand, the researcher found out that during mathematics time some students felt uneasy; in fact, they showed a feeling of being tensed or anxious while working with numbers and mathematical problems. Some were even afraid to seat in front, while some students at the back were secretly playing with their mobile phones. These students also show remarkable apprehension during board works like trembling hands, nervous laughter, and the like.”

Then provide some literature that will support your position. You may say:

“As Finlayson (2017) corroborates, emotional symptoms of mathematical anxiety involve feeling of helplessness, lack of confidence, and being nervous for being put on the spot. It must be noted that these occasionally extreme emotional reactions are not triggered by provocative procedures. As a matter of fact, there are no personally sensitive questions or intentional manipulations of stress. The teacher simply asked a very simple question, like identifying the parts of a circle. Certainly, this observation also conforms with the study of Ashcraft (2016) when he mentions that students with mathematical anxiety show a negative attitude towards math and hold self-perceptions about their mathematical abilities.”

And then you proceed:

“On the other hand, when the class had their other subjects, the students show a feeling of excitement. They even hurried to seat in front and attentively participating in the class discussion without hesitation and without the feeling of being tensed or anxious. For sure, this is another concrete proof that there are junior high school students in New Zealand who have mathematical anxiety.”

To further prove the point that there indeed junior high school students in New Zealand who have mathematical anxiety, you may solicit observations from other math teachers. For instance, you may say:

“The researcher further verified if the problem is also happening in other sections and whether other mathematics teachers experienced the same observation that the researcher had. This validation or verification is important in establishing credibility of the claim (Buchbinder, 2016) and ensuring reliability and validity of the assertion (Morse et al., 2002). In this regard, the researcher attempted to open up the issue of math anxiety during the Departmentalized Learning Action Cell (LAC), a group discussion of educators per quarter, with the objective of ‘Teaching Strategies to Develop Critical Thinking of the Students’. During the session, one teacher corroborates the researcher’s observation that there are indeed junior high school students in New Zealand who have mathematical anxiety. The teacher pointed out that truly there were students who showed no extra effort in mathematics class in addition to the fact that some students really avoided the subject. In addition, another math teacher expressed her frustrations about these students who have mathematical anxiety. She quipped: “How can a teacher develop the critical thinking skills or ability of the students if in the first place these students show avoidance and disinterest in the subject?’.”

Again, if we combine what we have just written above, then we can now have the remaining parts of the body of the background of the study. It reads:

So, that’s how we write the body of the background of the study in research . Of course, you may add any relevant points which you think might amplify your content. What is important at this point is that you now have a clear idea of how to write the body of the background of the study.

How to Write the Concluding Part of the Background of the Study?

Since we have already completed the body of our background of the study in the previous lesson, we may now write the concluding paragraph (the tail of the cat). This is important because one of the rules of thumb in writing is that we always put a close to what we have started.

It is important to note that the conclusion of the background of the study is just a rehashing of the research gap and main goal of the study stated in the introductory paragraph, but framed differently. The purpose of this is just to emphasize, after presenting the justifications, what the study aims to attain and why it wants to do it. The conclusion, therefore, will look just like this:

“Given the above discussion, it is evident that there are indeed junior high school students in New Zealand who are experiencing mathematical anxiety. And as we can see, mathematical anxiety can negatively affect not just the academic achievement of the students but also their future career plans and total well-being. Again, it is for this reason that the researcher attempts to determine the lived experiences of those junior high school students in New Zealand who are experiencing a mathematical anxiety.”

If we combine all that we have written from the very beginning, the entire background of the study would now read:

If we analyze the background of the study that we have just completed, we can observe that in addition to the important elements that it should contain, it has also addressed other important elements that readers or thesis committee members expect from it.

On the one hand, it provides the researcher with a clear direction in the conduct of the study. As we can see, the background of the study that we have just completed enables us to move in the right direction with a strong focus as it has set clear goals and the reasons why we want to do it. Indeed, we now exactly know what to do next and how to write the rest of the research paper or thesis.

On the other hand, most researchers start their research with scattered ideas and usually get stuck with how to proceed further. But with a well-written background of the study, just as the one above, we have decluttered and organized our thoughts. We have also become aware of what have and have not been done in our area of study, as well as what we can significantly contribute in the already existing body of knowledge in this area of study.

Please note, however, as I already mentioned previously, that the model that I have just presented is only one of the many models available in textbooks and other sources. You are, of course, free to choose your own style of writing the background of the study. You may also consult your thesis supervisor for some guidance on how to attack the writing of your background of the study.

Lastly, and as you may already know, universities around the world have their own thesis formats. Hence, you should follow your university’s rules on the format and style in writing your research or thesis. What is important is that with the lessons that you learned in this course, you can now easily write the introductory part of your thesis, such as the background of the study.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

• A Research Guide
• Research Paper Guide

How to Write a Background for a Research Paper

• What is the background
• Background structure
• Literature review vs background
• Step-by-step writing guide
• Tips to avoid mistakes

Background information example

The background of any academic paper is the academic backbone it relates to. Thus, you must carefully write the first section to keep the end goal clear for your reader.

We’ve got you covered if you need more time or writing skills to create a solid study paper! This article will provide the necessary information to write a background for a research paper. Let’s go!

What is the background of the study in research?

The research paper background refers to the section, component, or thesis that provides context and justification for conducting the study. It outlines the existing knowledge, gaps, and limitations in the field or topic you currently investigate.

The definition of “background” says it should begin with a general introduction to the subject matter, providing an overview of the broader scientific area. It aims to familiarize the reader with the topic and establish its significance and relevance in the existing body of knowledge.

Furthermore, the background of the study highlights the specific problem or knowledge gap that the current study aims to address. It emphasizes the need for further investigation, highlighting the unanswered questions or areas where you have to conduct an additional examination.

The background of the study also plays a crucial role in shaping the study objectives, questions, and hypotheses . By reviewing the existing literature and identifying gaps, academic associates can formulate clearer goals and design appropriate methodologies to address the specific problems.

The background of the study structure

The background statement can vary depending on the scientific field and the paper or thesis requirements. However, it generally follows a logical flow and includes several key components. Here is a standard structure for the background structure:

• Introduction: Begin with a brief introduction that provides an overview of the chosen topic and its importance. This section should capture the reader’s interest and establish the context for the study.
• Current problem: As an academic author, you must clearly identify the scientif problem or gap in the existing knowledge the study aims to address. Please explain why this problem is significant and why it requires further investigation.
• Literature review: Review the relevant literature related to the research topic. Summarize critical theories, concepts, and findings from previous studies directly relevant to the research problem. Discuss the existing knowledge and highlight any limitations or gaps the current study aims to fill.
• Research questions/objectives/hypotheses: To write background information, you should clearly state the research questions, objectives, or assumptions that guide the study. These should be directly derived from the research problem and align with the gaps identified in the literature review.
• Study rationale: Explain the potential contributions and implications of the study. Discuss how the findings may advance knowledge, address practical issues, or have broader impacts in the field or society. Justify why the study is worth conducting and how it adds value to the existing body of knowledge.
• Scope and limitations: Define the size of the study by outlining the boundaries and specific aspects you will cover. Discuss any limits or constraints impacting the study’s findings or generalizability.
• Summary: Provide a concise summary or conclusion of the background section of a research paper, emphasizing the research problem, significance, and the need for further investigation.

It’s important to note that you can imply changes to the structure based on your requirements and the specific guidelines provided by your college advisor.

Difference between literature review and background

The literature review and the background of the study are two distinct components of a research paper or thesis, although they are closely related. Let’s explore the differences between these two sections:

Steps to write a good background section

When writing a background section for a research paper, you can follow these three steps to ensure a clear and compelling presentation:

Identify the Research Problem

• Begin by clearly identifying and defining the research problem or gap in the existing knowledge that your study aims to address.
• Consider the significance and relevance of the problem within your research field or discipline.
• Briefly explain why the problem is essential and how addressing it can contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

Review the Relevant Literature

• Conduct a thorough literature review to gather relevant information and understand the current state of knowledge on your research topic.
• Summarize critical theories, concepts, and findings from previous studies that directly relate to your research problem.
• Highlight any gaps, controversies, or limitations in the existing literature that your study aims to address.
• Organize the literature review logically, either by themes, sub-topics, or chronologically, depending on what they mean for your research.

Provide Rationale and Objectives

• Provide a clear rationale for conducting your study based on the research problem and the gaps identified in the literature review.
• Explain why your research is essential and how it will contribute to filling the identified gaps or advancing knowledge in the field.
• State the specific research objectives or questions your study aims to answer.
• Align the objectives with the research problem and the gaps identified in the literature, demonstrating how your study will address those gaps.

Following these steps, you can create a well-structured and coherent background section that establishes your research’s context, significance, and rationale. Remember to provide sufficient background information and be concise yet informative in your presentation.

The main tips to avoid mistakes

Here are a few tips to help you avoid common mistakes when writing background paragraphs:

• Focus on the research topic;
• Be concise and clear;
• Use credible and up-to-date sources;
• Provide a logical flow;
• Avoid excessive jargon and technical terms;
• Balance breadth and depth;
• Use citations appropriately;
• Revise and proofread.

By following these tips, you can enhance the quality of your background section, ensuring that it effectively sets the stage for your research and engages the reader from the beginning of your paper.

To write the background of a research paper, you must understand the overall structure and know exactly how this section should look.

Let’s see an excellent example of a background section for a research paper on the topic of “The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health”:

“The rapid rise of social media platforms in recent years has transformed how people communicate, connect, and share information. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat have become integral parts of daily life for millions of individuals worldwide. 

While social media offers numerous benefits, including increased social connectivity and access to diverse perspectives, concerns have been raised regarding its potential impact on mental health.

Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, focusing on depression, anxiety, and body image dissatisfaction. 

This study seeks to contribute to the existing knowledge by employing a longitudinal design and examining a broad range of mental health outcomes among a diverse sample of adults aged 18-45.

Research has shown that excessive use of social media and constant exposure to carefully curated and idealized representations of others’ lives can contribute to feelings of inadequacy, social comparison, and low self-esteem. 

Additionally, cyberbullying has emerged as a significant concern, as individuals may experience harassment, negative comments, and exclusion within the online environment”.

Brief Summary

You have to be very concise and clear to write a background paragraph. Remember that it often serves as the first point of contact between your research and the reader. As a result, the background section has to focus on the study, explaining the significance and relevance of the research problem.

• Writing a Research Paper
• Research Paper Title
• Research Paper Sources
• Research Paper Problem Statement
• Research Paper Thesis Statement
• Hypothesis for a Research Paper
• Research Question
• Research Paper Outline
• Research Paper Summary
• Research Paper Prospectus
• Research Paper Proposal
• Research Paper Format
• Research Paper Styles
• AMA Style Research Paper
• MLA Style Research Paper
• Chicago Style Research Paper
• APA Style Research Paper
• Research Paper Structure
• Research Paper Cover Page
• Research Paper Abstract
• Research Paper Introduction
• Research Paper Body Paragraph
• Research Paper Literature Review
• Research Paper Background
• Research Paper Methods Section
• Research Paper Results Section
• Research Paper Discussion Section
• Research Paper Conclusion
• Research Paper Appendix
• Research Paper Bibliography
• APA Reference Page
• Annotated Bibliography
• Bibliography vs Works Cited vs References Page
• Research Paper Types
• What is Qualitative Research

Receive paper in 3 Hours!

• Choose the number of pages.
• Select your deadline.
• Complete your order.

Number of Pages

550 words (double spaced)

Deadline: 10 days left

By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Sign Up for your FREE account

Global site navigation

• Celebrities
• Celebrity biographies
• Messages - Wishes - Quotes
• TV-shows and movies
• Fashion and style
• Capital Market
• Family and Relationships

Local editions

• Legit Nigeria News
• Legit Hausa News
• Legit Spanish News
• Legit French News

Background of the study in research: guide on how to write one

The background of the study is one of the key aspects you need to get right when you are writing a research paper. It is the key to introducing your readers to the topic of your research, and it is different from the lead part. Here is how to write the background of the study in research studies.

Here is all you need to know about the study's science background and how to write one.

What is the background of the study?

Background of the study meaning: The background of the study is a part of the research provided in the introduction section of the paper. It is a compilation of adequate information that is based on the analysis of the problem or proposed argument, the steps and methods needed to arrive at the design, the implementation of the results achieved, and feasible solutions.

It is different from the introduction. The introduction only contains preliminary information about your research question or thesis topic. It is simply an overview of the research question or thesis topic. But the background of your study is more in-depth - it explains why your research topic or thesis is worth your readers' time.

Exclusive: Former presidential aide reveals why PDP will dislodge APC, win presidential election in 2023

The background of the study will provide your readers with context to the information discussed throughout your research paper. It can include both relevant and essential studies.

The background of the study is used to prove that a thesis question is relevant and also to develop the thesis. In summary, a good background of the study is the work done to determine that your research question or thesis topic is a problem and that the method used is the one required to solve the issue or answer the question.

What is the importance of the background of the study?

The background of the study helps your reader determine if you have a basic understanding of the research problem being investigated and promotes confidence in the overall quality of your analysis and findings.

How to write the background of the study in a research paper

• Stage 1. At the beginning stages of formulating your thesis, many of the issues are still very unclear, and you need to solidify your thoughts, so you should conduct preliminary research. This will help you put forward a research question or thesis statement that will lead to more relevant and specific research. You can visit a library, check the internet and other electronic databases to find preliminary sources such as scholarly journals and books about your background of the study.
• Stage 2. Read and gather the info you need to develop - a thesis statement or research question that will guide your thesis. You should take notes and keep an accurate track of the sources of information you have used up to this point. Many people use note cards, but it’s easier and better to use electronic note-taking programs in this electronic age. Just make sure to use a form that is comfortable and easier for you. Also, make sure you cite the source of every piece of information you are using on each note so that you won’t forget where you got the information from, just in case you want to use it in your thesis.
• Stage 3. Develop and pen down the research question or thesis statement. Think about the things you’ve read and searched and the issues or solutions that have been found by other people, and then formulate your stance or opinion on the issue. Write out your position or opinion as an authoritative statement. You may conduct more detailed research at this point and look for more sources that are more relevant to your research question or thesis.
• Stage 4. Complete your research using the thesis statement as your guide. Find sources that are relevant to your specific thesis and provide more insight into your research question using these sources. Your sources should provide information on your thesis's history and past research.
• Stage 5. As you create your background study, create relevant sections. When you start writing, create five sections with the key issues, major findings, and controversies surrounding your thesis, and a section that provides evaluation and a conclusion.
• Stage 6. Identify the further studies that need to be done in the conclusion section. Also, mention possible solutions to the issues that have not been considered in the past.
• Stage 7. Revise and edit your background of the study carefully. You can write out several drafts of your work, revising, editing, and adding more information before coming up with the final one. Make sure each draft is better than the previous one. You can also ask someone else to help you go through it.

Call of the void: why do we feel the urge to jump off high places?

The writing format

You can follow this format when writing your background of the study:

• Start by giving a general overview of your thesis topic and introduce the key ideas you will use throughout your thesis.
• Then, give precise information about all the methodologies used in the research. This can take up to several paragraphs depending on the individual and research question or thesis topic.
• Cite your sources where necessary to avoid plagiarism.
• Then you can briefly introduce the experiment by describing your choice of methodology, why you have decided to use this methodology instead of others, and the objective of the methodology.

What does a good background of the study example contain?

A good example of the background of the study is one that:

• Contains reviews of the area being researched
• Has currently available information about the problem of the study
• Captures the previous studies on the issue
• Indicates the history of the issue of the study from previous research done on the subject

Amazing 5 Forbes Tips for Investors, Entrepreneurs on Building Business, Brand and Ideas in Nigeria

A good background of the study sample has all these qualities.

How is the background of the study different from the literature review?

The section of literature review follows the background of the study section. It is the second section of your thesis. The literature review supports the study section's background by providing evidence for the proposed hypothesis.

Hopefully, this information on the background of the study has been helpful to you. Read other useful posts on our website to improve your writing skills.

READ ALSO: Can you start a sentence with but: A grammatical explanation

Legit.ng reported that one of the most deeply ingrained grammar rules involves the usage of the word 'but'. For a long time, teachers have told their students that they cannot use conjunctions at the beginning of sentences. If you asked your English teacher, "Can you start a sentence with but?" you would be met with a resounding 'No!'

Tianjin Binhai: Photos and video show Chinese big library with 1.2 million books and tall shelves

But where did this 'rule' even come from? And does it hold water? Find out by reading Legit.ng's take on the usage of 'but' at the beginning of a sentence.

Source: Legit.ng

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The causal role of gut microbiota in susceptibility of long covid: a mendelian randomization study.

• 1 Second Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China
• 2 Qingyuan Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Qingyuan, China
• 3 The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Select one of your emails

You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:

Notify me on publication

Please enter your email address:

If you already have an account, please login

You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here

Background: Long COVID is a major challenge facing the public. Gut microbiota is closely related to Long COVID.However, the causal effects between gut microbiota and Long COVID remains unclear.Methods: Using summary statistics from Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS), Mendelian Randomization (MR) analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between gut microbiota and Long COVID. The primary statistical method employed was Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW). Sensitivity analyses were then conducted to evaluate the reliability of the findings and account for potential confounding variables. Finally, a reverse MR analysis was conducted to examine potential associations between Long COVID and genetically predicted gut microbiota compositions.: There were 2 positive and 1 negative causal effect between gut microbiota and Long COVID. Meta-analysis results show that genus Parasutterella (OR = 1.145, 95%CI = 1.035 ~ 1.266, P = 0.008) and genus Oscillospira (OR = 1.425, 95%CI = 1.235 ~ 1.645, P < 0.001) significantly increased the risk of Long COVID. And genus Eisenbergiella (OR = 0.861, 95%CI = 0.785 ~ 0.943, P = 0.001) significantly decreased the risk of Long COVID. Neither the pleiotropy nor the heterogeneity was observed. Reverse causal effect does not hold. Conclusions: Our research has provided genetic evidence that establishes multiple causal relationships between the gut microbiota and Long COVID, supporting the role of the gut microbiota in Long COVID. It is possible that different taxa play a role in the development of Long COVID. The causal relationships identified in this study require further investigation.

Keywords: Gut Microbiota, Long Covid, Mendelian randomization, causality, Genome-Wide Association Study

Received: 21 Mar 2024; Accepted: 07 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Li, Xia, Feng, CHEN, Wang, Ren, Wu, Yang, Li, Liu, Lu and Chen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Yue Lu, Second Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510000, Guangdong Province, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer
• Bile Duct Cancer
• Bladder Cancer
• Brain Cancer
• Breast Cancer
• Cervical Cancer
• Childhood Cancer
• Colorectal Cancer
• Endometrial Cancer
• Esophageal Cancer
• Head and Neck Cancer
• Kidney Cancer
• Liver Cancer
• Lung Cancer
• Mouth Cancer
• Mesothelioma
• Multiple Myeloma
• Neuroendocrine Tumors
• Ovarian Cancer
• Pancreatic Cancer
• Prostate Cancer
• Skin Cancer/Melanoma
• Stomach Cancer
• Testicular Cancer
• Throat Cancer
• Thyroid Cancer
• Prevention and Screening
• Diagnosis and Treatment
• Research and Clinical Trials
• Survivorship

Request an appointment at Mayo Clinic

Ovarian cancer: New treatments and research

Share this:.

Editor's note: May 8 is World Ovarian Cancer Day.

By Nicole Brudos Ferrara

Three cancers — ovarian epithelial cancer, fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer — are commonly called ovarian cancer. They arise from the same kind of tissue and are treated similarly.

"The ovaries and fallopian tubes are so anatomically close to each other that we sometimes can't tell if the cancer is coming from the ovary or the fallopian tube," says S. John Weroha, M.D., Ph.D. , a Mayo Clinic oncologist and chair of Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center's Gynecologic Cancer Disease Group. "When we diagnose patients with primary peritoneal cancer, I explain that under the microscope, and in the pattern of spread through the body, it looks like ovarian cancer even though the ovaries are not involved."

Primary peritoneal cancer forms in the peritoneum, the tissue that lines the abdominal cavity and the organs within it. Fallopian tube cancer forms in the tissue lining the inside of the tubes that eggs travel through to move from the ovaries to the uterus.

About 85% to 90% of ovarian cancers are ovarian epithelial cancers, also known as epithelial ovarian carcinomas, which form in the tissue lining the outside of the ovaries.

Dr. Weroha says new treatments are helping more people survive ovarian cancer of all types, and researchers are studying new treatments and screening methods in clinical trials. If you've been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, he wants you to know there is hope. Here's why:

New targeted therapies are improving survival.

Surgery and chemotherapy are no longer the only options for ovarian cancer treatment . Targeted therapies use drugs to target and attack cancer cells. These include monoclonal antibodies and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase, or PARP, inhibitors.

Monoclonal antibodies

Monoclonal antibodies are molecules engineered in the laboratory to find and attach to specific proteins associated with cancer cells. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody used with chemotherapy to treat ovarian cancer recurrence by preventing the growth of new blood vessels that tumors need to grow.

Researchers are combining bevacizumab with new drugs to improve outcomes. One example is a monoclonal antibody recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called mirvetuximab soravtansine for people with ovarian cancer recurrence. This drug is used when a person's cancer was previously treated with at least one systemic therapy to target a protein called folate receptor alpha.

"Ovarian cancers have many folate receptors. Most normal cells don't," says Dr. Weroha. "This drug is an antibody that has chemotherapy stuck onto it. Think of it as a guided missile traveling the body and sticking to cells with folate receptors. In patients whose ovarian cancer has recurred and whose tumors have many folate receptors, mirvetuximab soravtansine can shrink tumors far better than any other therapy. The response rate is about double what you see with any other treatment."

PARP inhibitors

PARP inhibitors are drugs that block DNA repair, which may cause cancer cells to die. Olaparib is an example of a PARP inhibitor used to prevent recurrence in people with ovarian cancer whose tumors have BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations. Research has shown that olaparib can significantly improve survival without recurrence in people with this diagnosis. "This is a front-line treatment, which means this is part of the first treatment regimen patients receive when they are newly diagnosed," says Dr. Weroha.

A vaccine may one day be used to fight ovarian cancer.

Matthew Block, M.D., Ph.D. , a Mayo Clinic medical oncologist, and Keith Knutson, Ph.D. , a Mayo Clinic researcher, are developing a vaccine to prevent ovarian cancer tumors from returning in people with advanced ovarian cancer whose tumors have recurred after surgery and chemotherapy.

White blood cells are extracted from a blood draw and manufactured to become dendritic cells — immune cells that boost immune responses. These cells are returned to the patient in vaccine form to trigger the immune system to recognize and fight the cancer.

The vaccine will be given in combination with an immunotherapy drug called pembrolizumab to identify and kill any tumors that don't respond to the dendritic cells.

"Pembrolizumab is in a category of drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors ," says Dr. Weroha. "This drug is designed to release the brakes on the immune system to allow it to do what it naturally wants: kill things it doesn't like. The hope is that the vaccine combined with the immunotherapy drug will kill a lot of ovarian cancer. It's exciting research."

A screening test may be on the horizon.

There is no screening test for ovarian cancer, but Jamie Bakkum-Gamez, M.D. , a Mayo Clinic gynecologic oncologist, is hoping to change that. She and her research team discovered that methylated DNA markers could be used to identify endometrial cancer through vaginal fluid collected with a tampon. Eventually, this same science could extend to ovarian cancer.

Methylation is a mechanism cells use to control gene expression — the process by which a gene is switched on in a cell to make RNA and proteins. When a certain area of a gene's DNA is methylated, the gene is turned off or silenced, indicating that a gene is a tumor suppressor. The silencing of tumor suppressor genes is often an early step in cancer development and can suggest cancer.

Dr. Bakkum-Gamez and her colleagues developed a panel of methylated DNA markers that could distinguish between endometrial cancer and noncancerous tissue in vaginal fluid. Based on this research, she hopes to develop an affordable tampon-based home screening test for endometrial, ovarian and cervical cancers, as well as high-risk HPV .

"This is exciting because this type of screening test can be used by people living in rural areas,” says Dr. Weroha. “If it's successful, it could help healthcare professionals identify ovarian and other gynecologic cancers sooner, when they're more treatable, in people living in all the communities we serve.”

A gynecologic oncologist and clinical trials can help you get the best possible treatment.

If you've been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, Dr. Weroha recommends making an appointment with a gynecologic oncologist . "A gynecologic oncologist will be up to date on the current treatment recommendations and the management of side effects. That's important," he says. "Once the plan is set, however, any medical oncologist could implement it.”

Dr. Weroha also recommends newly diagnosed patients ask their care teams if they are candidates for PARP inhibitors, mirvetuximab or clinical trials. "PARP inhibitors and mirvetuximab are newer treatments that could influence the outcome of your overall treatment. Always ask about clinical trials because when ovarian cancer recurs, there is no treatment so good that we can stop looking for something better," he says. "There is a very realistic hope that if your cancer were to come back, we would have something better that we don't have today."

Learn more about ovarian cancer and find a clinical trial at Mayo Clinic.

Join the Gynecologic Cancers Support Group on Mayo Clinic Connect , an online community moderated by Mayo Clinic for patients and caregivers.

Join the next virtual Gynecologic Cancer Support Meeting: Women of S-Teal . Monthly meetings are held every second Monday from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. ET.

Also, read these articles:

• A step toward detecting endometrial cancer earlier
• Harnessing the immune system to fight ovarian cancer
• Life after ovarian cancer: Coping with side effects, fear of recurrence, and finding support
• New surgical method for ovarian cancer lights up lesions
• Is a cancer clinical trial right for me?
• New chemotherapy approach for late-stage cancers

Related Posts

Dr. Brad Nitzsche explains why there isn't a universal screening program for ovarian cancer and the symptoms to watch for.

Dr. Maria Linnaus discusses the link between obesity and cancer risk and how bariatric surgery may reduce that risk.

Dr. Kristina Butler discusses health disparities in cancers of the ovaries, uterus, cervix, vulva and vagina and makes recommendations for prevention.

• Our Mission

5 Popular Education Beliefs That Aren’t Backed by Research

Making adjustments to these common misconceptions can turn dubious strategies into productive lessons, the research suggests.

Not every learning myth requires teachers to pull up stakes and start all over again—at least not entirely. There are some commonly held misconceptions that contain a nugget of wisdom but need to be tweaked in order to align with the science of learning.

Sometimes, in other words, you’re already halfway there. Here are five mostly myths, from the power of doodling to the motivating role of grades, that educators can quickly adjust and turn to their advantage.

1. Doodling Improves Focus and Learning

When we write about the power of drawing to learn, we often hear from readers who feel compelled to defend an old habit: “See, I told you that when I was doodling, I was still paying attention!” But doodling—which is commonly defined as “an aimless or casual scribble or sketch” and often consists of marginalia like cartoon characters, geometric patterns, or pastoral scenes—is distinct from what researchers call “task-related drawing.” And doodling, in this sense, is not associated with improvements in focus or academic outcomes.

In fact, both cognitive load theory and experimental studies are generally downbeat on doodling. Students who sketch complicated scenes or designs as they try to process a lesson on plate tectonics, according to the first theory, are engaging in competitive cognitive tasks and will generally underperform on both. Doodling, like all drawing, is cognitively intensive, involving complex feedback loops between visual, sensorimotor, attentional, and planning regions of the brain and body. Because our ability to process information is finite, drawing and learning about different things at the same time is a simple question of too much.

Research confirms the theory. A 2019 study pitted off-task doodling against typical learning activities like “task-related drawing” and writing. In three separate but related experiments, task-related drawing and writing beat out doodling in terms of recall—by margins as large as 300 percent. How to fix it: Sketching what you are actually learning—from representational drawings of cells or tectonic boundaries to the creation of concept maps and organizational drawings—is, in fact, a powerful learning strategy (see research here , here , and here ), and that applies “regardless of one’s artistic talent,” a 2018 study confirms. Try to harness a student’s passion for doodling by allowing them to submit academic sketches as work products. To get even more bang for your buck, ask them to annotate their drawings, or talk you through them—which will encode learning even more deeply, according to research .

2. Reading Aloud In Turn Improves Fluency

Often called round robin reading (RRR), I resorted to it when I taught years ago—and it appears that it’s still frequently used, judging from a 2019 blog by literacy expert Timothy Shanahan and comments on a 2022 Cult of Pedagogy post on the topic. Teachers deploy RRR—during which the whole class follows a text while students read sections consecutively—for good reasons: Arguably, the practice encourages student engagement, gives teachers the opportunity to gauge oral reading fluency, and has a built-in classroom management benefit as well. Students are generally silent and (superficially) attentive when a peer is reading.

But according to Shanahan, and the literacy professors Katherine Hilden and Jennifer Jones, the practice has long been frowned upon. In an influential 2012 review of relevant literature , Hilden and Jones cut straight to the point: “We know of no research evidence that supports the claim that RRR actually contributes to students becoming better readers, either in terms of their fluency or comprehension.”

In fact, RRR has plenty of problems. Individual students using RRR may accumulate less than three hours of oral reading time over the course of a year, according to Shanahan—and Hilden and Jones say that students who are following along during the activity tend to “subvocalize” as they track the reader, reducing their own internal reading speed unnecessarily. RRR also has the unfortunate effects of stigmatizing struggling readers, exposing new readers to dysfluent modeling, and failing to incorporate meaningful comprehension strategies. 

How to fix it: Yes, reading out loud is necessary to teach fluency, according to Shanahan, but there are better methods. Pairing kids together to “read sections of the text aloud to each other (partner reading) and then discuss and answer your questions” is a good approach, he says, especially if teachers circulate to listen for problems. 

More generally, reading strategies that model proper reading speed, pronunciation, and affect—while providing time for vocabulary review, repeated exposure to the text, and opportunities to summarize and discuss—can improve both fluency and comprehension.

A 2011 study , for example, demonstrated that combining choral reading—teachers and students read a text in unison (similar to echo reading )—with other activities like vocabulary review, teacher modeling, and follow-up discussion improved students’ decoding and fluency.

3. Talent Beats Persistence

It’s a common trap: Observers tend to rate people who appear to be naturally gifted at something more highly than those who admit they’ve worked hard to achieve success. Researchers call this the “ naturalness bias ,” and it shows up everywhere, from teachers evaluating students to bosses evaluating employees.

In reality, the opposite is more often true. “Popular lore tells us that genius is born, not made,” writes psychologist and widely cited researcher of human potential K. Anders Ericsson for the Harvard Business Review . “Scientific research, on the other hand, reveals that true expertise is mainly the product of years of intense practice and dedicated coaching.”

Experimental studies extend the point to academics: An influential 2019 study led by psychologists Brian Galla and Angela Duckworth, for example, found that high school GPA is a better predictor than the SAT of how likely students are to complete college on time. That’s because “grades are a very good index of your self-regulation—your ability to stick with things, your ability to regulate your impulses, your ability to delay gratification and work hard instead of goofing off,” said Duckworth in a 2020 interview with Edutopia .

How to fix it: All kids—even the ones who already excel in a discipline—benefit when teachers emphasize the importance of effort, perseverance, and growth. Consider praising students for their improvement instead of their raw scores; have students read about and then discuss the idea of neural plasticity; and consider assigning reports on the mistakes and growing pains of accomplished writers, scientists, and artists.

Try to incorporate rough-draft thinking in class, and think about taking risks yourself: The renowned writing teacher Kelly Gallagher, author of Readicide , regularly composes in front of his class to model his own tolerance for errors and redrafting.

4. Background Music (Always) Undermines Learning

It’s a fascinating and complex question: Can students successfully learn while background music is playing?

In some cases, it appears, background music can be a neutral to positive influence; in other scenarios, it’s clearly distracting. There are several factors at play in determining the outcomes.

A 2021 study clarifies that because music and language use some of the same neural circuitry—a finding that appears as early as infancy —“listening to lyrics of a familiar language may rely on the same cognitive resources as vocabulary learning,” and that can “lead to an overload of processing capacity and thus to an interference effect.” Other features of the music probably matter, too: Dramatic changes in a song’s rhythm, for example, or transitions from one song to the next often force the learning brain to reckon with irrelevant information. A 2018 research review confirms the general finding: Across 65 studies, background music consistently had a “small but reliably detrimental effect” on reading comprehension.

In some cases, however, music may aid learning. Neuroscience suggests that catchy melodies, for example, can boost a student’s mood—which might lead to significant positive effects on learning when motivation and concentration are paramount, a 2023 study found.

How to fix it: Basically, “music has two effects simultaneously that conflict with one another,” cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham told Edutopia in 2023 —one distracting and the other arousing.

“If you’re doing work that’s not very demanding, having music on is probably fine”—and likely to motivate students to keep going, Willingham says . In those cases, try to stick to music that’s instrumental or familiar, in order to decrease the cognitive resources needed to process it. “But if you’re doing work that’s just somewhat difficult, the distraction is probably going to make music a negative overall,” Willingham adds.

5. Grades Are Motivating

Teachers are well aware that grading, as a system, has many flaws—but at least grades motivate students to try their hardest, right? Unfortunately, the research suggests that that’s largely not the case.

“Despite the conventional wisdom in education, grades don’t motivate students to do their best work, nor do they lead to better learning or performance,” write motivation researcher Chris Hulleman and science teacher Ian Kelleher in an article for Edutopia . A 2019 research review , meanwhile, revealed that when confronted by grades, written feedback, or nothing at all—students preferred the latter two to grades, suggesting that A–F rankings might actually have a net negative impact on motivation.

In another blow to grades, a 2018 analysis of university policies like pass/fail grading or narrative evaluations concluded that “grades enhanced anxiety and avoidance of challenging courses” but didn’t improve student motivation. Providing students with specific, actionable feedback, on the other hand, “promot[ed] trust between instructors and students,” leading to greater academic ambition.

How to fix it: While grades are still mandatory in most schools—and some form of rigorous assessment remains an imperative—educators might consider ways to de-emphasize them.

Some teachers choose to drop every student’s lowest grade , for example; allow students to retake a limited number of assessments each unit; or periodically give students the discretion to turn in “their best work” from a series of related assignments. 

At King Middle School, in Portland, Maine , educators delay their release of grades until the end of the unit, an approach backed by a 2021 study that found that delayed grading—handing back personalized feedback days before releasing number or letter grades—can boost student performance on future assignments by two-thirds of a letter grade.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Peek Inside the Brains of ‘Super-Agers’

New research explores why some octogenarians have exceptional memories.

By Dana G. Smith

When it comes to aging, we tend to assume that cognition gets worse as we get older. Our thoughts may slow down or become confused, or we may start to forget things, like the name of our high school English teacher or what we meant to buy at the grocery store.

But that’s not the case for everyone.

For a little over a decade, scientists have been studying a subset of people they call “super-agers.” These individuals are age 80 and up, but they have the memory ability of a person 20 to 30 years younger.

Most research on aging and memory focuses on the other side of the equation — people who develop dementia in their later years. But, “if we’re constantly talking about what’s going wrong in aging, it’s not capturing the full spectrum of what’s happening in the older adult population,” said Emily Rogalski, a professor of neurology at the University of Chicago, who published one of the first studies on super-agers in 2012.

A paper published Monday in the Journal of Neuroscience helps shed light on what’s so special about the brains of super-agers. The biggest takeaway, in combination with a companion study that came out last year on the same group of individuals, is that their brains have less atrophy than their peers’ do.

The research was conducted on 119 octogenarians from Spain: 64 super-agers and 55 older adults with normal memory abilities for their age. The participants completed multiple tests assessing their memory, motor and verbal skills; underwent brain scans and blood draws; and answered questions about their lifestyle and behaviors.

The scientists found that the super-agers had more volume in areas of the brain important for memory, most notably the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex. They also had better preserved connectivity between regions in the front of the brain that are involved in cognition. Both the super-agers and the control group showed minimal signs of Alzheimer’s disease in their brains.

“By having two groups that have low levels of Alzheimer’s markers, but striking cognitive differences and striking differences in their brain, then we’re really speaking to a resistance to age-related decline,” said Dr. Bryan Strange, a professor of clinical neuroscience at the Polytechnic University of Madrid, who led the studies.

These findings are backed up by Dr. Rogalski’s research , initially conducted when she was at Northwestern University, which showed that super-agers’ brains looked more like 50- or 60-year-olds’ brains than their 80-year-old peers. When followed over several years, the super-agers’ brains atrophied at a slower rate than average.

No precise numbers exist on how many super-agers there are among us, but Dr. Rogalski said they’re “relatively rare,” noting that “far less than 10 percent” of the people she sees end up meeting the criteria.

But when you meet a super-ager, you know it, Dr. Strange said. “They are really quite energetic people, you can see. Motivated, on the ball, elderly individuals.”

Experts don’t know how someone becomes a super-ager, though there were a few differences in health and lifestyle behaviors between the two groups in the Spanish study. Most notably, the super-agers had slightly better physical health, both in terms of blood pressure and glucose metabolism, and they performed better on a test of mobility . The super-agers didn’t report doing more exercise at their current age than the typical older adults, but they were more active in middle age. They also reported better mental health .

But overall, Dr. Strange said, there were a lot of similarities between the super-agers and the regular agers. “There are a lot of things that are not particularly striking about them,” he said. And, he added, “we see some surprising omissions, things that you would expect to be associated with super-agers that weren’t really there.” For example, there were no differences between the groups in terms of their diets, the amount of sleep they got, their professional backgrounds or their alcohol and tobacco use.

The behaviors of some of the Chicago super-agers were similarly a surprise. Some exercised regularly, but some never had; some stuck to a Mediterranean diet, others subsisted off TV dinners; and a few of them still smoked cigarettes. However, one consistency among the group was that they tended to have strong social relationships , Dr. Rogalski said.

“In an ideal world, you’d find out that, like, all the super-agers, you know, ate six tomatoes every day and that was the key,” said Tessa Harrison, an assistant project scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who collaborated with Dr. Rogalski on the first Chicago super-ager study.

Instead, Dr. Harrison continued, super-agers probably have “some sort of lucky predisposition or some resistance mechanism in the brain that’s on the molecular level that we don’t understand yet,” possibly related to their genes.

While there isn’t a recipe for becoming a super-ager, scientists do know that, in general , eating healthily, staying physically active, getting enough sleep and maintaining social connections are important for healthy brain aging.

Dana G. Smith is a Times reporter covering personal health, particularly aging and brain health. More about Dana G. Smith

A Guide to Aging Well

Looking to grow old gracefully we can help..

The “car key conversation,” when it’s time for an aging driver to hit the brakes, can be painful for families to navigate . Experts say there are ways to have it with empathy and care.

Calorie restriction and intermittent fasting both increase longevity in animals, aging experts say. Here’s what that means for you .

Researchers are investigating how our biology changes as we grow older — and whether there are ways to stop it .

You need more than strength to age well — you also need power. Here’s how to measure how much power you have  and here’s how to increase yours .

Ignore the hyperbaric chambers and infrared light: These are the evidence-backed secrets to aging well .

Your body’s need for fuel shifts as you get older. Your eating habits should shift , too.

People who think positively about getting older often live longer, healthier lives. These tips can help you reconsider your perspective .

clock This article was published more than  1 year ago

What research shows on the effectiveness of gun-control laws

“When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.”

— President Biden, addressing the mass shooting in Uvalde, Tex. , May 24

“There are, quote, ‘real’ gun laws in New York. There are ‘real’ gun laws in California. I hate to say this, but there are more people who were shot every weekend in Chicago than there are in schools in Texas.”

— Tex. Gov. Greg Abbott (R), on the mass shooting , May 25

Democrats and Republicans will forever argue about the effectiveness of gun laws to prevent mass shootings. But what does the latest academic research show?

The short answer is that many proposed laws probably would not have much impact on curbing the mass shootings that dominate the news. But they could lessen their severity, and might also bring down overall gun violence.

Despite their notoriety, mass shootings — as defined by criminologists — generally do not happen often enough for detailed data analysis. Moreover, there are at least eight databases of mass shootings , including one maintained by The Washington Post , with different definitions and parameters. An upcoming paper for the Justice Department, written by a team led by James Alan Fox of Northeastern University , Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Michael Rocque of Bates College , attempts to craft a common definition: A mass public shooting is any event in which four or more individuals, not including the assailant(s), were killed by gunfire in a public setting within a 24-hour period. Mass shootings associated with criminal activity are excluded.

Under this definition, there were three or four mass shootings a year through most of the 2010s, but then the number spiked to seven in 2017, 10 in 2018 and eight in 2019, according to the database, provided to the Fact Checker by Duwe.

The team, drawing on the existing databases and supplemental research, found that “the number of mass public shootings has indeed increased over the past four and one-half years, particularly over the past decade. However, even at its peak in 2018, the number of such incidents has not surpassed ten in any year, and often has been much lower.” Moreover, some of the increase can be linked to growth in population. The incident count tripled since the mid-1970s but the rate per 100 million of population increased by a factor of two.

Fox told the Fact Checker that most mass shooters are very determined individuals and that even with an average of seven or eight mass shootings a year, new laws might only reduce the number by one a year. But he said stricter gun control laws would be “the right thing to do for a different reason” — they might help reduce overall gun violence.

While it is generally correct that states with tougher gun laws tend to have lower gun fatality rates, those rankings change when suicides — which make up about 60 percent of gun deaths — are excluded. Rural areas, which may have less restrictive gun laws, have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. Access to guns is believed to triple the risk of suicide, according to a 2014 study. But Fox said he would exclude suicides from such calculations. “There is a big difference between homicide and suicide,” he said. “The victim of a homicide does not choose to be killed.”

Here’s a summary of key research on the effectiveness of various laws, either at the federal or state level.

Assault weapons ban

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (LCMs), defined as those that could hold more than 10 rounds. The law — which grandfathered in an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons and 25 million LCMs already owned by Americans — was in place for 10 years until Congress let it lapse.

Even supporters of the law have acknowledged that it was riddled with loopholes, such as allowing copycat weapons to be sold, that limited its effectiveness. Some research, however, suggests the ban became more effective toward the end of the 10-year period because it helped cap and then reduce the supply of assault weapons and LCMs.

Biden claimed that mass shooting deaths tripled after the law expired. He appears to be relying on a study of mass shooting data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery by a team led by Charles DiMaggio , a professor of surgery at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. That group found that an assault weapons ban would have prevented 314 out of 448, or 70 percent, of the mass shooting deaths during the years when the ban was not in effect. But the data used in that study has come under attack by some analysts.

Meanwhile, Louis Klarevas , a research professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, studied high-fatality mass shootings (involving six or more people) for his 2016 book “ Rampage Nation .” He said that compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent and that the number of people dying because of mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers in the next 10-year period rose sharply — a 183 percent increase in mass shootings and a 239 percent increase in deaths. His analysis, however, has been criticized by some experts for being heavily impacted by the final year of his data series.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, moreover. Fox, in a 2016 study co-written with Emma Fridel of Northeastern University, noted that “rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are the weapons of choice for most mass shooters.” (About 70 percent of mass public shootings after 1992 relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns.) They wrote that “the frequency of incidents was virtually unchanged during the decade when the ban was in effect” and that “not only were there countless assault weapons already on the street, but also assailants had a variety of other powerful firearms at their disposal.”

The new mass-shooting database shows that there were 31 mass shootings in the decade before the 1994 law, 31 in the 10 years the law was in force (Sept. 13, 1994 to Sept. 12, 2004) and 47 in the 10 years after it expired. As noted, some of that increase stems from population growth.

Large-capacity magazines

While the assault weapons ban may not have reduced the number of mass shootings, there is some evidence that the 1994 law’s restrictions on LCMs may have been effective in reducing the death toll.

Christopher S. Koper , an associate professor of criminology at George Mason University, said in a 2020 study that LCMs enable rapid spray fire that gives shooters the ability to wound higher numbers of victims in public settings. So restrictions on LCMs can have an effect.

“Data on mass shooting incidents suggest these magazine restrictions can potentially reduce mass shooting deaths by 11 percent to 15 percent and total victims shot in these incidents by one quarter, likely as upper bounds,” Koper wrote, adding, “It is reasonable to argue that the federal ban could have prevented some of the recent increase in persons killed and injured in mass shootings had it remained in place.”

Moreover, a number of studies of state-level bans on LCMs, such as by Mark Gius of Quinnipiac University and by Klarevas , indicate that such laws are associated with a significantly lower number of fatalities in mass shootings. Fox co-wrote a 2020 study of state gun laws that concluded that bans on LCMs are associated with 38 percent fewer fatalities and 77 percent fewer nonfatal injuries when a mass shooting occurred.

But even states such as California, which outlaws LCMs that hold more than 10 bullets, have suffered from mass shootings that involved LCMs. When Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015 with legally purchased guns and rifles, four high-capacity magazines were found, perhaps holding as many as 30 rounds. Many mass shooters also acquire a large inventory of weapons, making reloading less necessary.

Universal background checks

There is evidence that universal background checks — including between private parties — could have an impact on mass shootings. State laws requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, which includes a background check on all purchases, are associated with 60 percent lower odds of a mass public shooting occurring, Fox’s 2020 study found.

But most mass murderers legally purchase the firearms they use in their killing sprees. Salvador Ramos, identified by police as the gunman who killed 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, purchased two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and ammunition as soon as he turned 18. He had never been convicted of a felony or had a history of criminal violence, so there was no prohibition against him buying the weapons.

The current system also fails. In 2015, Dylann Roof killed nine people with a .45-caliber Glock pistol that held 13 rounds at a historic African American church in Charleston, S.C. Roof legally purchased his gun from a store, but the FBI said he should have failed the background check because he had been charged with possessing Suboxone without a prescription. However, because of clerical mistakes, the FBI said the examiner did not get hold of the report before the three-day waiting period ended, and so the store went through with the purchase.

This three-day period has become known as the “Charleston loophole” that some lawmakers have sought to close. But it’s possible Roof might have passed the background check if it had been done correctly. The FBI statement incorrectly referred to a felony drug charge, but it was a misdemeanor for possession; he did not admit to being an addict. The FBI later said Roof would have been denied a gun based on an “inference of current use.”

Firearms prohibitions based on mental health

Anyone who slaughters innocent people with firearms in theory would be expected to have mental health issues. But most people who have mental health issues are not killers; in fact, they are more likely to be victims of gun violence. Nearly one in five adults in the United States live with a mental illness , according to the National Institute of Mental Health , while epidemiological research suggests that nearly half the U.S. population may experience some symptoms of mental illness in their lifetime.

That makes it difficult to know when to draw the line, especially because mental illness is not a predictor of violence. “Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5 percent of the 120,000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness,” noted Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish of Vanderbilt University in a 2016 study . They said that other factors, such as alcohol and drug use, may increase the risk of turning toward violent crime even more. A history of childhood abuse is also considered a predictive risk factor.

Red-flag (“extreme risk”) laws — which generally allow police to take firearms away from people who exhibit concerning behavior — have been passed in 19 states and the District of Columbia, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for gun-control laws. Between 1999 and 2021, at least 16,857 extreme risk petitions were filed, the group says. Florida, which passed such a law after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018, has used it 6,000 times since then. A 2019 study found that as many as 21 mass shootings might have been prevented in California after the state in 2016 implemented such a law.

Yet New York’s red-flag law was not invoked against Payton Gendron, the suspect in the racist attack in Buffalo this month that left 10 people dead. He had said in school he planned to commit a murder-suicide and was taken to a hospital for a mental health evaluation. Police chose not to seek a red-flag order, apparently because he did not name a specific target. New York’s governor has since signed an executive order seeking to strengthen the law.

( About our rating scale )

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles

Almost All People With Two Copies of This Genetic Variant Develop Signs of Alzheimer’s Disease, Study Finds

The research focused on a variant called APOE4 and largely looked at people of European ancestry—risk levels are different for other groups, the authors say

Will Sullivan

Daily Correspondent

Almost all people with two copies of a genetic variant called APOE4 show signs of Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new study of people predominantly of European ancestry.

The findings suggest that people with two copies of the gene—who are called APOE4 homozygotes—have a distinct genetic form of Alzheimer’s. The research points to a need for targeted prevention strategies, clinical trials and treatments, scientists write in the paper published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine .

Alzheimer’s disease is a brain disorder that erodes memory and cognitive function. It may affect more than six million people in the United States, and it’s the seventh highest cause of death in the country.

Scientists don’t fully understand what leads to the disease. But they have identified a few genetic forms of Alzheimer’s, including an early-onset form caused by mutations in three genes, per the study. Other genetic cases are linked to Down syndrome—about half of people with Down syndrome in their 60s have Alzheimer’s.

A number of genetic variants, including APOE4, have been tied to an increased risk for the disease. But with the new paper, researchers suggest having two copies of the APOE4 variant is more than just a risk factor—it might actually be a cause.

“This reconceptualization that we’re proposing affects not a small minority of people,” lead author  Juan Fortea , a neurologist at the Sant Pau Memory Unit in Spain, says to the New York Times ’ Pam Belluck.

People with two copies of APOE4 make up 2 percent of the general population, according to the study. But the findings suggest that around 15 percent of people with Alzheimer’s have two copies of the variant. That means those cases “can be tracked back to a cause, and the cause is in the genes,” Fortea tells Lauran Neergaard of the Associated Press .

Not all researchers agree that people with two copies of APOE4 have a unique type of the disease.

“I do not see anything in this paper to justify the claim that carrying two copies of APOE4 represents some ‘distinct genetic form’ of Alzheimer’s disease,” David Curtis , a geneticist at University College London who did not contribute to the findings, tells the Guardian ’s Nicola Davis. “No matter how many [copies] of APOE4 one carries, the underlying disease processes seem similar across cases of Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that any effective treatment and prevention strategies, which have yet to be developed, would have broad applicability.”

To reach their conclusion, the researchers looked at data from 3,297 donated brains and 10,039 individuals. They found that 273 brain donors and 519 of the participants carried two copies of the APOE4 variant—and almost all of these people had signs of Alzheimer’s disease.

Compared to people with two copies of APOE3, a variant of the APOE gene that has no effect on Alzheimer’s risk, those with two copies of APOE4 had significantly more biomarkers of the disease after turning 55.

By the age of 65, almost all members of this group had abnormal levels of a protein called amyloid —high amounts of which is tied to Alzheimer’s—in their cerebrospinal fluid, and 75 percent of them showed abnormal amyloid levels in brain scans. Their symptoms also started at an earlier age than others—around 65 years old, on average. Symptom onset occurred in a narrow age range, making it predictable.

The study shows that people with two copies of APOE4 “meet the three main characteristics of genetically determined [Alzheimer’s disease],” the authors write: a high prevalence of the disease among the group, a predictability of symptom onset and predictable biomarkers and clinical changes.

Samuel Gandy , an Alzheimer’s researcher at Mount Sinai who did not contribute to the findings, tells Reuters ’ Julie Steenhuysen that the results show people with two copies of APOE4 need to be enrolled in trials that aim to prevent the disease before symptom onset.

People with two copies of APOE4 are at heightened risk for side effects from the drug lecanemab, which is used for treating Alzheimer’s. Reisa Sperling , a study co-author and neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, tells the Guardian  there should be further research into drugs linked to side effects, as well as studies on other strategies for treatment and prevention.

The new study notes that APOE4 poses less of a risk for Black people than white people, and since all study participants were from the U.S. or Europe and were predominantly white, future research should include more diverse populations.

“One important argument against their interpretation is that the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in APOE4 homozygotes varies substantially across different genetic ancestries,” Michael Greicius , a neurologist at Stanford University who was not involved in the work, tells the New York Times . “This has critical implications when counseling patients about their ancestry-informed genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease,” he tells the publication, “and it also speaks to some yet-to-be-discovered genetics and biology that presumably drive this massive difference in risk.”

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Will Sullivan | | READ MORE

Will Sullivan is a science writer based in Washington, D.C. His work has appeared in Inside Science and NOVA Next .

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2024

The effect of dexmedetomidine on the postoperative recovery of patients with severe traumatic brain injury undergoing craniotomy treatment: a retrospective study

• Zhu Deng 1   na1 ,
• Yong Gu 1   na1 ,
• Le Luo 1   na1 ,
• Lin Deng 2   na1 ,
• Yingwei Li 1 &
• Wanyong Huang 1  

European Journal of Medical Research volume  29 , Article number:  256 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

104 Accesses

Metrics details

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been a worldwide problem for neurosurgeons. Patients with severe TBI may undergo craniotomy. These patients often require sedation after craniotomy. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been used in patients receiving anesthesia and in intensive care units. Not much is known about the postoperative effect of DEX in patients with severe TBIs undergoing craniotomy. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of postoperative DEX administration on severe TBI patients who underwent craniotomy.

Patients who underwent craniectomy for severe TBI at our hospital between January 2019 and February 2022 were included in this study. The patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after surgery to receive sedative medication. The patients were then divided into DEX and control groups. We analyzed the sedation, hemodynamics, and other conditions of the patients (hypoxemia, duration of ventilation during endotracheal intubation, whether tracheotomy was performed, and the duration in the ICU) during their ICU stay. Other conditions, such as delirium after the patients were transferred to the general ward, were also analyzed.

A total of 122 patients were included in this study. Among them, 53 patients received DEX, and the remaining 69 did not. The incidence of delirium in the general ward in the DEX group was significantly lower than that in the control group ( P  < 0.05). The incidence of bradycardia in the control group was significantly lower than that in the DEX group ( P  < 0.05). Other data from the DEX group and the control group (hypotension, hypoxemia, etc.) were not significantly different ( P  > 0.05).

The use of DEX in the ICU can effectively reduce the incidence of delirium in patients who return to the general ward after craniotomy. DEX had no adverse effect on the prognosis of patients other than causing bradycardia.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a serious traumatic disease that is a difficult to treat and is considered problem worldwide (especially for critically ill TBI patients) [ 1 ]. Approximately 0.5% of people experience TBI each year due to trauma [ 2 ]. TBI has always been difficult for neurosurgeons due to its high disability and mortality rates. Moreover, TBI not only causes disaster in patients themselves, but also places a heavy burden on families and society [ 2 , 3 ]. According to the mechanism of injury, TBIs can be divided into two categories: primary injury (mainly including epidural hematoma, subdural hematoma, brain tissue contusion and axonal injury) and secondary injury (mainly including brain tissue edema and increased intracranial pressure) [ 4 , 5 ]. According to the severity of the disease, TBI can be divided into mild (score of 13–15), moderate (score of 9–12), and severe (score ≤ 8) according to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

For patients with TBI, a primary injury such as a subdural hemorrhage results in a series of secondary injuries. The inflammatory response of the nervous system, oxidative stress injury and nerve cell apoptosis are the main causes of these secondary injuries [ 9 , 10 ]. Among these changes, the inflammatory response of the nervous system, caused by trauma, is thought to be the key factor that triggers a series of reactions. Its main response changes to glial activation, peripheral inflammatory cell infiltration and inflammatory mediator release [ 9 ]. For TBI patients, an appropriate inflammatory response plays a positive role in damage repair. However, severe TBI often causes this inflammatory response to be excessive and persistent, resulting in pathophysiological changes that are difficult to control. The series of uncontrollable pathophysiological changes induced by TBI is ultimately responsible for its high disability and mortality rates [ 2 , 3 , 9 ]. Therefore, neurosurgeons have always hoped to reduce the harm caused by TBIs by controlling the excessive inflammatory response to improve neurological function.

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a highly selective α-2 adrenergic receptor agonist, has been used in patients receiving anesthesia and in intensive care units (ICUs) [ 11 ]. DEX has good performance in terms of preventing anxiety, providing analgesia and providing sedation to patients [ 11 ]. A study of TBI patients revealed that DEX can inhibit an excessive inflammatory response by inhibiting the activation of some inflammasomes, thereby exerting a certain protective effect on the nervous system of TBI patients in the early stage [ 12 ]. In fact, DEX has been used in the management of patients admitted to the ICU for severe TBI. DEX can alleviate agitation, prevent the occurrence of paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity, and reduce the occurrence of delirium in patients with severe TBI in the ICU. However, DEX has side effects, such as hemodynamic changes [ 13 , 14 , 15 ].

Although DEX has a clear effect on patients with severe TBI, little is known about the postoperative effect of DEX in patients with severe TBI who underwent craniotomy. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether DEX is equally safe and effective for treating severe TBI after craniotomy and whether DEX will have a long-term impact on patient prognosis.

Study subjects

Retrospectively and consecutively, the subjects of this study were all severe TBI patients who underwent craniotomy in the Department of Neurosurgery, People's Hospital of Guanghan City, from January 2019 to February 2022. Patients who were older than 80 years and younger than 18 years, followed up for less than half a year, lacked clinical data, died, had a second surgery, or did not receive sedation and patients or family members who declined to participate in this study were excluded. All patients underwent cranial CT on the first day, the third day and 1 week after craniotomy. Patients who experienced postoperative rebleeding or incomplete hematoma removal were excluded (postoperative intracranial hematoma > 5 ml). We also evaluated other relevant organ systems in patients with delirium and agitation. Patients were excluded if metabolic abnormalities and other complications were present. All family members of the patients signed informed consent. The article follows the STROBE statement and was approved by the People's Hospital of Guanghan City Ethics Committee.

Data collection and outcome assessment

The clinical characteristics and demographic data were recorded by the authors of the study after the patients were admitted. The data included sex, age, preoperative GCS score, and preoperative pupil condition (mydriasis). After surgery, patients were treated with sedative drugs in the ICU (dexamethasone (DEX) or not), degree of sedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scores (RASS); patients were then transferred to the ICU immediately after surgery, and scoring began upon admission to the ICU. Hemodynamics during sedation included: heart rate and arterial blood pressure. Blood oxygen saturation during sedation, the duration of sedation, the ventilation time for endotracheal intubation were also recorded. It is unclear whether tracheotomy is acceptable. The duration in the ICU. When vital signs were stable (no vasopressors are needed to maintain blood pressure) and blood oxygen saturation was greater than 90% under ordinary oxygen inhalation (no ventilator is needed to assist breathing), the patient was transferred to the general ward. Delirium was confirmed after the patient was transferred to the general ward. The total length of hospital stay. Condition at discharge: GCS score at discharge. Long-term outcomes were assessed using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) (Table  1 ). In addition, if the patient's heart rate was lower than 55, it was considered to indicate bradycardia; if the systolic blood pressure was less than 90, it was considered to indicate hypotension; if the blood oxygen saturation was lower than 90, it was considered to indicate hypoxemia. A patient with a RASS score greater than or equal to 2 during sedation was considered to have a poor sedation effect. We assessed patients for delirium risk by using the validation of the delirium rating scale-revised-98 (DRS-R-98). A score of ≥ 1 for the 3 diagnostic items indicated the presence of delirium in a patient. Disturbances due to delirium and agitation due to metabolic conditions were avoided.

Therapy method

All the patients underwent craniotomy at the People's Hospital of Guanghan City by highly experienced and well-trained neurosurgeons. The patients were admitted to the ICU after surgery to receive sedative medication. The sedative drug in the control group was propofol plus midazolam, while the sedative drug in the experimental group was DEX in combination with propofol. In terms of analgesia, our drug of choice is fentanyl. A RASS score ≥ 2 indicated that the sedative effect was poor, and the sedation regimen needed to be adjusted (appropriately increasing the dose of sedative drugs). All patients received essentially the same treatment regimen, with the exception of treatment differences on appeal.

Statistical analyses

All the data we collected were analyzed by R version 4.2.2. All data analyses were performed only between the experimental group (DEX group) and the control group. Continuous variables are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (for example, age, preoperative GCS score, ventilation time at endotracheal intubation, total length of hospital stay, etc.). We used the numbers and percentages to represent the categorical variables (for example, sex, mydriasis, bradycardia, and delirium after transfer to the general ward). We used the Kolmogorov‒Smirnov test for the normality of continuous variables, and the t test was subsequently used to compare the experimental group and the control group. Additionally, we used Pearson’s χ 2 test or Fisher’s exact test for comparisons between categorical variables. A difference was considered to be statistically significant when P was ≤ 0.05.

Clinical characteristics

A total of 157 patients received craniotomy at People's Hospital of Guanghan City from January 2019 to February 2022. Among those patients, 23 died after surgery, 5 patients were transferred to a high-level hospital for continued treatment, 3 patients abandoned treatment after surgery, and 4 patients were lost to follow-up after discharge. After excluding these patients, we eventually enrolled 122 patients in this study. Of the patients included in the study, 53 received DEX, and the remaining 69 did not.

The demographic and clinical data of the patients are shown in Table  2 . The results showed that there were no significant differences in sex, age, preoperative GCS score, or preoperative pupil condition (mydriasis) between the DEX group and the control group ( P  > 0.05).

Sedation with DEX was initiated as soon as the patient was admitted to the ICU, and the duration of use was 44 ± 40 h. The mean rate of administration was 0.53 ± 0.25 μg/kg/h, the mean minimum rate was 0.26 ± 0.11 μg/kg/h, and the mean maximum rate was 0.98 ± 0.21 μg/kg/h. During IUC, 27 patients in the DEX group developed bradycardia. A total of 19 people in the control group developed bradycardia. There was a significant difference between the two groups ( P  < 0.05). Other data from the DEX group and the control group collected during the ICU stay (hypotension, hypoxemia, RASS score, ventilation time of endotracheal intubation, whether tracheotomy was performed, and duration in the ICU) were not significantly different ( P  > 0.05).

General ward and other data

After the patients were transferred to the general ward, a total of 6 patients in the DEX group developed delirium, and a total of 19 patients in the control group developed delirium. There was a significant difference between the two groups ( P  < 0.05). Moreover, the total length of hospital stay, GCS score at discharge and GOS score six months after discharge did not significantly differ between the DEX group and the control group ( P  > 0.05). Our subgroup analysis of patients who presented with delirium revealed no significant difference in the preoperative (Tables 3 and 4 ) GCS score or postoperative cranial CT ( P  > 0.05).

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 122 patients who underwent craniotomy in the Department of Neurosurgery of our hospital and found that the incidence of delirium in patients who returned to the general ward in the DEX group was significantly lower than that in the control group, but the manifestation of delirium significantly increased the incidence of bradycardia. In addition, DEX did not increase the occurrence of other adverse events. There was no significant difference in length of ICU stay or total length of stay between the two groups. In terms of patient recovery, DEX did not adversely affect patient prognosis.

Many patients with severe TBI are transferred to the ICU for more effective treatment, especially for those with severe TBI who have undergone craniotomy [ 16 ]. Because of the severe nature of TBI itself, the need for craniotomy and other reasons, these patients often exhibit agitation [ 3 , 17 ]. Once a patient has this condition, it usually needs to be controlled with medication. In some cases, restraint bands may even be used to protect patients [ 18 ]. Propofol, midazolam, and other agents are often used to sedate agitated patients during ICU stays [ 19 ]. A descriptive study by Bilodeau et al. revealed a favorable sedative effect of DEX in patients with TBI [ 13 ]. For severe TBI patients undergoing craniotomy, these sedatives can also have a significant effect [ 2 ]. DEX, a new highly selective α-2 adrenergic agonist, has been approved by anesthesiologists and ICU physicians. A small number of studies have shown satisfactory results for sedation with DEX in severe TBI patients who had not undergone craniotomy during an ICU stay [ 20 , 21 ]. As an increasing amount of research has been conducted on DEX in TBI patients, the benefits of DEX on TBI patients have gradually been discovered. A study by Hao et al. revealed DEX to be more effective than propofol at controlling the overstress response after TBI [ 22 ]. In addition, DEX can reduce intestinal tissue damage by improving the inflammatory response after TBI [ 23 ]. The protection of brain function is important for patients with TBI, and Wang et al. reported no adverse effects of DEX use on brain function [ 24 ]. DEX is also gradually being used in the sedation of patients with TBI. Our study revealed that DEX also had a significant sedative effect on severe TBI patients undergoing craniotomy.

Currently, adverse events related to DEX mainly manifest as a result of its effect on hemodynamics. DEX has been found to induce hypotension during the ICU stay [ 25 ]. This was also observed in our study, but DEX did not significantly affect hypotension incidence compared to that in the control group. However, our study revealed that the DEX treatment group had a significantly greater incidence of bradycardia than the control group. DEX has also been used in anesthesiology departments and ICUs in the recent years, but the mechanism of its influence on the hemodynamics of patients is still unclear. Currently, the mechanism of action of DEX, which is recognized by the academic community, is as follows: as an α-2 adrenergic agonist, DEX can activate presynaptic and postsynaptic α-2 receptors, thereby causing contraction of peripheral blood vessels, relaxation of peripheral blood vessels and reflex bradycardia, which can cause increased blood pressure or a decline in blood pressure. Moreover, DEX can significantly reduce the occurrence of stress reactions, which leads to a reduced likelihood of catecholamine secretion due to the stress response; thus, DEX does not cause a hemodynamic effect on catecholamine secretion [ 26 , 27 ].

Delirium, an acute mental state change, is characterized by inattention, arousal disorders and mental disorders [ 28 ]. However, the presence of delirium caused irreversible damage to the brain function of patients, significantly increased the total length of hospital stay, significantly increased the cost of hospitalization, and even seriously affected the prognosis [ 28 , 29 ]. Delirium is highly common in patients with severe TBI and can occur at any time during a patient's hospital stay, and studies suggest that up to 70% of patients present during a hospital stay [ 28 , 30 ]. Surgery is also an important cause of delirium, and the incidence of delirium after emergency surgery is 20–45%. Delirium usually occurs in these patients 2–5 days after surgery, but it is possible throughout the hospital stay [ 31 ]. Because treating delirium in the general ward can be more difficult than treating it in the ICU, our study evaluated the occurrence of delirium in the general ward. Our subjects were patients with severe TBI who had also undergone craniotomy, both of which could have caused a high incidence of delirium during their hospital stay. Our study only measured the incidence of delirium in patients who were transferred back to the general ward after stabilizing. Some of these patients may have developed delirium during their stay in the ICU and may have been treated. Therefore, we do not have a particularly high incidence. In our study, we were surprised to find that the use of DEX during hospitalization in the ICU can effectively reduce the incidence of delirium in patients in general wards.

The main shortcomings in this study are as follows. First, this was a retrospective study, and the retrospective nature of the study itself may have introduced bias. Second, the sample size of this study was relatively small, so there were certain difficulties in performing statistical analysis for those events with a very low incidence (e.g., RASS score ≥ 2), which also leads to an increased risk of bias. We hope to conduct a larger sample size and more in-depth study in the future. In addition, the small sample size prevented us from further subdividing the types of TBI patients, which also resulted in our findings not clarifying whether DEX has the same effect on extradural hematoma and subdural hematoma. However, these findings also point to the next step in our research. Fourth, this study only preliminarily explored patients who underwent craniotomy. There was no further research on the various craniotomy methods used in this study. Finally, this study was aimed at TBI patients, and whether this approach is applicable for non-TBI patients who undergo craniotomy needs to be further studied. In addition, due to the absence of data, our study analyzed only the occurrence of delirium in the general ward and did not evaluate the occurrence of delirium during patients' ICU stay.

In this study, the use of DEX in the ICU effectively reduced the incidence of delirium in patients who returned to the general ward after craniotomy. The sedative effect of DEX was satisfactory. In addition, DEX use in the ICU did not cause adverse events in patients other than an increased incidence of bradycardia.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

• Dexmedetomidine
• Traumatic brain injury

Glasgow Coma Scale

Intensive care units

Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scores

Glasgow Outcome Scale

Delirium rating scale-revised-98

Godoy DA, Rabinstein AA. How to manage traumatic brain injury without invasive monitoring? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2022;28(2):111–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/mcc.0000000000000914 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Capizzi A, Woo J, Verduzco-Gutierrez M. Traumatic brain injury: an overview of epidemiology, pathophysiology, and medical management. Med Clin North Am. 2020;104(2):213–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2019.11.001 .

Khellaf A, Khan DZ, Helmy A. Recent advances in traumatic brain injury. J Neurol. 2019;266(11):2878–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-019-09541-4 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stocchetti N, Carbonara M, Citerio G, Ercole A, Skrifvars MB, Smielewski P, et al. Severe traumatic brain injury: targeted management in the intensive care unit. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(6):452–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30118-7 .

Wang KK, Yang Z, Zhu T, Shi Y, Rubenstein R, Tyndall JA, et al. An update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for traumatic brain injury. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018;18(2):165–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2018.1428089 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Najem D, Rennie K, Ribecco-Lutkiewicz M, Ly D, Haukenfrers J, Liu Q, et al. Traumatic brain injury: classification, models, and markers. Biochem Cell Biol. 2018;96(4):391–406. https://doi.org/10.1139/bcb-2016-0160 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ladak AA, Enam SA, Ibrahim MT. A review of the molecular mechanisms of traumatic brain injury. World Neurosurg. 2019;131:126–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.039 .

Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet (London, England). 1974;2(7872):81–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 .

Shi H, Wang HL, Pu HJ, Shi YJ, Zhang J, Zhang WT, et al. Ethyl pyruvate protects against blood-brain barrier damage and improves long-term neurological outcomes in a rat model of traumatic brain injury. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2015;21(4):374–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.12366 .

Wang C, Chang YX, Chen X, Bai L, Wang H, Pan YC, et al. A calixarene assembly strategy of combined anti-neuroinflammation and drug delivery functions for traumatic brain injury Therapy. Molecules. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27092967 .

Keating GM. Dexmedetomidine: a review of its use for sedation in the intensive care setting. Drugs. 2015;75(10):1119–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-015-0419-5 .

Wang D, Xu X, Wu YG, Lyu L, Zhou ZW, Zhang JN. Dexmedetomidine attenuates traumatic brain injury: action pathway and mechanisms. Neural Regen Res. 2018;13(5):819–26. https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.232529 .

Bilodeau V, Saavedra-Mitjans M, Frenette AJ, Burry L, Albert M, Bernard F, et al. Safety of dexmedetomidine for the control of agitation in critically ill traumatic brain injury patients: a descriptive study. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021;46(4):1020–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.13389 .

Tang Q, Wu X, Weng W, Li H, Feng J, Mao Q, et al. The preventive effect of dexmedetomidine on paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity in severe traumatic brain injury patients who have undergone surgery: a retrospective study. PeerJ. 2017;5: e2986. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2986 .

Reade MC, Eastwood GM, Bellomo R, Bailey M, Bersten A, Cheung B, et al. Effect of dexmedetomidine added to standard care on ventilator-free time in patients with agitated delirium: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(14):1460–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.2707 .

Stocchetti N, Zanier ER. Chronic impact of traumatic brain injury on outcome and quality of life: a narrative review. Crit Care (London, England). 2016;20(1):148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1318-1 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Poulsen I, Langhorn L, Egerod I, Aadal L. Sleep and agitation during subacute traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: A scoping review. Aust Crit Care. 2021;34(1):76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2020.05.006 .

Singh R, Venkateshwara G, Nair KP, Khan M, Saad R. Agitation after traumatic brain injury and predictors of outcome. Brain Inj. 2014;28(3):336–40. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2013.873142 .

Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2012;307(11):1151–60. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.304 .

Pajoumand M, Kufera JA, Bonds BW, Devabhakthuni S, Boswell S, Hesselton K, et al. Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct for sedation in patients with traumatic brain injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;81(2):345–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000001069 .

Humble SS, Wilson LD, Leath TC, Marshall MD, Sun DZ, Pandharipande PP, et al. ICU sedation with dexmedetomidine after severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2016;30(10):1266–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2016.1187289 .

Hao J, Luo JS, Weng Q, He Y, Liu J, Yang MH, et al. Effects of dexmedetomidine on sedation and β-endorphin in traumatic brain injury: a comparative study with propofol. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2013;25(6):373–6. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2013.06.014 .

Karaca O, Doğan G. The effects of dexmedetomidine in increased intestinal permeability after traumatic brain injury: an experimental study. TJTES. 2020;26(1):15–20. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2019.49768 .

Wang X, Ji J, Fen L, Wang A. Effects of dexmedetomidine on cerebral blood flow in critically ill patients with or without traumatic brain injury: a prospective controlled trial. Brain Inj. 2013;27(13–14):1617–22. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2013.831130 .

Afonso J, Reis F. Dexmedetomidine: current role in anesthesia and intensive care. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2012;62(1):118–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0034-7094(12)70110-1 .

Weerink MAS, Struys M, Hannivoort LN, Barends CRM, Absalom AR, Colin P. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of dexmedetomidine. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2017;56(8):893–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-017-0507-7 .

Colin PJ, Hannivoort LN, Eleveld DJ, Reyntjens K, Absalom AR, Vereecke HEM, et al. Dexmedetomidine pharmacodynamics in healthy volunteers: 2. Haemodynamic profile. Br J Anaesthesia. 2017;119(2):211–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex086 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, Speroff T, Gordon SM, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1753–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.14.1753 .

Steimer M, Kaiser S, Ulbrich F, Kalbhenn J, Bürkle H, Schallner N. Expression of HO1 and PER2 can predict the incidence of delirium in trauma patients with concomitant brain injury. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15388. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94773-6 .

Maneewong J, Maneeton B, Maneeton N, Vaniyapong T, Traisathit P, Sricharoen N, et al. Delirium after a traumatic brain injury: predictors and symptom patterns. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017;13:459–65. https://doi.org/10.2147/ndt.s128138 .

Jin Z, Hu J, Ma D. Postoperative delirium: perioperative assessment, risk reduction, and management. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(4):492–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.063 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Zhu Deng, Yong Gu, Le Luo and Lin Deng Joint first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Neurosurgery, People’s Hospital of Guanghan City, No.9, Section3, Xi’an Road, Guanghan, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China

Zhu Deng, Yong Gu, Le Luo, Yingwei Li & Wanyong Huang

Department of Intensive Care Unit, People’s Hospital of Guanghan City, No.9, Section3, Xi’an Road, Guanghan, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Zhu Deng and Yong Gu were responsible for the design. Le Luo and Lin Deng was responsible of search. Yingwei Li, Yong Gu and Wanyong Huang were involving in data screening and data extraction. Zhu Deng was responsible in writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approve the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wanyong Huang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This article follows the STROBE statement and has been approved by the People's Hospital of Guanghan City Ethics Committee.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The author affirms that there is no conflict of interest in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

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.

Deng, Z., Gu, Y., Luo, L. et al. The effect of dexmedetomidine on the postoperative recovery of patients with severe traumatic brain injury undergoing craniotomy treatment: a retrospective study. Eur J Med Res 29 , 256 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-024-01861-0

Download citation

Received : 21 December 2022

Accepted : 24 April 2024

Published : 30 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-024-01861-0

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

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]