formulation of research questions

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg
• v.24(1); Jan-Mar 2019

Formulation of Research Question – Stepwise Approach

Simmi k. ratan.

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India

1 Department of Community Medicine, North Delhi Municipal Corporation Medical College, New Delhi, India

2 Department of Pediatric Surgery, Batra Hospital and Research Centre, New Delhi, India

Formulation of research question (RQ) is an essentiality before starting any research. It aims to explore an existing uncertainty in an area of concern and points to a need for deliberate investigation. It is, therefore, pertinent to formulate a good RQ. The present paper aims to discuss the process of formulation of RQ with stepwise approach. The characteristics of good RQ are expressed by acronym “FINERMAPS” expanded as feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant, manageable, appropriate, potential value, publishability, and systematic. A RQ can address different formats depending on the aspect to be evaluated. Based on this, there can be different types of RQ such as based on the existence of the phenomenon, description and classification, composition, relationship, comparative, and causality. To develop a RQ, one needs to begin by identifying the subject of interest and then do preliminary research on that subject. The researcher then defines what still needs to be known in that particular subject and assesses the implied questions. After narrowing the focus and scope of the research subject, researcher frames a RQ and then evaluates it. Thus, conception to formulation of RQ is very systematic process and has to be performed meticulously as research guided by such question can have wider impact in the field of social and health research by leading to formulation of policies for the benefit of larger population.

I NTRODUCTION

A good research question (RQ) forms backbone of a good research, which in turn is vital in unraveling mysteries of nature and giving insight into a problem.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] RQ identifies the problem to be studied and guides to the methodology. It leads to building up of an appropriate hypothesis (Hs). Hence, RQ aims to explore an existing uncertainty in an area of concern and points to a need for deliberate investigation. A good RQ helps support a focused arguable thesis and construction of a logical argument. Hence, formulation of a good RQ is undoubtedly one of the first critical steps in the research process, especially in the field of social and health research, where the systematic generation of knowledge that can be used to promote, restore, maintain, and/or protect health of individuals and populations.[ 1 , 3 , 4 ] Basically, the research can be classified as action, applied, basic, clinical, empirical, administrative, theoretical, or qualitative or quantitative research, depending on its purpose.[ 2 ]

Research plays an important role in developing clinical practices and instituting new health policies. Hence, there is a need for a logical scientific approach as research has an important goal of generating new claims.[ 1 ]

C HARACTERISTICS OF G OOD R ESEARCH Q UESTION

“The most successful research topics are narrowly focused and carefully defined but are important parts of a broad-ranging, complex problem.”

A good RQ is an asset as it:

• Details the problem statement
• Further describes and refines the issue under study
• Adds focus to the problem statement
• Guides data collection and analysis
• Sets context of research.

Hence, while writing RQ, it is important to see if it is relevant to the existing time frame and conditions. For example, the impact of “odd-even” vehicle formula in decreasing the level of air particulate pollution in various districts of Delhi.

A good research is represented by acronym FINERMAPS[ 5 ]

Interesting.

• Appropriate
• Potential value and publishability
• Systematic.

Feasibility means that it is within the ability of the investigator to carry out. It should be backed by an appropriate number of subjects and methodology as well as time and funds to reach the conclusions. One needs to be realistic about the scope and scale of the project. One has to have access to the people, gadgets, documents, statistics, etc. One should be able to relate the concepts of the RQ to the observations, phenomena, indicators, or variables that one can access. One should be clear that the collection of data and the proceedings of project can be completed within the limited time and resources available to the investigator. Sometimes, a RQ appears feasible, but when fieldwork or study gets started, it proves otherwise. In this situation, it is important to write up the problems honestly and to reflect on what has been learned. One should try to discuss with more experienced colleagues or the supervisor so as to develop a contingency plan to anticipate possible problems while working on a RQ and find possible solutions in such situations.

This is essential that one has a real grounded interest in one's RQ and one can explore this and back it up with academic and intellectual debate. This interest will motivate one to keep going with RQ.

The question should not simply copy questions investigated by other workers but should have scope to be investigated. It may aim at confirming or refuting the already established findings, establish new facts, or find new aspects of the established facts. It should show imagination of the researcher. Above all, the question has to be simple and clear. The complexity of a question can frequently hide unclear thoughts and lead to a confused research process. A very elaborate RQ, or a question which is not differentiated into different parts, may hide concepts that are contradictory or not relevant. This needs to be clear and thought-through. Having one key question with several subcomponents will guide your research.

This is the foremost requirement of any RQ and is mandatory to get clearance from appropriate authorities before stating research on the question. Further, the RQ should be such that it minimizes the risk of harm to the participants in the research, protect the privacy and maintain their confidentiality, and provide the participants right to withdraw from research. It should also guide in avoiding deceptive practices in research.

The question should of academic and intellectual interest to people in the field you have chosen to study. The question preferably should arise from issues raised in the current situation, literature, or in practice. It should establish a clear purpose for the research in relation to the chosen field. For example, filling a gap in knowledge, analyzing academic assumptions or professional practice, monitoring a development in practice, comparing different approaches, or testing theories within a specific population are some of the relevant RQs.

Manageable (M): It has the similar essence as of feasibility but mainly means that the following research can be managed by the researcher.

Appropriate (A): RQ should be appropriate logically and scientifically for the community and institution.

Potential value and publishability (P): The study can make significant health impact in clinical and community practices. Therefore, research should aim for significant economic impact to reduce unnecessary or excessive costs. Furthermore, the proposed study should exist within a clinical, consumer, or policy-making context that is amenable to evidence-based change. Above all, a good RQ must address a topic that has clear implications for resolving important dilemmas in health and health-care decisions made by one or more stakeholder groups.

Systematic (S): Research is structured with specified steps to be taken in a specified sequence in accordance with the well-defined set of rules though it does not rule out creative thinking.

Example of RQ: Would the topical skin application of oil as a skin barrier reduces hypothermia in preterm infants? This question fulfills the criteria of a good RQ, that is, feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant.

Types of research question

A RQ can address different formats depending on the aspect to be evaluated.[ 6 ] For example:

• Existence: This is designed to uphold the existence of a particular phenomenon or to rule out rival explanation, for example, can neonates perceive pain?
• Description and classification: This type of question encompasses statement of uniqueness, for example, what are characteristics and types of neuropathic bladders?
• Composition: It calls for breakdown of whole into components, for example, what are stages of reflux nephropathy?
• Relationship: Evaluate relation between variables, for example, association between tumor rupture and recurrence rates in Wilm's tumor
• Descriptive—comparative: Expected that researcher will ensure that all is same between groups except issue in question, for example, Are germ cell tumors occurring in gonads more aggressive than those occurring in extragonadal sites?
• Causality: Does deletion of p53 leads to worse outcome in patients with neuroblastoma?
• Causality—comparative: Such questions frequently aim to see effect of two rival treatments, for example, does adding surgical resection improves survival rate outcome in children with neuroblastoma than with chemotherapy alone?
• Causality–Comparative interactions: Does immunotherapy leads to better survival outcome in neuroblastoma Stage IV S than with chemotherapy in the setting of adverse genetic profile than without it? (Does X cause more changes in Y than those caused by Z under certain condition and not under other conditions).

How to develop a research question

• Begin by identifying a broader subject of interest that lends itself to investigate, for example, hormone levels among hypospadias
• Do preliminary research on the general topic to find out what research has already been done and what literature already exists.[ 7 ] Therefore, one should begin with “information gaps” (What do you already know about the problem? For example, studies with results on testosterone levels among hypospadias
• What do you still need to know? (e.g., levels of other reproductive hormones among hypospadias)
• What are the implied questions: The need to know about a problem will lead to few implied questions. Each general question should lead to more specific questions (e.g., how hormone levels differ among isolated hypospadias with respect to that in normal population)
• Narrow the scope and focus of research (e.g., assessment of reproductive hormone levels among isolated hypospadias and hypospadias those with associated anomalies)
• Is RQ clear? With so much research available on any given topic, RQs must be as clear as possible in order to be effective in helping the writer direct his or her research
• Is the RQ focused? RQs must be specific enough to be well covered in the space available
• Is the RQ complex? RQs should not be answerable with a simple “yes” or “no” or by easily found facts. They should, instead, require both research and analysis on the part of the writer
• Is the RQ one that is of interest to the researcher and potentially useful to others? Is it a new issue or problem that needs to be solved or is it attempting to shed light on previously researched topic
• Is the RQ researchable? Consider the available time frame and the required resources. Is the methodology to conduct the research feasible?
• Is the RQ measurable and will the process produce data that can be supported or contradicted?
• Is the RQ too broad or too narrow?
• Create Hs: After formulating RQ, think where research is likely to be progressing? What kind of argument is likely to be made/supported? What would it mean if the research disputed the planned argument? At this step, one can well be on the way to have a focus for the research and construction of a thesis. Hs consists of more specific predictions about the nature and direction of the relationship between two variables. It is a predictive statement about the outcome of the research, dictate the method, and design of the research[ 1 ]
• Understand implications of your research: This is important for application: whether one achieves to fill gap in knowledge and how the results of the research have practical implications, for example, to develop health policies or improve educational policies.[ 1 , 8 ]

Brainstorm/Concept map for formulating research question

• First, identify what types of studies have been done in the past?
• Is there a unique area that is yet to be investigated or is there a particular question that may be worth replicating?
• Begin to narrow the topic by asking open-ended “how” and “why” questions
• Evaluate the question
• Develop a Hypothesis (Hs)
• Write down the RQ.

Writing down the research question

• State the question in your own words
• Write down the RQ as completely as possible.

For example, Evaluation of reproductive hormonal profile in children presenting with isolated hypospadias)

• Divide your question into concepts. Narrow to two or three concepts (reproductive hormonal profile, isolated hypospadias, compare with normal/not isolated hypospadias–implied)
• Specify the population to be studied (children with isolated hypospadias)
• Refer to the exposure or intervention to be investigated, if any
• Reflect the outcome of interest (hormonal profile).

Another example of a research question

Would the topical skin application of oil as a skin barrier reduces hypothermia in preterm infants? Apart from fulfilling the criteria of a good RQ, that is, feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant, it also details about the intervention done (topical skin application of oil), rationale of intervention (as a skin barrier), population to be studied (preterm infants), and outcome (reduces hypothermia).

Other important points to be heeded to while framing research question

• Make reference to a population when a relationship is expected among a certain type of subjects
• RQs and Hs should be made as specific as possible
• Avoid words or terms that do not add to the meaning of RQs and Hs
• Stick to what will be studied, not implications
• Name the variables in the order in which they occur/will be measured
• Avoid the words significant/”prove”
• Avoid using two different terms to refer to the same variable.

Some of the other problems and their possible solutions have been discussed in Table 1 .

Potential problems and solutions while making research question

G OING B EYOND F ORMULATION OF R ESEARCH Q UESTION–THE P ATH A HEAD

Once RQ is formulated, a Hs can be developed. Hs means transformation of a RQ into an operational analog.[ 1 ] It means a statement as to what prediction one makes about the phenomenon to be examined.[ 4 ] More often, for case–control trial, null Hs is generated which is later accepted or refuted.

A strong Hs should have following characteristics:

• Give insight into a RQ
• Are testable and measurable by the proposed experiments
• Have logical basis
• Follows the most likely outcome, not the exceptional outcome.

E XAMPLES OF R ESEARCH Q UESTION AND H YPOTHESIS

Research question-1.

• Does reduced gap between the two segments of the esophagus in patients of esophageal atresia reduces the mortality and morbidity of such patients?

Hypothesis-1

• Reduced gap between the two segments of the esophagus in patients of esophageal atresia reduces the mortality and morbidity of such patients
• In pediatric patients with esophageal atresia, gap of <2 cm between two segments of the esophagus and proper mobilization of proximal pouch reduces the morbidity and mortality among such patients.

Research question-2

• Does application of mitomycin C improves the outcome in patient of corrosive esophageal strictures?

Hypothesis-2

In patients aged 2–9 years with corrosive esophageal strictures, 34 applications of mitomycin C in dosage of 0.4 mg/ml for 5 min over a period of 6 months improve the outcome in terms of symptomatic and radiological relief. Some other examples of good and bad RQs have been shown in Table 2 .

Examples of few bad (left-hand side column) and few good (right-hand side) research questions

R ESEARCH Q UESTION AND S TUDY D ESIGN

RQ determines study design, for example, the question aimed to find the incidence of a disease in population will lead to conducting a survey; to find risk factors for a disease will need case–control study or a cohort study. RQ may also culminate into clinical trial.[ 9 , 10 ] For example, effect of administration of folic acid tablet in the perinatal period in decreasing incidence of neural tube defect. Accordingly, Hs is framed.

Appropriate statistical calculations are instituted to generate sample size. The subject inclusion, exclusion criteria and time frame of research are carefully defined. The detailed subject information sheet and pro forma are carefully defined. Moreover, research is set off few examples of research methodology guided by RQ:

• Incidence of anorectal malformations among adolescent females (hospital-based survey)
• Risk factors for the development of spontaneous pneumoperitoneum in pediatric patients (case–control design and cohort study)
• Effect of technique of extramucosal ureteric reimplantation without the creation of submucosal tunnel for the preservation of upper tract in bladder exstrophy (clinical trial).

The results of the research are then be available for wider applications for health and social life

C ONCLUSION

A good RQ needs thorough literature search and deep insight into the specific area/problem to be investigated. A RQ has to be focused yet simple. Research guided by such question can have wider impact in the field of social and health research by leading to formulation of policies for the benefit of larger population.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

R EFERENCES

Library Services

UCL LIBRARY SERVICES

• Guides and databases
• Library skills
• Systematic reviews

Formulating a research question

• What are systematic reviews?
• Types of systematic reviews
• Identifying studies
• Searching databases
• Describing and appraising studies
• Synthesis and systematic maps
• Software for systematic reviews
• Online training and support
• Live and face to face training
• Individual support
• Further help

Clarifying the review question leads to specifying what type of studies can best address that question and setting out criteria for including such studies in the review. This is often called inclusion criteria or eligibility criteria. The criteria could relate to the review topic, the research methods of the studies, specific populations, settings, date limits, geographical areas, types of interventions, or something else.

Systematic reviews address clear and answerable research questions, rather than a general topic or problem of interest. They also have clear criteria about the studies that are being used to address the research questions. This is often called inclusion criteria or eligibility criteria.

Six examples of types of question are listed below, and the examples show different questions that a review might address based on the topic of influenza vaccination. Structuring questions in this way aids thinking about the different types of research that could address each type of question. Mneumonics can help in thinking about criteria that research must fulfil to address the question. The criteria could relate to the context, research methods of the studies, specific populations, settings, date limits, geographical areas, types of interventions, or something else.

Examples of review questions

• Needs - What do people want? Example: What are the information needs of healthcare workers regarding vaccination for seasonal influenza?
• Impact or effectiveness - What is the balance of benefit and harm of a given intervention? Example: What is the effectiveness of strategies to increase vaccination coverage among healthcare workers. What is the cost effectiveness of interventions that increase immunisation coverage?
• Process or explanation - Why does it work (or not work)? How does it work (or not work)?  Example: What factors are associated with uptake of vaccinations by healthcare workers?  What factors are associated with inequities in vaccination among healthcare workers?
• Correlation - What relationships are seen between phenomena? Example: How does influenza vaccination of healthcare workers vary with morbidity and mortality among patients? (Note: correlation does not in itself indicate causation).
• Views / perspectives - What are people's experiences? Example: What are the views and experiences of healthcare workers regarding vaccination for seasonal influenza?
• Service implementation - What is happening? Example: What is known about the implementation and context of interventions to promote vaccination for seasonal influenza among healthcare workers?

Examples in practice :  Seasonal influenza vaccination of health care workers: evidence synthesis / Loreno et al. 2017

Example of eligibility criteria

Research question: What are the views and experiences of UK healthcare workers regarding vaccination for seasonal influenza?

• Population: healthcare workers, any type, including those without direct contact with patients.
• Context: seasonal influenza vaccination for healthcare workers.
• Study design: qualitative data including interviews, focus groups, ethnographic data.
• Date of publication: all.
• Country: all UK regions.
• Studies focused on influenza vaccination for general population and pandemic influenza vaccination.
• Studies using survey data with only closed questions, studies that only report quantitative data.

Consider the research boundaries

It is important to consider the reasons that the research question is being asked. Any research question has ideological and theoretical assumptions around the meanings and processes it is focused on. A systematic review should either specify definitions and boundaries around these elements at the outset, or be clear about which elements are undefined. 

For example if we are interested in the topic of homework, there are likely to be pre-conceived ideas about what is meant by 'homework'. If we want to know the impact of homework on educational attainment, we need to set boundaries on the age range of children, or how educational attainment is measured. There may also be a particular setting or contexts: type of school, country, gender, the timeframe of the literature, or the study designs of the research.

Research question: What is the impact of homework on children's educational attainment?

• Scope : Homework - Tasks set by school teachers for students to complete out of school time, in any format or setting.
• Population: children aged 5-11 years.
• Outcomes: measures of literacy or numeracy from tests administered by researchers, school or other authorities.
• Study design: Studies with a comparison control group.
• Context: OECD countries, all settings within mainstream education.
• Date Limit: 2007 onwards.
• Any context not in mainstream primary schools.
• Non-English language studies.

Mnemonics for structuring questions

Some mnemonics that sometimes help to formulate research questions, set the boundaries of question and inform a search strategy.

Intervention effects

PICO  Population – Intervention– Outcome– Comparison

Variations: add T on for time, or ‘C’ for context, or S’ for study type,

Policy and management issues

ECLIPSE : Expectation – Client group – Location – Impact ‐ Professionals involved – Service

Expectation encourages  reflection on what the information is needed for i.e. improvement, innovation or information.  Impact looks at what  you would like to achieve e.g. improve team communication .

• How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information / Wildridge & Bell, 2002

Analysis tool for management and organisational strategy

PESTLE:  Political – Economic – Social – Technological – Environmental ‐ Legal

An analysis tool that can be used by organizations for identifying external factors which may influence their strategic development, marketing strategies, new technologies or organisational change.

• PESTLE analysis / CIPD, 2010

Service evaluations with qualitative study designs

SPICE:  Setting (context) – Perspective– Intervention – Comparison – Evaluation

Perspective relates to users or potential users. Evaluation is how you plan to measure the success of the intervention.

• Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice / Booth, 2006

Read more about some of the frameworks for constructing review questions:

• Formulating the Evidence Based Practice Question: A Review of the Frameworks / Davis, 2011
• << Previous: Stages in a systematic review
• Next: Identifying studies >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 10:09 AM
• URL: https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/systematic-reviews

Writing Studio

Formulating your research question (rq).

In an effort to make our handouts more accessible, we have begun converting our PDF handouts to web pages. Download this page as a PDF: Formulating Your Research Question Return to Writing Studio Handouts

In a research paper, the emphasis is on generating a unique question and then synthesizing diverse sources into a coherent essay that supports your argument about the topic. In other words, you integrate information from publications with your own thoughts in order to formulate an argument. Your topic is your starting place: from here, you will develop an engaging research question. Merely presenting a topic in the form of a question does not transform it into a good research question.

Research Topic Versus Research Question Examples

1. broad topic versus narrow question, 1a. broad topic.

“What forces affect race relations in America?”

1b. NARROWER QUESTION

“How do corporate hiring practices affect race relations in Nashville?”

The question “What is the percentage of racial minorities holding management positions in corporate offices in Nashville?” is much too specific and would yield, at best, a statistic that could become part of a larger argument.

2. Neutral Topic Versus Argumentative Question

2a. neutral topic.

“How does KFC market its low-fat food offerings?”

2b. Argumentative question

“Does KFC put more money into marketing its high-fat food offerings than its lower-fat ones?”

The latter question is somewhat better, since it may lead you to take a stance or formulate an argument about consumer awareness or benefit.

3. Objective Topic Versus Subjective Question

Objective subjects are factual and do not have sides to be argued. Subjective subjects are those about which you can take a side.

3a. Objective topic

“How much time do youth between the ages of 10 and 15 spend playing video games?”

3b. Subjective Question

“What are the effects of video-gaming on the attention spans of youth between the ages of 10 and 15?”

The first question is likely to lead to some data, though not necessarily to an argument or issue. The second question is somewhat better, since it might lead you to formulate an argument for or against time spent playing video games.

4. Open-Ended Topic Versus Direct Question

4a. open-ended topic.

“Does the author of this text use allusion?”

4b. Direct question (gives direction to research)

“Does the ironic use of allusion in this text reveal anything about the author’s unwillingness to divulge his political commitments?”

The second question gives focus by putting the use of allusion into the specific context of a question about the author’s political commitments and perhaps also about the circumstances under which the text was produced.

Research Question (RQ) Checklist

• Is my RQ something that I am curious about and that others might care about? Does it present an issue on which I can take a stand?
• Does my RQ put a new spin on an old issue, or does it try to solve a problem?
• Is my RQ too broad, too narrow, or OK?
• within the time frame of the assignment?
• given the resources available at my location?
• Is my RQ measurable? What type of information do I need? Can I find actual data to support or contradict a position?
• What sources will have the type of information that I need to answer my RQ (journals, books, internet resources, government documents, interviews with people)?

Final Thoughts

The answer to a good research question will often be the THESIS of your research paper! And the results of your research may not always be what you expected them to be. Not only is this ok, it can be an indication that you are doing careful work!

Adapted from an online tutorial at Empire State College: http://www.esc.edu/htmlpages/writerold/menus.htm#develop (broken link)

Last revised: November 2022 | Adapted for web delivery: November 2022

In order to access certain content on this page, you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent PDF viewer software.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

Published on October 30, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on October 19, 2023.

The research question is one of the most important parts of your research paper , thesis or dissertation . It’s important to spend some time assessing and refining your question before you get started.

The exact form of your question will depend on a few things, such as the length of your project, the type of research you’re conducting, the topic , and the research problem . However, all research questions should be focused, specific, and relevant to a timely social or scholarly issue.

Once you’ve read our guide on how to write a research question , you can use these examples to craft your own.

Note that the design of your research question can depend on what method you are pursuing. Here are a few options for qualitative, quantitative, and statistical research questions.

Other interesting articles

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

Methodology

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

A Guide to Evidence Synthesis: 1. Draft your Research Question

• Meet Our Team
• Our Published Reviews and Protocols
• What is Evidence Synthesis?
• Types of Evidence Synthesis
• Evidence Synthesis Across Disciplines
• Finding and Appraising Existing Systematic Reviews
• 0. Develop a Protocol
• 1. Draft your Research Question
• 2. Select Databases
• 3. Select Grey Literature Sources
• 4. Write a Search Strategy
• 5. Register a Protocol
• 6. Translate Search Strategies
• 7. Citation Management
• 8. Article Screening
• 9. Risk of Bias Assessment
• 10. Data Extraction
• 11. Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Evidence Synthesis Institute for Librarians
• Open Access Evidence Synthesis Resources

Video: Formulating a research question (4:43 minutes)

Developing a Research Question

Developing your research question.

Developing your research question is one of the most important steps in the evidence synthesis process. At this stage in the process, you and your team have identified a knowledge gap in your field and are aiming to answer a specific question:

• If X is prescribed, then Y will happen to patients?

OR assess an intervention:

• How does X affect Y?

OR synthesize the existing evidence

• What is the nature of X? ​

​​Whatever your aim, formulating a clear, well-defined research question of appropriate scope is key to a successful evidence synthesis . The research question will be the foundation of your  synthesis and from it your research team will identify 2-5 possible search concepts. These search concepts will later be used in step 5 to build your search strategy. 

Search Concepts

Research question frameworks.

Formulating a research question takes time and your team may go through different versions until settling on the right research question. To help formulate your research question, some research question frameworks are listed below (there are dozen of different types of these frameworks--for a comprehensive overview, see this guide from the University of Maryland )

Think of these frameworks as you would for a house or building. A framework is there to provide support and to be a scaffold for the rest of the structure. In the same way, a research question framework can also help structure your evidence synthesis  question.  Probably the most common framework is PICO:

PICO for Quantitative Studies

• P        Population/Problem
• I         Intervention/Exposure
• C        Comparison
• O       Outcome

Example: Is gabapentin (intervention), compared to placebo (comparison), effective in decreasing pain symptoms (outcome) in middle aged male amputees suffering phantom limb pain  (population)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While PICO is a helpful framework for clinical research questions, it may not be the best choice for other types of research questions, especially outside the health sciences.  Here are a few others (for a comprehensive, but concise, overview of the almost 40 different types of research question frameworks, see this review from the British Medical Journal: Rapid review of existing question formulation frameworks)

PICo for Qualitative Studies

• P         Population/Problem
• I           Phenomenon of Interest 
• Co     Context

Example: What are the experiences (phenomenon of interest) of caregivers providing home based care to patients with Alzheimer's disease  (population) in Australia  (context)?

• S     Setting
• P    Perspective (for whom)
• I     Intervention/Exposure
• C    Comparison
• E   Evaluation

Example: What are the benefits (evaluation) of a doula  (intervention) for low income mothers (perspective) in the developed world (setting) compared to no support (comparison)?

• S     Sample
• PI    Phenomenon of Interest
• D    Design
• E     Evaluation
• R    Study Type

Example: What are the experiences (evaluation) of women (sample) undergoing IVF treatment (phenomenon of interest) as assessed?

Design:    questionnaire or survey or interview

Study Type:  qualitative or mixed method

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are developed after a research question is finalized but before a search is carried out. They determine the limits for the evidence synthesis and are typically reported in the methods section of the publication. For unfamiliar or unclear concepts, a definition may be necessary to adequately describe the criterion for readers. 

How a Librarian Can Help

How librarians can help.

Librarians can help you learn how to search for existing information on your topic. Finding existing reviews on your topic will inform the development of your research question, identify gaps, and confirm that you are not duplicating the efforts of previous reviews.  Email us at [email protected] to learn more about developing a research question.

• << Previous: 0. Develop a Protocol
• Next: 2. Select Databases >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 4:29 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis

Systematic and systematic-like review toolkit: Step 1: Formulating the research question

Systematic and systematic-like review toolkit.

• Systematic and systematic-like reviews overview

Step 1: Formulating the research question

• Step 2: Developing the search
• Step 3: Screening and selection of articles
• Step 4: Appraisal of articles
• Step 5: Writing and publishing
• Filters and complex search examples
• Evidence synthesis support services

Tip: Look for these icons for guidance on which technique is required

Email your Librarians

The first stage in a review is formulating the research question. The research question accurately and succinctly sums up the review's line of inquiry. This page outlines approaches to developing a research question that can be used as the basis for a review.

Research question frameworks

It can be useful to use a framework to aid in the development of a research question. Frameworks can help you identify searchable parts of a question and focus your search on relevant results

A technique often used in research for formulating a clinical research question is the PICO model. Slightly different versions of this concept are used to search for quantitative and qualitative reviews.

The PICO/ PECO   framework is an adaptable approach to help you focus your research question and guide you in developing search terms. The framework prompts you to consider your question in terms of these four elements:

P : P atient/ P opulation/ P roblem

I/E : I ntervention/ I ndicator/ E xposure/ E vent

C : C omparison/ C ontrol

O : O utcome

For more detail, there are also the PICOT and PICOS additions:

PICO T - adds T ime  

PICO S - adds S tudy design

PICO example

Consider this scenario:

Current guidelines indicate that nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) should not be used as an intervention in young smokers.  Counselling is generally the recommended best practice for young smokers, however youth who are at high risk for smoking often live in regional or remote communities with limited access to counselling services.  You have been funded to review the evidence for the effectiveness of NRTs for smoking cessation in Australian youths to update the guidelines.

The research question stemming from this scenario could be phrased in this way:

In (P) adolescent smokers , how does (I) nicotine replacement therapy compared with (C) counselling affect (O) smoking cessation rates ?

Alternative frameworks

PICO is one of the most frequently used frameworks, but there are several other frameworks available to use, depending on your question.

Question type

• Qualitative; Aetiology or risk
• Services, policy, social care
• Prevalence & prognosis; Economics

Structuring qualitative questions?

Try PIC or SPIDER :

• P opulation, Phenomena of I nterest, C ontext
• S ample, P henomenon of I nterest, D esign, E valuation, R esearch type   

Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis . Qualitative health research, 22(10), 1435-1443.

Question about aetiology or risk? 

• P opulation, E xposure, O utcomes

Moola, Sandeep; Munn, Zachary; Sears, Kim; Sfetcu, Ralucac; Currie, Marian; Lisy, Karolina; Tufanaru, Catalin; Qureshi, Rubab; Mattis, Patrick; Mu, Peifanf. Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology) , International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare: September 2015 - Volume 13 - Issue 3 - p 163-169.

Evaluating an intervention, policy or service? 

Try SPICE :

• S etting, P opulation or P erspective, I ntervention, C omparison, E valuation

Booth, A. (2006), " Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice ", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 355-368. https://doi-org.ezproxy-b.deakin.edu.au/10.1108/07378830610692127

Investigating the outcome of a service or policy? 

Try ECLIPSE :

• E xpectation, C lient group, L ocation, I mpact, P rofessionals, SE rvice  

Wildridge, V., & Bell, L. (2002). How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 19(2), 113-115.

Working out prevalence or incidence? 

Try CoCoPop :

• Co ndition, Co ntext, Pop ulation

Munn, Z., Moola, S., Lisy, K., Riitano, D., & Tufanaru, C. (2015). Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data . International journal of evidence-based healthcare, 13(3), 147-153.

Determining prognosis?

• P opulation, Prognostic F actors, O utcome

Conducting an economic evaluation? 

Try PICOC :

• P opulation, I ntervention, C omparator/s, O utomes, Context

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide . Blackwell Pub.

JBI recommends the PCC (Population (or Participants), Concept, and Context) search framework to develop the research question of a scoping review. In some instances, just the concept and context are used in the search.

The University of Notre Dame Australia provides information on some different frameworks available to help structure the research question.

Further Readings

Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, et al, Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis . BMJ Global Health 2019;4:e001107. This paper explores the importance of focused, relevant questions in qualitative evidence syntheses to address complexity and context in interventions.

Kim, K. W., Lee, J., Choi, S. H., Huh, J., & Park, S. H. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part I. General guidance and tips . Korean journal of radiology, 16(6), 1175-1187. As the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is increasing in the field of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), this first of a two-part article provides a practical guide on how to conduct, report, and critically appraise studies of DTA. 

Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews . BMC Health Services Research, 14(1), 579. In this article the ‘SPIDER’ search framework, developed for more effective searching of qualitative research, was evaluated against PICO and PICOD. 

Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences . BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 This article aligns review types to question development frameworks.

Search for existing reviews

Before you start searching, find out whether any systematic reviews have been conducted recently on your topic. This is because similar systematic reviews could help with identifying your search terms, and information on your topic. It is also helpful to know if there is already a systematic review on your topic as it may mean you need to change your question.  

Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute publish systematic reviews. You can also search for the term "systematic review" in any of the subject databases. You can also search PROSPERO , an international register of systematic reviews, to see if there are any related reviews underway but not yet published; there are additional review registers detailed below.  

Watch this video to find out how to search for published systematic reviews

Protocols and Guidelines for reviews

It is recommended that authors consult relevant guidelines and create a protocol for their review.  

Protocols provide a clear plan for how the review will be conducted, including what will and will not be included in the final review. Protocols are widely recommended for any systematic review and are increasingly a requirement for publication of a completed systematic review.

Guidelines provide specific information on how to perform a review in your field of study. A completed review may be evaluated against the relevant guidelines by peer reviewers or readers, so it makes sense to follow the guidelines as best you can.

Click the headings below to learn more about the importance of protocols and guidelines.

Your protocol (or plan for conducting your review) should include the rationale, objectives, hypothesis, and planned methods used in searching, screening and analysing identified studies used in the review. The rationale should clearly state what will be included and excluded from the review. The aim is to minimise any bias by having pre-defined eligibility criteria.

Base the protocol on the relevant guidelines for the review that you are conducting. PRISMA-P was developed for reporting and development of protocols for systematic reviews. Their Explanation and Elaboration paper includes examples of what to write in your protocol. York's CRD has also created a document on how to submit a protocol to PROSPERO .

There are several registers of protocols, often associated with the organisation publishing the review. Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute both have their own protocol registries, and PROSPERO is a wide-reaching registry covering protocols for Cochrane, non-Cochrane and non-JBI reviews on a range of health, social care, education, justice, and international development topics.

Before beginning your protocol, search within protocol registries such as those listed above, or Open Science Framework or Research Registry , or journals such as Systematic Reviews and BMJ Open . This is a useful step to see if a protocol has already been submitted on your review topic and to find examples of protocols in similar areas of research.    

While a protocol will contain details of the intended search strategy, a protocol should be registered before the search strategy is finalised and run, so that you can show that your intention for the review has remained true and to limit duplication of in progress reviews.  

A protocol should typically address points that define the kind of studies to be included and the kind of data required to ensure the systematic review is focused on the appropriate studies for the topic. Some points to think about are:

• What study types are you looking for? For example, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, qualitative studies
• What sample size is acceptable in each study (power of the study)? 
• What population are you focusing on? Consider age ranges, gender, disease severity, geography of patients.
• What type of intervention are you focusing on?
• What outcomes are of importance to the review, including how those outcomes are measured?
• What context should you be looking for in a study? A lab, acute care, school, community...
• How will you appraise the studies? What methodology will you use?
• Does the study differentiate between the target population and other groups in the data? How will you handle it if it does not?
• Is the data available to access if the article does not specify the details you need? If not, what will you do?
• What languages are you able to review? Do you have funding to translate articles from languages other than English?  

Further reading

PLoS Medicine Editors. (2011). Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration . PLoS medicine, 8(2), e1001009.

Systematic Review guidelines

The Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions is a world-renowned resource for information on designing systematic reviews of intervention.  

Many other guidelines have been developed from these extensive guidelines.

General systematic reviews

• The  PRISMA Statement  includes the well-used Checklist and Flow Diagram.
• Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance on undertaking reviews in health care . One of the founding institutions that developed systematic review procedure. CRD's guide gives detailed clearly written explanations for different fields in Health.
• National Academies Press (US); 2011. 3, Standards for Finding and Assessing Individual Studies. Provides guidance on searching, screening, data collection, and appraisal of individual studies for a systematic review.

Meta-analyses

• An alternative to PRISMA is the Meta‐analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) for observational studies. It is a 35‐item checklist. It pays more attention to certain aspects of the search strategy, in particular the inclusion of unpublished and non‐English‐language studies.

Surgical systematic reviews

• Systematic reviews in surgery-recommendations from the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery . Provides recommendations for systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis, for each step of the process with specific recommendations important to surgical reviews.

Nursing/Allied Health systematic reviews

Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis  a comprehensive guide to conducting JBI systematic and similar reviews

Nutrition systematic reviews

• Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Manual  is designed to guide expert workgroup members and evidence analysts to understand and carry out the process of conducting a systematic review.

Occupational therapy

• American Occupational Therapy Association: Guidelines for Systematic reviews . The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) provides guidance for authors conducting systematic reviews.

Education/Law/ Sociology systematic reviews

• Campbell Collaboration, Cochrane's sister organisation provides guidelines for systematic reviews in the social sciences:  MECIR
• Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments – This was developed for patient reported outcomes (PROMs) but has since been adapted for use with other types of outcome measurements in systematic reviews.

Prinsen, C.A.C., Mokkink, L.B., Bouter, L.M. et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures . Qual Life Res 27, 1147–1157 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

HuGENet™ Handbook of systematic reviews – particularly useful for describing population-based data and human genetic variants.

AHRQ: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews - from the US Department of Health and Human Services, guidelines on conducting systematic reviews of existing research on the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of different health care interventions.

Mariano, D. C., Leite, C., Santos, L. H., Rocha, R. E., & de Melo-Minardi, R. C. (2017). A guide to performing systematic literature reviews in bioinformatics . arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05813.

Integrative Review guidelines

Integrative reviews may incorporate experimental and non-experimental data, as well as theoretical information.  They differ from systematic reviews in the diversity of the study methodologies included.

Guidelines:

• Whittemore, R. and Knafl, K. (2005), The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52: 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
• A step-by-step guide to conducting an Integrative Review (2020), edited by C.E. Toronto & Ruth Remington, Springer Books

Rapid Review guidelines

Rapid reviews differ from systematic reviews in the shorter timeframe taken and reduced comprehensiveness of the search.

Cochrane has a methods group to inform the conduct of rapid reviews with a bibliography of relevant publications .

A modified approach to systematic review guidelines can be used for rapid reviews, but guidelines are beginning to appear:

Crawford C, Boyd C, Jain S, Khorsan R and Jonas W (2015), Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL©): streamlining the systematic review process and creating utility for evidence-based health care . BMC Res Notes 8:631 DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1604-z

Philip Moons, Eva Goossens, David R. Thompson, Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process , European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, Volume 20, Issue 5, June 2021, Pages 515–519, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvab041

Rapid Review Guidebook: Steps for conducting a rapid review National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (McMaster University and Public Health Agency Canada) 2017

Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE, editors (2017) Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide (World Health Organization). This guide is particularly aimed towards developing rapid reviews to inform health policy. 

Scoping Review guidelines

Scoping reviews can be used to map an area, or to determine the need for a subsequent systematic review. Scoping reviews tend to have a broader focus than many other types of reviews, however, still require a focused question.

• Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual, JBI, 2020. 
• Statement / Explanatory paper

Scoping reviews: what they are and how you can do them - Series of Cochrane Training videos presented by Dr. Andrea C. Tricco and Kafayat Oboirien

Martin, G. P., Jenkins, D. A., Bull, L., Sisk, R., Lin, L., Hulme, W., ... & Group, P. H. A. (2020). Toward a framework for the design, implementation, and reporting of methodology scoping reviews . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 127, 191-197.

Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Pollock, D., Alexander, L., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., ... & Peters, M. D. (2021). Practical guide to undertaking scoping reviews for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers . Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics.

Colquhoun, H (2016) Current best practices for the conduct of scoping reviews (presentation)

Arksey H & O'Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework , International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8:1, 19-32, DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119616

Umbrella reviews

• Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews . In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .  
• Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Chapter 10: Umbrella Reviews . In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4687363 .
• Aromataris, Edoardo; Fernandez, Ritin; Godfrey, Christina M.; Holly, Cheryl; Khalil, Hanan; Tungpunkom, Patraporn. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach , International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare: September 2015 - Volume 13 - Issue 3 - p 132-140.

Meta-syntheses

Noyes, J., Booth, A., Cargo, M., Flemming, K., Garside, R., Hannes, K., ... & Thomas, J. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 1: introduction . Journal of clinical epidemiology, 97, 35-38.

Harris, J. L., Booth, A., Cargo, M., Hannes, K., Harden, A., Flemming, K., ... & Noyes, J. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis . Journal of clinical epidemiology, 97, 39-48.

Noyes, J., Booth, A., Flemming, K., Garside, R., Harden, A., Lewin, S., ... & Thomas, J. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings . Journal of clinical epidemiology, 97, 49-58.

Cargo, M., Harris, J., Pantoja, T., Booth, A., Harden, A., Hannes, K., ... & Noyes, J. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation . Journal of clinical epidemiology, 97, 59-69.

Harden, A., Thomas, J., Cargo, M., Harris, J., Pantoja, T., Flemming, K., ... & Noyes, J. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews . Journal of clinical epidemiology, 97, 70-78.

Flemming, K., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Cargo, M., & Noyes, J. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—Paper 6: Reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 97, 79-85.

Walsh, D. and Downe, S. (2005), Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review . Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50: 204–211. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x

Living reviews

• Akl, E.A., Meerpohl, J.J., Elliott, J., Kahale, L.A., Schünemann, H.J., Agoritsas, T., Hilton, J., Perron, C., Akl, E., Hodder, R. and Pestridge, C., 2017. Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations . Journal of clinical epidemiology, 91, pp.47-53.

Qualitative systematic reviews

• Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., . . . Young, B. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective . Qualitative Research,6(1), 27–44.
• Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Medical Research Methodology,8, 45–45.

Mixed methods systematic review

• Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P, Loveday H. Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews . In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-09
• Pearson, A, White, H, Bath-Hextall, F, Salmond, S, Apostolo, J, & Kirkpatrick, P 2015, ' A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews ', International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 121-131. Available from: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000052
• Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods . Journal of Health Services Research &Policy,10(1), 45–53.

Realist reviews

The RAMESES Projects - Includes information on publication, quality, and reporting standards, as well as training materials for realist reviews, meta-narrative reviews, and realist evaluation.

Rycroft-Malone, J., McCormack, B., Hutchinson, A. M., DeCorby, K., Bucknall, T. K., Kent, B., ... & Wilson, V. (2012). Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research . Implementation Science, 7(1), 1-10.

Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Manzano, A. et al. RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med 14, 96 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1

Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC medicine, 11, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-21

Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC medicine, 11(1), 1-14.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-21

Social sciences

• Chapman, K. (2021). Characteristics of systematic reviews in the social sciences . The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5), 102396.
• Crisp, B. R. (2015). Systematic reviews: A social work perspective . Australian Social Work, 68(3), 284-295.  

Further Reading

Uttley, L., Montgomery, P. The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review . Syst Rev 6, 149 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x

• << Previous: Review Process Steps
• Next: Step 2: Developing the search >>
• Last Updated: Apr 3, 2024 11:48 AM
• URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/systematicreview

Module 2: Formulating a Research Question and Searching for Sources

Formulating a Research Question

As noted in Module 1: Types of Reviews , conducting a “pre-search” is a crucial first step in devising the research question. A well-formulated research question informs the research process. It can focus your information needs (i.e. identify inclusion and exclusion criteria), help to identify key search concepts, and guide you in the direction of relevant resources.

Types of Research Questions

There are two general types of research questions: quantitative and qualitative .

Quantitative Research Questions

Types of quantitative questions can be categorized as explanatory (i.e., relationship-based), descriptive, or comparative.

• Explanatory questions aim to discover cause-and-effect relationships by comparing two or more variables, individuals or groups based on differing outcomes.
• Descriptive questions will often quantify a single variable but may include multiple variables  within a question. They typically ask for measurements, and can begin with: “how much”, “what percentage”, “how frequently”, or “how many”.
• Comparative questions are designed to identify the “difference between” a dependent variable and two or more groups. These questions tend to begin with “what is the difference” or “what are the differences”.

Qualitative Research Questions

Qualitative questions aim to discover meaning or gain an understanding of a phenomenon. They ask questions that cannot be measured with specific numbers and statistics. Qualitative research questions often contain words like "lived experience" , “personal experience”, “understanding”, “meaning”, and “stories”.

A Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Questions

So how do quantitative and qualitative research questions differ when you are conducting a search? In Table 2.1 below, we provide some examples of research topics. Each topic can either be used for a quantitative or qualitative research question. For each question, the category of research question is clarified.

Key Takeaways

Regardless of the type of question being asked, a good research question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no (as demonstrated by the sample questions in Table 2.1).

Quantitative data can be counted, measured,  and  expressed using numbers.

Qualitative research relies on data obtained by the researcher from first-hand observation, interviews, questionnaires (on which participants write descriptively), focus groups, participant-observation, recordings made in natural settings, documents, and artifacts. The data are generally nonnumerical.

Personal knowledge about the world that has been gained through first-hand involvement in everyday events.

Advanced Research Skills: Conducting Literature and Systematic Reviews Copyright © 2021 by Kelly Dermody; Cecile Farnum; Daniel Jakubek; Jo-Anne Petropoulos; Jane Schmidt; and Reece Steinberg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Formulation of Research Question and Composing Study Outcomes and Objectives

• Research Methodology Series
• Published: 03 July 2021
• Volume 58 , pages 584–588, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Shashi Kant Dhir 1 &
• Piyush Gupta 2  

1202 Accesses

4 Citations

Explore all metrics

Framing an appropriate research question is the most critical and fundamental part of a study. This helps in developing a hypothesis, formulating aims and objectives and methodological execution of the study. Research questions are usually generated by literature backed thorough analysis of the gaps in previous studies and funnelling it to a specific focussed issue. The research question should be framed using the PICO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator and Outcome) format and should fulfil the FINER (feasible, interesting, novel, ethically sound, and relevant) criteria for practical aspects. Objectives should always be framed in alignment of the research question using SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time defined) approach. Outcomes are classified as primary and secondary. It is advisable to have only one primary objective while secondary objectives can be multiple (usually not exceeding five). This paper describes a cascade approach starting from framing the research question and then deciding on the outcomes and study objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Meeting the Challenges of Intervention Research in Health Science: An Argument for a Multimethod Research Approach

Helle Ploug Hansen & Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen

Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: a systematic methods overview

Alicia O’Cathain, Liz Croot, … Pat Hoddinott

Designing a Research Question

Jones R. Choosing a research question. Asia Pac Fam Med. 2003;2:42–4.

Article   Google Scholar  

Garg R. Methodology for research I. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60:640–5.

Lipowski EE. Developing great research questions. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:1667–70.

Cañón M, Buitrago-Gómez Q. The research question in clinical practice: A guideline for its formulation. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2018;47:193–200.

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–13.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hulley SB. Designing clinical research, 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.

Google Scholar  

Ratan SK, Anand T, Ratan J. Formulation of research question — Stepwise approach. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2019;24:15–20.

Farrugia P, Petrisor BA, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Can J Surg. 2010;53:278–81.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hanson BP. Designing, conducting and reporting clinical research. A step by step approach. Injury. 2006;37: 583–94.

Doran GT. There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manage Rev. 1981;70:35–36.

Adams NE. Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103:152–3.

Velentgas P, Dreyer NA, Wu AW. Outcome definition and measurement [Internet]. Developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research: A user’s guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013. Accessed September 28, 2020. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126186/

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Pediatrics, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot, Punjab, India

Shashi Kant Dhir

Department of Pediatrics, University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Piyush Gupta

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piyush Gupta .

Additional information

Contributors.

SKD: literature research, drafted and revised the manuscript, approved final version of manuscript PG: conceived the idea, supervised the manuscript, reviewed the manuscript, finalised and approved the manuscript. Both authors have contributed to, designed and approved the manuscript.

Competing interest

None stated.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Dhir, S.K., Gupta, P. Formulation of Research Question and Composing Study Outcomes and Objectives. Indian Pediatr 58 , 584–588 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-021-2246-y

Download citation

Published : 03 July 2021

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-021-2246-y

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

• Study design
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

A Look at Research Questions Across Disciplines

This essay about crafting precise inquiries across different academic disciplines underscores the importance of formulating specific and relevant research questions. It showcases examples from social sciences, health sciences, environmental science, and education, each illustrating the necessity of clear, focused questions that guide the research process. From examining the influence of social media on voting patterns to exploring the effects of a plant-based diet on diabetes, the impact of urbanization on bee populations, and strategies to enhance reading comprehension among ESL students, these examples highlight the diversity and precision required in developing research questions. The essay emphasizes that a well-crafted question not only defines the scope and direction of a study but also contributes to advancing knowledge and addressing significant challenges within the field. Additionally, PapersOwl presents more free essays samples linked to Research Question.

How it works

In the vast landscape of academic research, the formulation of a research question is akin to setting the compass for a voyage of discovery. This essay delves into the art and science of crafting research questions, showcasing examples from a spectrum of disciplines to highlight the diversity and precision required in their development.

At the heart of social sciences, a researcher might ask, “How do social media platforms influence voting patterns among millennials in urban areas?” This question is notable for its specificity and relevance, targeting a particular demographic, technological influence, and political activity.

It opens avenues for quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews, aiming to untangle the web of digital influence on democratic engagement.

Turning to the health sciences, a question could be, “What is the impact of a plant-based diet on the progression of type 2 diabetes in adults over 50?” This inquiry is significant for its focus on a growing public health concern, proposing a study that could blend randomized controlled trials with longitudinal observational studies. It reflects a commitment to exploring lifestyle interventions in chronic disease management, with potential implications for dietary guidelines and patient education.

In the realm of environmental science, researchers might explore, “How does urbanization affect local bee populations and pollination patterns in the Northeast United States?” This question encapsulates a concern for biodiversity amidst human expansion, suggesting a methodology that includes both field observations and analysis of urban planning documents. It exemplifies the interconnectedness of ecological research and societal development, aiming to inform both conservation strategies and urban design principles.

Moreover, in the educational sector, an inquiry such as, “What strategies can improve reading comprehension skills among ESL (English as a Second Language) students in primary schools?” stands out. It pinpoints a critical area for educational intervention, hinting at a mix of qualitative case studies and quantitative testing to evaluate pedagogical approaches. This research question underscores the importance of tailoring educational practices to meet diverse learner needs, with a potential to shape curricular reforms.

These examples illustrate the breadth and depth of research questions across different fields. They share common characteristics of clarity, specificity, and the ambition to contribute new knowledge or solutions to pressing challenges. Whether exploring the impact of lifestyle on health, the consequences of technological adoption on political behavior, the interplay between urban development and biodiversity, or effective strategies for educational inclusion, each question serves as a beacon that guides the research process.

In constructing a research question, the researcher sets the stage for inquiry, defining the scope and direction of the study. It is the first, crucial step in a journey of exploration that spans disciplines, methodologies, and perspectives. Through these varied examples, we see the power of well-crafted research questions to illuminate the unknown, challenge assumptions, and drive forward the frontiers of knowledge.

Cite this page

A Look at Research Questions Across Disciplines. (2024, Mar 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/a-look-at-research-questions-across-disciplines/

"A Look at Research Questions Across Disciplines." PapersOwl.com , 1 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/a-look-at-research-questions-across-disciplines/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). A Look at Research Questions Across Disciplines . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/a-look-at-research-questions-across-disciplines/ [Accessed: 11 Apr. 2024]

"A Look at Research Questions Across Disciplines." PapersOwl.com, Mar 01, 2024. Accessed April 11, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/a-look-at-research-questions-across-disciplines/

"A Look at Research Questions Across Disciplines," PapersOwl.com , 01-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/a-look-at-research-questions-across-disciplines/. [Accessed: 11-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). A Look at Research Questions Across Disciplines . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/a-look-at-research-questions-across-disciplines/ [Accessed: 11-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Main Navigation

• Accept offer and enrol
• Current Students

Personalise your experience

Did you mean..., diploma of arts and social sciences, art/science collaboration wins waterhouse natural science art prize, unit of study hlth6007 health research project a (2025).

Future students: T: 1800 626 481 E: Email your enquiry here

Current students: Contact: Faculty of Health

Students studying at an education collaboration: Please contact your relevant institution

updated - DO NOT REMOVE THIS LINE 6:07 AM on Tue, 9 April

Show me unit information for year

Unit snapshot.

PG Coursework Unit

Credit points

Faculty & college.

Faculty of Health

Unit description

Learners develop a proposed research project, from conception of an idea to preparation of a study protocol. Learners discover how to formulate a research question, reviewing the literature, critically appraise the literature, develop a research justification statement, and define the parameters of a research project (including the aims, objectives, design, outcomes, data collection methods and data analysis procedures). Learners also realise how to prepare a study protocol that may be suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Unit content

• Research project management
• Establishing a clear, succinct research question
• Reviewing and appraising the literature and preparing a justification statement
• Developing a research protocol
• Data collection methods
• Data analysis procedures

Availabilities

2025 unit offering information will be available in November 2024

Learning outcomes

Unit Learning Outcomes express learning achievement in terms of what a student should know, understand and be able to do on completion of a unit. These outcomes are aligned with the graduate attributes . The unit learning outcomes and graduate attributes are also the basis of evaluating prior learning.

On completion of this unit, students should be able to:

apply the principles and strategies for effective research project management to a planned research project

develop a clear and succinct research question and/or hypothesis

compose a well-supported, current and persuasive research justification statement

formulate a comprehensive research protocol outlining data collection and analysis procedures aligned to project research question and/or hypothesis

Fee information

Commonwealth Supported courses For information regarding Student Contribution Amounts please visit the Student Contribution Amounts .

Fee paying courses For postgraduate or undergraduate full-fee paying courses please check Domestic Postgraduate Fees OR Domestic Undergraduate Fees .

International

Please check the international course and fee list to determine the relevant fees.

Courses that offer this unit

Master of osteopathic medicine (2024), master of osteopathic medicine (2025), master of advanced naturopathic medicine (2025), master of advanced naturopathic medicine (2024), master of lifestyle medicine (2024), master of lifestyle medicine (2025), master of naturopathic medicine (2025), master of naturopathic medicine (2024), any questions we'd love to help.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Art of Asking Smarter Questions

• Arnaud Chevallier,
• Frédéric Dalsace,
• Jean-Louis Barsoux

With organizations of all sorts facing increased urgency and unpredictability, being able to ask smart questions has become key. But unlike lawyers, doctors, and psychologists, business professionals are not formally trained on what kinds of questions to ask when approaching a problem. They must learn as they go. In their research and consulting, the authors have seen that certain kinds of questions have gained resonance across the business world. In a three-year project they asked executives to brainstorm about the decisions they’ve faced and the kinds of inquiry they’ve pursued. In this article they share what they’ve learned and offer a practical framework for the five types of questions to ask during strategic decision-making: investigative, speculative, productive, interpretive, and subjective. By attending to each, leaders and teams can become more likely to cover all the areas that need to be explored, and they’ll surface information and options they might otherwise have missed.

These five techniques can drive great strategic decision-making.

Idea in Brief

The situation.

With organizations of all sorts facing increased urgency and uncertainty, the ability to ask smart questions has become key. But business professionals aren’t formally trained in that skill.

Why It’s So Challenging

Managers’ expertise often blinds them to new ideas. And the flow of questions can be hard to process in real time, so certain concerns and insights may never be raised.

Strategic questions can be grouped into five domains: investigative, speculative, productive, interpretive, and subjective. By attending to each, leaders and teams are more likely to cover all the areas that need to be explored—and they’ll surface information and options they might otherwise have missed.

As a cofounder and the CEO of the U.S. chipmaker Nvidia, Jensen Huang operates in a high-velocity industry requiring agile, innovative thinking. Reflecting on how his leadership style has evolved, he told the New York Times, “I probably give fewer answers and I ask a lot more questions….It’s almost possible now for me to go through a day and do nothing but ask questions.” He continued, “Through probing, I help [my management team]…explore ideas that they didn’t realize needed to be explored.”

• Arnaud Chevallier is a professor of strategy at IMD Business School.
• Frédéric Dalsace is a professor of marketing and strategy at IMD.
• Jean-Louis Barsoux is a term research professor at IMD and a coauthor of ALIEN Thinking: The Unconventional Path to Breakthrough Ideas (PublicAffairs, 2021).

Partner Center

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

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

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

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Science & Research
• About Science & Research at FDA
• The FDA Science Forum

In Vitro Evaluation of Morphine Sulfate Extended-Release Formulation Sprinkled on Soft Foods – A Comparison of Two Dosage Strengths of the Fresh and Stressed Drug Products

2023 FDA Science Forum

BACKGROUND:

To better understand the effect of soft food selection on sprinkle administration, we tested different soft foods to evaluate how soft food properties could interact with drug quality, efficacy, and safety. The study could provide information for sprinkle administration regarding soft food availability and patients with food allergy.

To investigate the dissolution performance, water content and cracking point of morphine sulfate (MS) extended-release (ER) formulation of two dosage strengths after sprinkle administration on different soft foods.

MS ER pellets of 10 mg and 100 mg capsules were sprinkled over different soft foods (applesauce, vanilla yogurt, carrot puree, and chocolate pudding, with pH 3.63, 4.34, 4.98, and 6.29, respectively) for 120 min contact time. Dissolution was performed with a 2-stage USP 1 dissolution test. Pellet cracking force and water content were analyzed using texture analyzer (n=40 pellets) and thermogravimeter, respectively. Both fresh capsules (T=0) and capsules stressed at 40℃ with 75% relative humidity for six months (T=6 M) were tested. Non-sprinkled pellets were used as controls.

The mean percent MS-release at 1 h dissolution presented the highest variation among all tested groups and was higher in sprinkled groups than controls. Pellets sprinkled on high pH soft foods, such as chocolate pudding, showed higher MS-release than low pH soft foods for, both T=0 and T=6 M, all dosage strength pellets. The pellets cracked under lower forces and longer cracking distances when sprinkled on higher pH soft foods. T=0 pellets showed longer cracking distance than T=6 M pellets. Water content of T=0 pellets were higher compared to T=6 M pellets for all soft foods tested for each dosage strength. Higher pH soft foods showed higher water content within same dosage strength and storage condition.

CONCLUSION:

High pH foods appeared to associate with higher water content, greater pellet deformation under lower stress force, and slightly elevated MS dissolution in the early time points of the sprinkled pellets. However, all conditions tested passed USP dissolution testing which ensures drug quality is maintained even when sprinkled on soft food. These results may be useful in interpreting the soft food effect on bioequivalence determination of MS type products.

Download the Poster (PDF; 8.14 MB)