aims of the research proposal

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
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

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

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

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. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved June 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Formulating Research Aims and Objectives

Formulating research aim and objectives in an appropriate manner is one of the most important aspects of your thesis. This is because research aim and objectives determine the scope, depth and the overall direction of the research. Research question is the central question of the study that has to be answered on the basis of research findings.

Research aim emphasizes what needs to be achieved within the scope of the research, by the end of the research process. Achievement of research aim provides answer to the research question.

Research objectives divide research aim into several parts and address each part separately. Research aim specifies WHAT needs to be studied and research objectives comprise a number of steps that address HOW research aim will be achieved.

As a rule of dumb, there would be one research aim and several research objectives. Achievement of each research objective will lead to the achievement of the research aim.

Consider the following as an example:

Research title: Effects of organizational culture on business profitability: a case study of Virgin Atlantic

Research aim: To assess the effects of Virgin Atlantic organizational culture on business profitability

Following research objectives would facilitate the achievement of this aim:

• Analyzing the nature of organizational culture at Virgin Atlantic by September 1, 2022
• Identifying factors impacting Virgin Atlantic organizational culture by September 16, 2022
• Analyzing impacts of Virgin Atlantic organizational culture on employee performances by September 30, 2022
• Providing recommendations to Virgin Atlantic strategic level management in terms of increasing the level of effectiveness of organizational culture by October 5, 2022

Figure below illustrates additional examples in formulating research aims and objectives:

Formulation of research question, aim and objectives

Common mistakes in the formulation of research aim relate to the following:

1. Choosing the topic too broadly . This is the most common mistake. For example, a research title of “an analysis of leadership practices” can be classified as too broad because the title fails to answer the following questions:

a) Which aspects of leadership practices? Leadership has many aspects such as employee motivation, ethical behaviour, strategic planning, change management etc. An attempt to cover all of these aspects of organizational leadership within a single research will result in an unfocused and poor work.

b) An analysis of leadership practices in which country? Leadership practices tend to be different in various countries due to cross-cultural differences, legislations and a range of other region-specific factors. Therefore, a study of leadership practices needs to be country-specific.

c) Analysis of leadership practices in which company or industry? Similar to the point above, analysis of leadership practices needs to take into account industry-specific and/or company-specific differences, and there is no way to conduct a leadership research that relates to all industries and organizations in an equal manner.

Accordingly, as an example “a study into the impacts of ethical behaviour of a leader on the level of employee motivation in US healthcare sector” would be a more appropriate title than simply “An analysis of leadership practices”.

2. Setting an unrealistic aim . Formulation of a research aim that involves in-depth interviews with Apple strategic level management by an undergraduate level student can be specified as a bit over-ambitious. This is because securing an interview with Apple CEO Tim Cook or members of Apple Board of Directors might not be easy. This is an extreme example of course, but you got the idea. Instead, you may aim to interview the manager of your local Apple store and adopt a more feasible strategy to get your dissertation completed.

3. Choosing research methods incompatible with the timeframe available . Conducting interviews with 20 sample group members and collecting primary data through 2 focus groups when only three months left until submission of your dissertation can be very difficult, if not impossible. Accordingly, timeframe available need to be taken into account when formulating research aims and objectives and selecting research methods.

Moreover, research objectives need to be formulated according to SMART principle,

 where the abbreviation stands for specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound.

Examples of SMART research objectives

At the conclusion part of your research project you will need to reflect on the level of achievement of research aims and objectives. In case your research aims and objectives are not fully achieved by the end of the study, you will need to discuss the reasons. These may include initial inappropriate formulation of research aims and objectives, effects of other variables that were not considered at the beginning of the research or changes in some circumstances during the research process.

John Dudovskiy

What (Exactly) Is A Research Proposal?

A simple explainer with examples + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020 (Updated April 2023)

Whether you’re nearing the end of your degree and your dissertation is on the horizon, or you’re planning to apply for a PhD program, chances are you’ll need to craft a convincing research proposal . If you’re on this page, you’re probably unsure exactly what the research proposal is all about. Well, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Research Proposal Basics

• What a research proposal is
• What a research proposal needs to cover
• How to structure your research proposal
• Example /sample proposals
• Proposal writing FAQs
• Key takeaways & additional resources

What is a research proposal?

Simply put, a research proposal is a structured, formal document that explains what you plan to research (your research topic), why it’s worth researching (your justification), and how  you plan to investigate it (your methodology). 

The purpose of the research proposal (its job, so to speak) is to convince  your research supervisor, committee or university that your research is  suitable  (for the requirements of the degree program) and  manageable  (given the time and resource constraints you will face). 

The most important word here is “ convince ” – in other words, your research proposal needs to  sell  your research idea (to whoever is going to approve it). If it doesn’t convince them (of its suitability and manageability), you’ll need to revise and resubmit . This will cost you valuable time, which will either delay the start of your research or eat into its time allowance (which is bad news). 

What goes into a research proposal?

A good dissertation or thesis proposal needs to cover the “ what “, “ why ” and” how ” of the proposed study. Let’s look at each of these attributes in a little more detail:

Your proposal needs to clearly articulate your research topic . This needs to be specific and unambiguous . Your research topic should make it clear exactly what you plan to research and in what context. Here’s an example of a well-articulated research topic:

An investigation into the factors which impact female Generation Y consumer’s likelihood to promote a specific makeup brand to their peers: a British context

As you can see, this topic is extremely clear. From this one line we can see exactly:

• What’s being investigated – factors that make people promote or advocate for a brand of a specific makeup brand
• Who it involves – female Gen-Y consumers
• In what context – the United Kingdom

So, make sure that your research proposal provides a detailed explanation of your research topic . If possible, also briefly outline your research aims and objectives , and perhaps even your research questions (although in some cases you’ll only develop these at a later stage). Needless to say, don’t start writing your proposal until you have a clear topic in mind , or you’ll end up waffling and your research proposal will suffer as a result of this.

Need a helping hand?

As we touched on earlier, it’s not good enough to simply propose a research topic – you need to justify why your topic is original . In other words, what makes it  unique ? What gap in the current literature does it fill? If it’s simply a rehash of the existing research, it’s probably not going to get approval – it needs to be fresh.

But,  originality  alone is not enough. Once you’ve ticked that box, you also need to justify why your proposed topic is  important . In other words, what value will it add to the world if you achieve your research aims?

As an example, let’s look at the sample research topic we mentioned earlier (factors impacting brand advocacy). In this case, if the research could uncover relevant factors, these findings would be very useful to marketers in the cosmetics industry, and would, therefore, have commercial value . That is a clear justification for the research.

So, when you’re crafting your research proposal, remember that it’s not enough for a topic to simply be unique. It needs to be useful and value-creating – and you need to convey that value in your proposal. If you’re struggling to find a research topic that makes the cut, watch  our video covering how to find a research topic .

It’s all good and well to have a great topic that’s original and valuable, but you’re not going to convince anyone to approve it without discussing the practicalities – in other words:

• How will you actually undertake your research (i.e., your methodology)?
• Is your research methodology appropriate given your research aims?
• Is your approach manageable given your constraints (time, money, etc.)?

While it’s generally not expected that you’ll have a fully fleshed-out methodology at the proposal stage, you’ll likely still need to provide a high-level overview of your research methodology . Here are some important questions you’ll need to address in your research proposal:

• Will you take a qualitative , quantitative or mixed -method approach?
• What sampling strategy will you adopt?
• How will you collect your data (e.g., interviews, surveys, etc)?
• How will you analyse your data (e.g., descriptive and inferential statistics , content analysis, discourse analysis, etc, .)?
• What potential limitations will your methodology carry?

So, be sure to give some thought to the practicalities of your research and have at least a basic methodological plan before you start writing up your proposal. If this all sounds rather intimidating, the video below provides a good introduction to research methodology and the key choices you’ll need to make.

How To Structure A Research Proposal

Now that we’ve covered the key points that need to be addressed in a proposal, you may be wondering, “ But how is a research proposal structured? “.

While the exact structure and format required for a research proposal differs from university to university, there are four “essential ingredients” that commonly make up the structure of a research proposal:

• A rich introduction and background to the proposed research
• An initial literature review covering the existing research
• An overview of the proposed research methodology
• A discussion regarding the practicalities (project plans, timelines, etc.)

In the video below, we unpack each of these four sections, step by step.

Research Proposal Examples/Samples

In the video below, we provide a detailed walkthrough of two successful research proposals (Master’s and PhD-level), as well as our popular free proposal template.

Proposal Writing FAQs

How long should a research proposal be.

This varies tremendously, depending on the university, the field of study (e.g., social sciences vs natural sciences), and the level of the degree (e.g. undergraduate, Masters or PhD) – so it’s always best to check with your university what their specific requirements are before you start planning your proposal.

As a rough guide, a formal research proposal at Masters-level often ranges between 2000-3000 words, while a PhD-level proposal can be far more detailed, ranging from 5000-8000 words. In some cases, a rough outline of the topic is all that’s needed, while in other cases, universities expect a very detailed proposal that essentially forms the first three chapters of the dissertation or thesis.

The takeaway – be sure to check with your institution before you start writing.

How do I choose a topic for my research proposal?

Finding a good research topic is a process that involves multiple steps. We cover the topic ideation process in this video post.

How do I write a literature review for my proposal?

While you typically won’t need a comprehensive literature review at the proposal stage, you still need to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the key literature and are able to synthesise it. We explain the literature review process here.

How do I create a timeline and budget for my proposal?

We explain how to craft a project plan/timeline and budget in Research Proposal Bootcamp .

Which referencing format should I use in my research proposal?

The expectations and requirements regarding formatting and referencing vary from institution to institution. Therefore, you’ll need to check this information with your university.

What common proposal writing mistakes do I need to look out for?

We’ve create a video post about some of the most common mistakes students make when writing a proposal – you can access that here . If you’re short on time, here’s a quick summary:

• The research topic is too broad (or just poorly articulated).
• The research aims, objectives and questions don’t align.
• The research topic is not well justified.
• The study has a weak theoretical foundation.
• The research design is not well articulated well enough.
• Poor writing and sloppy presentation.
• Poor project planning and risk management.
• Not following the university’s specific criteria.

Key Takeaways & Additional Resources

As you write up your research proposal, remember the all-important core purpose:  to convince . Your research proposal needs to sell your study in terms of suitability and viability. So, focus on crafting a convincing narrative to ensure a strong proposal.

At the same time, pay close attention to your university’s requirements. While we’ve covered the essentials here, every institution has its own set of expectations and it’s essential that you follow these to maximise your chances of approval.

By the way, we’ve got plenty more resources to help you fast-track your research proposal. Here are some of our most popular resources to get you started:

• Proposal Writing 101 : A Introductory Webinar
• Research Proposal Bootcamp : The Ultimate Online Course
• Template : A basic template to help you craft your proposal

If you’re looking for 1-on-1 support with your research proposal, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the proposal development process (and the entire research journey), step by step.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

I truly enjoyed this video, as it was eye-opening to what I have to do in the preparation of preparing a Research proposal.

I would be interested in getting some coaching.

I real appreciate on your elaboration on how to develop research proposal,the video explains each steps clearly.

Thank you for the video. It really assisted me and my niece. I am a PhD candidate and she is an undergraduate student. It is at times, very difficult to guide a family member but with this video, my job is done.

In view of the above, I welcome more coaching.

Wonderful guidelines, thanks

This is very helpful. Would love to continue even as I prepare for starting my masters next year.

Thanks for the work done, the text was helpful to me

Bundle of thanks to you for the research proposal guide it was really good and useful if it is possible please send me the sample of research proposal

You’re most welcome. We don’t have any research proposals that we can share (the students own the intellectual property), but you might find our research proposal template useful: https://gradcoach.com/research-proposal-template/

Cheruiyot Moses Kipyegon

Thanks alot. It was an eye opener that came timely enough before my imminent proposal defense. Thanks, again

thank you very much your lesson is very interested may God be with you

I am an undergraduate student (First Degree) preparing to write my project,this video and explanation had shed more light to me thanks for your efforts keep it up.

Very useful. I am grateful.

this is a very a good guidance on research proposal, for sure i have learnt something

Wonderful guidelines for writing a research proposal, I am a student of m.phil( education), this guideline is suitable for me. Thanks

You’re welcome 🙂

Thank you, this was so helpful.

A really great and insightful video. It opened my eyes as to how to write a research paper. I would like to receive more guidance for writing my research paper from your esteemed faculty.

Thank you, great insights

Thank you, great insights, thank you so much, feeling edified

Wow thank you, great insights, thanks a lot

Thank you. This is a great insight. I am a student preparing for a PhD program. I am requested to write my Research Proposal as part of what I am required to submit before my unconditional admission. I am grateful having listened to this video which will go a long way in helping me to actually choose a topic of interest and not just any topic as well as to narrow down the topic and be specific about it. I indeed need more of this especially as am trying to choose a topic suitable for a DBA am about embarking on. Thank you once more. The video is indeed helpful.

Have learnt a lot just at the right time. Thank you so much.

thank you very much ,because have learn a lot things concerning research proposal and be blessed u for your time that you providing to help us

Hi. For my MSc medical education research, please evaluate this topic for me: Training Needs Assessment of Faculty in Medical Training Institutions in Kericho and Bomet Counties

I have really learnt a lot based on research proposal and it’s formulation

Thank you. I learn much from the proposal since it is applied

Your effort is much appreciated – you have good articulation.

You have good articulation.

I do applaud your simplified method of explaining the subject matter, which indeed has broaden my understanding of the subject matter. Definitely this would enable me writing a sellable research proposal.

This really helping

Great! I liked your tutoring on how to find a research topic and how to write a research proposal. Precise and concise. Thank you very much. Will certainly share this with my students. Research made simple indeed.

Thank you very much. I an now assist my students effectively.

Thank you very much. I can now assist my students effectively.

I need any research proposal

Thank you for these videos. I will need chapter by chapter assistance in writing my MSc dissertation

Very helpfull

the videos are very good and straight forward

thanks so much for this wonderful presentations, i really enjoyed it to the fullest wish to learn more from you

Thank you very much. I learned a lot from your lecture.

I really enjoy the in-depth knowledge on research proposal you have given. me. You have indeed broaden my understanding and skills. Thank you

interesting session this has equipped me with knowledge as i head for exams in an hour’s time, am sure i get A++

This article was most informative and easy to understand. I now have a good idea of how to write my research proposal.

Thank you very much.

Wow, this literature is very resourceful and interesting to read. I enjoyed it and I intend reading it every now then.

Thank you for the clarity

Thank you. Very helpful.

Thank you very much for this essential piece. I need 1o1 coaching, unfortunately, your service is not available in my country. Anyways, a very important eye-opener. I really enjoyed it. A thumb up to Gradcoach

What is JAM? Please explain.

Thank you so much for these videos. They are extremely helpful! God bless!

very very wonderful…

thank you for the video but i need a written example

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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
• v.23(2); 2008 Apr

How to prepare a Research Proposal

Health research, medical education and clinical practice form the three pillars of modern day medical practice. As one authority rightly put it: ‘Health research is not a luxury, but an essential need that no nation can afford to ignore’. Health research can and should be pursued by a broad range of people. Even if they do not conduct research themselves, they need to grasp the principles of the scientific method to understand the value and limitations of science and to be able to assess and evaluate results of research before applying them. This review paper aims to highlight the essential concepts to the students and beginning researchers and sensitize and motivate the readers to access the vast literature available on research methodologies.

Most students and beginning researchers do not fully understand what a research proposal means, nor do they understand its importance. 1 A research proposal is a detailed description of a proposed study designed to investigate a given problem. 2

A research proposal is intended to convince others that you have a worthwhile research project and that you have the competence and the work-plan to complete it. Broadly the research proposal must address the following questions regardless of your research area and the methodology you choose: What you plan to accomplish, why do you want to do it and how are you going to do it. 1 The aim of this article is to highlight the essential concepts and not to provide extensive details about this topic.

The elements of a research proposal are highlighted below:

1. Title: It should be concise and descriptive. It must be informative and catchy. An effective title not only prick’s the readers interest, but also predisposes him/her favorably towards the proposal. Often titles are stated in terms of a functional relationship, because such titles clearly indicate the independent and dependent variables. 1 The title may need to be revised after completion of writing of the protocol to reflect more closely the sense of the study. 3

2. Abstract: It is a brief summary of approximately 300 words. It should include the main research question, the rationale for the study, the hypothesis (if any) and the method. Descriptions of the method may include the design, procedures, the sample and any instruments that will be used. 1 It should stand on its own, and not refer the reader to points in the project description. 3

3. Introduction: The introduction provides the readers with the background information. Its purpose is to establish a framework for the research, so that readers can understand how it relates to other research. 4 It should answer the question of why the research needs to be done and what will be its relevance. It puts the proposal in context. 3

The introduction typically begins with a statement of the research problem in precise and clear terms. 1

The importance of the statement of the research problem 5 : The statement of the problem is the essential basis for the construction of a research proposal (research objectives, hypotheses, methodology, work plan and budget etc). It is an integral part of selecting a research topic. It will guide and put into sharper focus the research design being considered for solving the problem. It allows the investigator to describe the problem systematically, to reflect on its importance, its priority in the country and region and to point out why the proposed research on the problem should be undertaken. It also facilitates peer review of the research proposal by the funding agencies.

Then it is necessary to provide the context and set the stage for the research question in such a way as to show its necessity and importance. 1 This step is necessary for the investigators to familiarize themselves with existing knowledge about the research problem and to find out whether or not others have investigated the same or similar problems. This step is accomplished by a thorough and critical review of the literature and by personal communication with experts. 5 It helps further understanding of the problem proposed for research and may lead to refining the statement of the problem, to identify the study variables and conceptualize their relationships, and in formulation and selection of a research hypothesis. 5 It ensures that you are not "re-inventing the wheel" and demonstrates your understanding of the research problem. It gives due credit to those who have laid the groundwork for your proposed research. 1 In a proposal, the literature review is generally brief and to the point. The literature selected should be pertinent and relevant. 6

Against this background, you then present the rationale of the proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing.

4. Objectives: Research objectives are the goals to be achieved by conducting the research. 5 They may be stated as ‘general’ and ‘specific’.

The general objective of the research is what is to be accomplished by the research project, for example, to determine whether or not a new vaccine should be incorporated in a public health program.

The specific objectives relate to the specific research questions the investigator wants to answer through the proposed study and may be presented as primary and secondary objectives, for example, primary: To determine the degree of protection that is attributable to the new vaccine in a study population by comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. 5 Secondary: To study the cost-effectiveness of this programme.

Young investigators are advised to resist the temptation to put too many objectives or over-ambitious objectives that cannot be adequately achieved by the implementation of the protocol. 3

5. Variables: During the planning stage, it is necessary to identify the key variables of the study and their method of measurement and unit of measurement must be clearly indicated. Four types of variables are important in research 5 :

a. Independent variables: variables that are manipulated or treated in a study in order to see what effect differences in them will have on those variables proposed as being dependent on them. The different synonyms for the term ‘independent variable’ which are used in literature are: cause, input, predisposing factor, risk factor, determinant, antecedent, characteristic and attribute.

b. Dependent variables: variables in which changes are results of the level or amount of the independent variable or variables.

Synonyms: effect, outcome, consequence, result, condition, disease.

c. Confounding or intervening variables: variables that should be studied because they may influence or ‘mix’ the effect of the independent variables. For instance, in a study of the effect of measles (independent variable) on child mortality (dependent variable), the nutritional status of the child may play an intervening (confounding) role.

d. Background variables: variables that are so often of relevance in investigations of groups or populations that they should be considered for possible inclusion in the study. For example sex, age, ethnic origin, education, marital status, social status etc.

The objective of research is usually to determine the effect of changes in one or more independent variables on one or more dependent variables. For example, a study may ask "Will alcohol intake (independent variable) have an effect on development of gastric ulcer (dependent variable)?"

Certain variables may not be easy to identify. The characteristics that define these variables must be clearly identified for the purpose of the study.

6. Questions and/ or hypotheses: If you as a researcher know enough to make prediction concerning what you are studying, then the hypothesis may be formulated. A hypothesis can be defined as a tentative prediction or explanation of the relationship between two or more variables. In other words, the hypothesis translates the problem statement into a precise, unambiguous prediction of expected outcomes. Hypotheses are not meant to be haphazard guesses, but should reflect the depth of knowledge, imagination and experience of the investigator. 5 In the process of formulating the hypotheses, all variables relevant to the study must be identified. For example: "Health education involving active participation by mothers will produce more positive changes in child feeding than health education based on lectures". Here the independent variable is types of health education and the dependent variable is changes in child feeding.

A research question poses a relationship between two or more variables but phrases the relationship as a question; a hypothesis represents a declarative statement of the relations between two or more variables. 7

For exploratory or phenomenological research, you may not have any hypothesis (please do not confuse the hypothesis with the statistical null hypothesis). 1 Questions are relevant to normative or census type research (How many of them are there? Is there a relationship between them?). Deciding whether to use questions or hypotheses depends on factors such as the purpose of the study, the nature of the design and methodology, and the audience of the research (at times even the outlook and preference of the committee members, particularly the Chair). 6

7. Methodology: The method section is very important because it tells your research Committee how you plan to tackle your research problem. The guiding principle for writing the Methods section is that it should contain sufficient information for the reader to determine whether the methodology is sound. Some even argue that a good proposal should contain sufficient details for another qualified researcher to implement the study. 1 Indicate the methodological steps you will take to answer every question or to test every hypothesis illustrated in the Questions/hypotheses section. 6 It is vital that you consult a biostatistician during the planning stage of your study, 8 to resolve the methodological issues before submitting the proposal.

This section should include:

Research design: The selection of the research strategy is the core of research design and is probably the single most important decision the investigator has to make. The choice of the strategy, whether descriptive, analytical, experimental, operational or a combination of these depend on a number of considerations, 5 but this choice must be explained in relation to the study objectives. 3

Research subjects or participants: Depending on the type of your study, the following questions should be answered 3 , 5

• - What are the criteria for inclusion or selection?
• - What are the criteria for exclusion?
• - What is the sampling procedure you will use so as to ensure representativeness and reliability of the sample and to minimize sampling errors? The key reason for being concerned with sampling is the issue of validity-both internal and external of the study results. 9
• - Will there be use of controls in your study? Controls or comparison groups are used in scientific research in order to increase the validity of the conclusions. Control groups are necessary in all analytical epidemiological studies, in experimental studies of drug trials, in research on effects of intervention programmes and disease control measures and in many other investigations. Some descriptive studies (studies of existing data, surveys) may not require control groups.
• - What are the criteria for discontinuation?

Sample size: The proposal should provide information and justification (basis on which the sample size is calculated) about sample size in the methodology section. 3 A larger sample size than needed to test the research hypothesis increases the cost and duration of the study and will be unethical if it exposes human subjects to any potential unnecessary risk without additional benefit. A smaller sample size than needed can also be unethical as it exposes human subjects to risk with no benefit to scientific knowledge. Calculation of sample size has been made easy by computer software programmes, but the principles underlying the estimation should be well understood.

Interventions: If an intervention is introduced, a description must be given of the drugs or devices (proprietary names, manufacturer, chemical composition, dose, frequency of administration) if they are already commercially available. If they are in phases of experimentation or are already commercially available but used for other indications, information must be provided on available pre-clinical investigations in animals and/or results of studies already conducted in humans (in such cases, approval of the drug regulatory agency in the country is needed before the study). 3

Ethical issues 3 : Ethical considerations apply to all types of health research. Before the proposal is submitted to the Ethics Committee for approval, two important documents mentioned below (where appropriate) must be appended to the proposal. In additions, there is another vital issue of Conflict of Interest, wherein the researchers should furnish a statement regarding the same.

The Informed consent form (informed decision-making): A consent form, where appropriate, must be developed and attached to the proposal. It should be written in the prospective subjects’ mother tongue and in simple language which can be easily understood by the subject. The use of medical terminology should be avoided as far as possible. Special care is needed when subjects are illiterate. It should explain why the study is being done and why the subject has been asked to participate. It should describe, in sequence, what will happen in the course of the study, giving enough detail for the subject to gain a clear idea of what to expect. It should clarify whether or not the study procedures offer any benefits to the subject or to others, and explain the nature, likelihood and treatment of anticipated discomfort or adverse effects, including psychological and social risks, if any. Where relevant, a comparison with risks posed by standard drugs or treatment must be included. If the risks are unknown or a comparative risk cannot be given it should be so stated. It should indicate that the subject has the right to withdraw from the study at any time without, in any way, affecting his/her further medical care. It should assure the participant of confidentiality of the findings.

Ethics checklist: The proposal must describe the measures that will be undertaken to ensure that the proposed research is carried out in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical research involving Human Subjects. 10 It must answer the following questions:

• • Is the research design adequate to provide answers to the research question? It is unethical to expose subjects to research that will have no value.
• • Is the method of selection of research subjects justified? The use of vulnerable subjects as research participants needs special justification. Vulnerable subjects include those in prison, minors and persons with mental disability. In international research it is important to mention that the population in which the study is conducted will benefit from any potential outcome of the research and the research is not being conducted solely for the benefit of some other population. Justification is needed for any inducement, financial or otherwise, for the participants to be enrolled in the study.
• • Are the interventions justified, in terms of risk/benefit ratio? Risks are not limited to physical harm. Psychological and social risks must also be considered.
• • For observations made, have measures been taken to ensure confidentiality?

Research setting 5 : The research setting includes all the pertinent facets of the study, such as the population to be studied (sampling frame), the place and time of study.

Study instruments 3 , 5 : Instruments are the tools by which the data are collected. For validated questionnaires/interview schedules, reference to published work should be given and the instrument appended to the proposal. For new a questionnaire which is being designed specifically for your study the details about preparing, precoding and pretesting of questionnaire should be furnished and the document appended to the proposal. Descriptions of other methods of observations like medical examination, laboratory tests and screening procedures is necessary- for established procedures, reference of published work cited but for new or modified procedure, an adequate description is necessary with justification for the same.

Collection of data: A short description of the protocol of data collection. For example, in a study on blood pressure measurement: time of participant arrival, rest for 5p. 10 minutes, which apparatus (standard calibrated) to be used, in which room to take measurement, measurement in sitting or lying down position, how many measurements, measurement in which arm first (whether this is going to be randomized), details of cuff and its placement, who will take the measurement. This minimizes the possibility of confusion, delays and errors.

Data analysis: The description should include the design of the analysis form, plans for processing and coding the data and the choice of the statistical method to be applied to each data. What will be the procedures for accounting for missing, unused or spurious data?

Monitoring, supervision and quality control: Detailed statement about the all logistical issues to satisfy the requirements of Good Clinical Practices (GCP), protocol procedures, responsibilities of each member of the research team, training of study investigators, steps taken to assure quality control (laboratory procedures, equipment calibration etc)

Gantt chart: A Gantt chart is an overview of tasks/proposed activities and a time frame for the same. You put weeks, days or months at one side, and the tasks at the other. You draw fat lines to indicate the period the task will be performed to give a timeline for your research study (take help of tutorial on youtube). 11

Significance of the study: Indicate how your research will refine, revise or extend existing knowledge in the area under investigation. How will it benefit the concerned stakeholders? What could be the larger implications of your research study?

Dissemination of the study results: How do you propose to share the findings of your study with professional peers, practitioners, participants and the funding agency?

Budget: A proposal budget with item wise/activity wise breakdown and justification for the same. Indicate how will the study be financed.

References: The proposal should end with relevant references on the subject. For web based search include the date of access for the cited website, for example: add the sentence "accessed on June 10, 2008".

Appendixes: Include the appropriate appendixes in the proposal. For example: Interview protocols, sample of informed consent forms, cover letters sent to appropriate stakeholders, official letters for permission to conduct research. Regarding original scales or questionnaires, if the instrument is copyrighted then permission in writing to reproduce the instrument from the copyright holder or proof of purchase of the instrument must be submitted.

What are you doing and how are you doing it? Articulating your aims and objectives.

Mar 6, 2019

Have you checked out  the rest of  The PhD Knowledge Base ? It’s home to hundreds more free resources and guides, written especially for PhD students.

How long does it take the person reading your thesis to understand what you’re doing and how you’re doing it? If the answer is anything other than ’in the opening paragraphs of the thesis’ then keep reading.

If you tell them as early as possible what you’re doing and how you’re doing it – and do so in clear and simple terms – whatever you write after will make much more sense. If you leave them guessing for ten pages, everything they read in those ten pages has no coherence. You’ll know where it is all leading, but they won’t.

Unless you tell them.

If you tell the reader what you’re doing as early as possible in clear and simple terms, whatever you write after will make much more sense. 

What are aims & objectives?

If you build a house without foundations, it’s pretty obvious what will happen. It’ll collapse.  Your thesis is the same;  fail to build the foundations and your thesis just won’t work .

Your aims and objectives are those foundations. That’s why we’ve put them right at the top of our PhD Writing Template (if you haven’t already downloaded it, join the thousands who have by clicking   here ).

If you write your aims and objectives clearly then you’ll make your reader’s life easier.

A lot of students fail to clearly articulate their aims and objectives because they aren’t sure themselves what they actually are.

Picture this: if there’s one thing that every PhD student hates it’s being asked by a stranger what their research is on.

Your PhD thesis. All on one page.

Use our free PhD structure template to quickly visualise every element of your thesis. 

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

Research aims

Your research aims are the answer to the question,   ‘What are you doing?’ 

1. You need to clearly describe what your intentions are and what you hope to achieve. These are your aims.

2. Your aims may be to test theory in a new empirical setting, derive new theory entirely, construct a new data-set, replicate an existing study, question existing orthodoxy, and so on. Whatever they are, clearly articulate them and do so early. Definitely include them in your introduction and, if you’re smart, you’ll  write them in your abstract .

3. Be very  explicit . In the opening paragraphs, say, in simple terms, ‘ the aim of this thesis is to …’

4. Think of your aims then as a statement of intent. They are  a promise to the reader  that you are going to do something. You use the next two hundred pages or so to follow through on that promise. If you don’t make the promise, the reader won’t understand your follow-through. Simple as that.

Because they serve as the starting point of the study, there needs to be a flow from your aims through your objectives (more on this below) to your research questions and contribution and then into the study itself. If you have completed your research and found that you answered a different question (not that uncommon), make sure your original aims are still valid. If they aren’t, refine them.

If you struggle to explain in simple terms what your research is about and why it matters, you may need to refine your aims and objectives to make them more concise.

When writing up your aims, there are a number of things to bear in mind.

1. Avoid listing too many. Your PhD isn’t as long as you think it is and you won’t have time or room for more than around two or three.

2. When you write them up, be very specific. Don’t leave things so vague that the reader is left unsure or unclear on what you aim to achieve.

3. Make sure there is a logical flow between each of your aims. They should make sense together and should each be separate components which, when added together, are bigger than the sum of their parts.

Research objectives

Your aims answer the question, ‘What are you doing?’ The   objectives are the answer to the question, ‘How are you doing it?’ 

Research objectives refer to the goals or steps that you will take to achieve your aims.

When you write them,   make sure they are SMART. 

• S pecific: talk in a precise and clear way about what you are going to do.
• M easurable: how will you know when you have achieved your aim?
• A chievable: make sure that you aren’t overly ambitious.
• R ealistic: recognise the time and resource constraints that come with doing a PhD and don’t attempt to do too much.
• T ime constrained: determine when each objective needs to be completed.

You need to be as explicit as possible here.  Leave the reader in no doubt about what you will do to achieve your aims.  Step by step. Leave no ambiguity. At the same time, be careful not to repeat your methods chapter here. Just hint at your methods by presenting the headlines. You’ll have plenty of space in your methods discussion to flesh out the detail. 

Elsewhere in the thesis you will necessarily have to talk in a complex language and juggle complex ideas. Here you don’t. You can write in clear, plain sentences.

What is the difference between research aims and objectives?

The aims of a study describe what you hope to achieve. The objectives detail how you are going to achieve your aims.

Let’s use an example to illustrate.

• To understand the contribution that local governments make to national level energy policy.

Objectives:

• Conduct a survey of local politicians to solicit responses.
• Conduct desk-research of local government websites to create a database of local energy policy.
• Interview national level politicians to understand the impact these local policies have had.
• Data will be coded using a code book derived from dominant theories of governance.

If you’re still struggling, Professor Pat Thompson’s great blog has   a guide   that will help.

Leave the reader in no doubt about what you will do to achieve your aims.  Step by step. Leave no ambiguity.

I can’t articulate them clearly, my research is complicated!

Of course your research is complex. That’s the name of the game. But   the sign of someone being able to   master   complexity is their ability to   summarise   it . Sure, you’re not looking to capture all the richness and detail in a short summary of aims and objectives, but you are looking to tell the reader what you’re doing and how you’re doing it.

If you’re struggling to clearly articulate your aims and objectives, then try the following task. At the top of a Post-it note write the sentence: ‘In this research I will…’. Then keep trying until you can fit an answer onto one single Post-it note. The answer should answer two questions: what are are you doing and how are you doing it?

Remember – whenever you write, make it as clear as possible. Pay attention to the words ‘as possible’ there. That means you should write as clearly as you can given the fact that your subject and research is necessarily complex. Think of it the other way: it’s about not making things more complicated and unclear than they need to be.

In other words, make your reader’s job as easy as you can. They’ll thank you for it.

If you’re still having trouble, get in touch to arrange a one-on-one coaching session and we can work through your aims and objectives together.

Share this:

32 comments.

The write up is quite inspiring.

My topic is setting up a healing gardens in hospitals Need a aim and objectives for a dissertation

Dis is really good and more understandable thanks

Crisp, concise, and easy to understnad. Thank you for posint this. I now know how to write up my report.

Great. Glad you found it useful.

Good piece of work! Very useful

Great. Glad you found it useful!

The write up makes sense

Great. Thanks!

I love this article. Amazing, outstanding and incredible facts.

Glad you found it useful!

Well written and easy to follow

Thank you for the comment, I’m really glad you found it valuable.

I’m currently developing a dissertation proposal for my PhD in organizational leadership. I need guidance in writing my proposal

Hey – have you checked out this guide? https://www.thephdproofreaders.com/writing/how-to-write-a-phd-proposal/

Indeed I’m impressed and gained a lot from this and I hope I can write an acceptable thesis with this your guide. Bello, H.K

Great. Thanks for the kind words. Good luck with the thesis.

Thumbs up! God job, well done. The information is quite concise and straight to the point.

Glad you thought so – good luck with the writing.

Dear Max, thank you so much for your work and efforts!

Your explanation about Aims and Objectives really helped me out. However, I got stuck with other parts of the Aims and Objectives Work Sheet: Scope, Main Argument, and Contribution.

Could you please explain these as well, preferably including some examples?

Thanks for your kind words. Your question is a big one! Without knowing lots about your topics/subject I’m not able to provide tailored advice, but broadly speaking your scope is the aims/objectives, your main argument is the thread running through the thesis (i.e. what your thesis is trying to argue) and the contribution (again, broadly speaking) is that gap you are filling.

I love your website and you’ve been so SO helpful..

DUMB QUESTION ALERT: Is there supposed to be a difference between aims and research question?

I mean, using your own example.. if the aim of my research is: “To understand the contribution that local governments make to national level energy policy” then wouldn’t the research question be: “How do local governments contribute to energy policy at national level”?

I am sorry if this comes out as completely obvious but I am at that stage of confusion where I am starting to question everything I know.

Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply! It’s not a dumb question at all. The aim of the study is what the study as a whole is seeking to achieve. So that might be the gap it is filling/the contribution it is making. The research questions are your means to achieving that aim. Your aim might be to fill a gap in knowledge, and you then may have a small number of questions that help you along that path. Does that make sense?

Thank you Max for this post! So helpful!

Thanks Anna!

Thanks so much this piece. I have written both bachelor’s and master’s thesis but haven’t read this made me feel like I didn’t know anything about research at all. I gained more insight into aims and objectives of academic researches.

Interesting explanation. Thank you.

I’m glad you found it useful.

Hi… I really like the way it is put “What are you going?” (Aims) and “How are you doing it?” (Objectives). Simple and straightforward. Thanks for making aims and objectives easy to understand.

Thank you for the write up it is insightful. if you are ask to discuss your doctoral aims. that means: what you are doing how you are doing it.

I was totally lost and still in the woods to the point of thinking I am dull, but looking at how you are coaching it tells me that i am just a student who needs to understand the lesson. I now believe that with your guidance i will pass my PhD. I am writing on an otherwise obvious subject, Value addition to raw materials, why Africa has failed to add value to raw materials? Difficult question as answers seem to abound, but that is where i differ and i seem to be against the general tide. However with your guidance I believe i will make it. Thanks.

Thanks for your lovely, kind words. So kind.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

• How to Write a Great PhD Research Proposal | FindAPhD.com

How to Write a Great PhD Research Proposal

Written by Mark Bennett

You'll need to write a research proposal if you're submitting your own project plan as part of a PhD application. A good PhD proposal outlines the scope and significance of your topic and explains how you plan to research it.

It's helpful to think about the proposal like this: if the rest of your application explains your ability to do a PhD, the proposal demonstrates the actual PhD you plan to do. Of course, being able to effectively plan and explain a research project is one of the key qualifications for being able to complete one, which is why the proposal is such an important part of the PhD application process.

Thankfully, the secret to writing a good research proposal isn't complicated. It's simply a case of understanding what the proposal is for, what it needs to do and how it needs to be put together.

On this page

What is a phd research proposal.

First things first, do you need a research proposal for your PhD? It depends on the kind of project you want to do:

• If your PhD is advertised by a university, you probably won't need to submit a research proposal for it. The broad aims and objectives for your PhD will already be defined: you just need to prove you're the right person to do it.
• But, if you're proposing your own research topic to research within a university's PhD programme, you will need to write a proposal for it (the clue is in the word "proposing")

As a rule, advertised PhDs are very common in STEM subjects, whereas Arts, Humanities and Social Science students are more likely to propose their own PhDs.

Some PhD programmes actually wait and ask students to develop their research proposal during the degree (usually after they've completed some initial training). This is normal in the USA , but it's becoming more common for some UKRI-funded UK PhDs.

For the purposes of this guide we're going to assume that you do need to write a good research proposal for your PhD application. So let's explore what's involved in that.

Pick the right programme for you

There are lots of choices, let us help you to make the right one. Sign up to our weekly newsletter for the latest advice and guidance from our team of experts.

What should a research proposal for PhD admission include?

It's natural to be a little intimidated at the thought of structuring a PhD proposal, particularly if you've never written anything like this before.

But here's the thing: a research proposal isn't a fiendish test designed to catch you out and stop you ever doing a PhD. It's actually much more boring than that.

All a research proposal really is is a document that demonstrates three things:

• Your PhD is worthwhile
• Your PhD is feasible
• You are capable of completing it at this university

Or to put it even more simply: the PhD is worth doing, it's doable and you can do it.

Demonstrate your PhD is worthwhile (the what and the why)

A successful PhD project has to make a significant original contribution to knowledge. If it doesn't, it won't meet the criteria for a doctoral degree and will probably fail the viva exam .

Your PhD proposal itself doesn't have to meet those criteria (or pass a viva!) but it does need to indicate that your PhD project eventually will.

It does that by first demonstrating that your research topic is original. That means nobody else has studied this same topic (or one very similar) before.

There are all sorts of ways a PhD can be original. You might examine new data or primary sources, to look at existing material from a fresh perspective, or deal with the impact of new events. It doesn't matter how your project is original, so long as your proposal is really specific about what makes it original.

You also need to explain why your proposed research will be academically significant. To do this properly, you'll need to acknowledge relevant existing scholarship and explain how your research will relate to it. You don't need to be exhaustive at this point, but you should be able to show how your PhD will contribute to its field and – ideally – indicate some of the gaps in knowledge it will aim to fill.

The final step in demonstrating your PhD is worthwhile is to suggest what will become possible as a result of your research. How could other researchers use or build upon your results? What might closing those gaps in academic knowledge mean for audiences outside the unviversity?

Demonstrate your PhD is feasible (the how)

It isn't enough just to show that your research is worth doing; it also needs to actually be doable.

The length of a full-time PhD is around three to four years in most countries (it's longer in for a PhD in the USA , but you don't spend all that time doing research).

Three years may seem like a long time, but researching a PhD is a lot of work and you'll probably spend at least some of your time on other activities like teaching, conference presentations or even publication.

So, one of the things your proposal needs to do is demonstrate that your project is feasible: that it fits within the scope of a PhD.

The most important criteria for this is to be clear about what you plan to do. It should be obvious from your proposal what the scope of your project is – what is and isn't included within it.

You also need to outline how you plan to go about your research. Where will you start and what order do you expect to proceed in? Is the logic for that obvious? If not, it's probably a good idea to explain it.

Finally, you need to explain the methodology you plan to use. This could include techniques for collecting data and sources, theoretical perspectives for analysing them – or both. You may also need to detail specific equipment you expect to use or fieldwork you'll need to undertake (including trips to archives or other external resources).

None of this needs to be exact or completely final. The key word here is 'plan' – but you do need to have one.

Demonstrate that you can complete it at this university (the who and the where)

So far we've thought about the project itself: what makes it worth doing and how it's going to get done. But your proposal also needs to address the who and the where: why are you the right person to carry out this research, and why do you want to do it at this particular university?

The first part of this is easier than it probably looks. Writing a good research proposal demonstrates enthusiasm for your project much more convincingly than simply saying you're very interested in it (a classic case of 'show, don't tell').

You also don't need to repeat your grades and academic achievements (other parts of your PhD application will cover those). Instead, try to underline experiences that relate to this project. Has a particular module or Masters dissertation topic prepared you with useful subject knowledge or methodological skills? If so, highlight it.

It's also fine, within reason, to be honest about the skills you don't have and to identify your training needs. This shows you're being practical about your project and thinking seriously about what it will require. Just make sure you can realistically acquire the skills and training you need within the time available (this goes back to the feasibility).

Showing your project is a good fit for the university is also relatively simple. There should already be some reasons why you've chosen this university for your PhD so make sure you explain what they are. Perhaps there's a particular supervisor you'd like to work with , or facilities and resources your research could use. The key is to emphasise the fit between the project and the university – so don't just say you want to research there because it's highly ranked .

PhD research proposal structure

Hopefully the above sections have given you a few ideas for the things your proposal needs to include. Let's be honest though, the scariest thing about a proposal isn't deciding what to include: it's actually writing it.

But, if we flip that on its head, we remember that all a research proposal really is is a piece of writing that follows a pretty standard format. And that's a lot less scary.

Research proposal structure

Because proposals for PhD all have to do the same things, they mostly follow a similar structure. Yours will probably go something like this:

• Title – Keep it simple and descriptive: the clever alliteration and quotes can come later when you write up your thesis. For now, you just want the person reading this to know exactly what your research is about and, perhaps, which prospective supervisor to send it to.
• Overview – Start by defining your research question (the what) and explaining how it contributes to current work in your field (the why). This is also a good place to reference one or two pieces of scholarship: the full literature review can wait until your PhD begins, but you should show that you have some understanding of relevant academic research.
• Methodology – Make sure the reader understands the practical and / or theoretical approaches you'll take to your research. What data will you collect, how will you collect it and how will you analyse it? Ideally refer to relevant research methods and models. It's also a good idea to provide some sort of roadmap for how you'll go about things. Don't worry, you can change it later (and you will).
• Outcomes and impact – What will exist as a result of your research (other than just another PhD on a library shelf) and what will it make possible? You don't need to identify every specific outcome from your project (blue sky research is fine) but you should think about what some potential outcomes might be.

You probably won't need to include a specific conclusion - it should be obvious, by now, what your project is doing, how you're going to do it and why that matters. A quick summary sentence is fine though, if you think it will help.

Writing tips

Being able to effectively communicate academic concepts, ideas and results is a key skill for PhD research in all subjects . Think of your proposal as a chance to demonstrate this.

The good news is that the key principles of good proposal writing aren't that different from other work you've probably done as a Bachelors or Masters student:

• Be clear – The person reading your research proposal should know exactly what it is you're proposing to research, with no room for ambiguity and confusion. This is important on a practical level (they need to know where to send it) but it's also important to the success of your application: a confusing proposal suggests a confused project. Try having a friend read it and ask them "do you know what it is I'm proposing to do here?" (even if they don't understand the details).
• Be concise – You will have more ideas than you can include in your proposal. That's fine. Choose the best ones and leave the others for your interview .
• be coherent – Follow something like the structure above. Don't start with your methodology, then say what it is you want to research.

How long should a PhD research proposal be?

Honestly? As long as the university asks for it to be. Most will have guidelines and you should follow them closely if so.

If you honestly can't find a suggested word count for your proposal, then consider asking a prospective supervisor . If you still aren't sure, aim for somewhere between 1,000-2,000 words .

As a very general rule, Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences are a bit longer than STEM proposals (and a lot of STEM students don't have to write one anyway, as we've explained).

Research proposal for PhD admission - dos and don'ts

Research proposals are a popular topic over on the FindAPhD blog , where we've shared stories of how students wrote theirs , along with mistakes to avoid and a counter-intuitive look at the things a PhD proposal doesn't actually need to do .

Here are a few general tips and mistakes to avoid:

#1 Give yourself enough time to do a good job

Preparing to write a PhD proposal takes time and effort. None of this is wasted as the process of evaluating and framing your ideas for a proposal will improve your project plan immensely. So will the need to decide which ideas to include.

But you need time and space to do that, so make sure you get it. How long it will take to write your PhD proposal is heavily dependent on your personal working style, but you'll likely need to give yourself at least a few weeks to do a good job.

#2 Set out to impress

A good proposal isn't a begging letter. You're approaching the university with a great idea that's going to contribute to and enhance their research. Be honest, be realistic, but don't be unnecessarily humble. They should want you and your project.

#3 Demonstrate original thinking!

You may not need to present original research findings yet, but your proposal does need to present original ideas – and it should be clear why and how those ideas are original.

Make sure you indicate how your project is going to expand, enhance or even correct existing work in your field. Remember that making an "original contribution to knowledge" is a key part of what a PhD is .

#1 Send the same proposal to several universities

A good proposal needs to explain why you want to do your research at a particular university. That's a big part of the feasibility (the fit between project, person and place) and methodology (how are you going to use this university's equipment and archives; when and where will you need to travel).

It's OK to apply to more than one university in parallel, but, in that case, you're writing research proposals .

#2 Use online proposal templates (without evaluating them first!)

It can be tempting to search for PhD proposal samples on the internet, but make sure you evaluate what you find. Some websites may host old proposals from previous PhD students, but there's no way of knowing how relevant these are to your subject and university – or if they were even successful! More 'generic' research proposal examples can offer guidance, but they won't be tailored to your specific project.

The best place to look for a PhD proposal sample is your university. Consider asking your supervisor if they can share a good proposal from a previous student in your subject – or put you in touch with a current student you can ask.

#3 Confuse the proposal with the PhD

We've covered this on the blog , but it's simple enough to include here too.

You're setting out to do a PhD, but you (probably!) haven't done one yet. So you don't need to include research findings, in-depth analysis or a comprehesive literature review. You need to make a case for the research and analysis you want to do.

#4 Ignore your university's help and guidance

The advice on this page is necessarily quite general. We're considering adding guides to writing PhD proposals in specific subjects in future but, for now, the best place to get specific advice for your academic field is probably the university you're applying to.

See if you can get some subject-specific tips by contacting a supervisor , or just checking with the admissions team for your department.

And remember: if they give you a structure and a word count, stick to it.

Ready to apply for a PhD?

Find out what PhD opportunities are currently available with our FindAPhD course listings .

Our postgrad newsletter shares courses, funding news, stories and advice

You may also like....

We've answered some of the most frequently asked questions about PhDs, covering course types, applications, funding and the benefits of further study.

Getting ready to apply for a PhD? Our guides explain research proposals, references and entry tests for doctoral programmes.

Our guide explains how to contact a potential PhD supervisor to discuss your proposal or ideas with them before applying.

A checklist of the things you'll need to do when making an international PhD application, from meeting the entry requirements to sorting out your visa.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

• Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
• Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
• Hear about our upcoming study fairs
• Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

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

How to Write Objectives in a Research Proposal

Last Updated: April 30, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Felipe Corredor . Felipe is a Senior College Admissions Consultant at American College Counselors with over seven years of experience. He specializes in helping clients from all around the world gain admission into America's top universities through private, one-on-one consulting. He helps guide clients through the entire college admissions process and perfect every aspect of their college applications. Felipe earned a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Chicago and recently received his MBA. There are 9 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 127,771 times.

A research proposal is a detailed outline for a significant research project. They’re common for class assignments, capstone papers, grant applications, and even job applications in some fields, so it's possible you'll have to prepare one at some point. The objectives are a very important part of a research proposal because they outline where the project is headed and what it will accomplish. Developing objectives can be a little tricky, so take some time to consider them. Then work on wording them carefully so your readers understand your goals. With clear objectives, your research proposal will be much stronger.

Brainstorming Your Objectives

• For example, your research question might be “What is the effect of prolonged TV-watching on children?” You can then use that question to build your study around.
• Narrow down your research topic if it’s too broad. A broad research topic makes breaking the objectives down much more difficult. A research question like “How can we save the environment?” is a huge question. Something like “What safety measures would prevent ocean pollution?” is more specific and attainable. [2] X Research source

• Remember that in most cases, you shouldn’t state that your study will prove or disprove something exactly since you haven’t done the work yet. Don’t say “This study proves that honey is not an effective treatment for acne.” Instead, make it something like “This study will demonstrate whether or not honey is an effective treatment for acne.”

• If your research question was “What is the effect of prolonged TV-watching on children?” then there are a few categories you could look at. Objectives wrapped up within that question might be: 1) the incidence of eyestrain among children who watch a lot of TV, 2) their muscular development, 3) their level of socialization with other children. Design your objectives around answering these questions.

• You could always state in your research proposal that you plan to design future experiments or studies to answer additional questions. Most experiments leave unanswered questions and subsequent studies try to tackle them.

• A general objective might be "Establish the effect of diet on mental health." Some specific goals in that project could be 1) Determine if processed foods make depression worse, 2) Identify foods that improve mood, 3) Measure if portion sizes have an impact on mood.
• Not all research proposals want you to divide between general and specific goals. Remember to follow the instructions for the proposal you're writing.

• The best goals align with each letter in the SMART acronym. The weaker ones are missing some letters. For example, you might come up with a topic that’s specific, measurable, and time-bound, but not realistic or attainable. This is a weak objective because you probably can’t achieve it.
• Think about the resources at your disposal. Some objectives might be doable with the right equipment, but if you don’t have that equipment, then you can’t achieve that goal. For example, you might want to map DNA structures, but you can’t view DNA without an electron microscope.
• Ask the same question for your entire project. Is it attainable overall? You don’t want to try to achieve too much and overwhelm yourself.
• The specific words in this acronym sometimes change, but the sentiment is the same. Your objectives should overall be clear and specific, measurable, feasible, and limited by time.

Using the Right Language

• Verbs like use, understand, or study is vague and weak. Instead, choose words like calculate, compare, and assess.
• Your objective list might read like this: 1) Compare the muscle development of children who play video games to children who don’t, 2) Assess whether or not video games cause eyestrain, 3) Determine if videogames inhibit a child’s socialization skills.
• Some proposals use the infinitive form of verbs, like “to measure” or “to determine.” This is also fine but refer to the proposal instructions to see if this is correct.

• You can further explain your objectives further in the research proposal. No need to elaborate a lot when you’re just listing them.
• If you’re having trouble shortening an objective to 1 sentence, then you probably need to split it into 2 objectives. It might also be too complicated for this project.

• For example, “Determine if sunlight is harmful” is too vague. Instead, state the objective as “Determine if prolonged sun exposure increases subjects’ risk of skin cancer.”
• It’s helpful to let someone else read your proposal and see if they understand the objectives. If they’re confused, then you need to be more specific.

• For example, don’t say “Measure the effect of radiation on living tissue.” Instead, say “Determine what level of radiation is dangerous to living tissue.”
• Remember, don’t state the objectives as you’ve already done the experiments. They’re still not answered.

Writing the Objectives

• This is a common format for research proposals, but not universal. Always follow the format that the instructions provided.
• Depending on how long your introduction has to be, you might also list the objectives there. This depends on whether or not you have room.

• At the very least, the abstract should list the general objective. This tells the readers what your study is working towards.

• In some research projects, the general objective is called a long-term goal instead. Adjust your language to the proposal requirements.
• Some proposals directions may just want the specific objectives rather than a division between the general and specific ones. Don’t divide them if the instructions tell you not to.

• Your introduction may be as follows: "My long-term objective with this project is determining whether or not prolonged video-game playing is harmful to children under 5. I will accomplish this aim by meeting the following objectives: 1) Compare the muscle development of children who play videogames to children who don’t 2) Assess whether or not videogames cause eyestrain 3) Determine if videogames inhibit a child’s socialization skills"
• The specific objectives are usually listed as a bullet or numbered points. However, follow the instructions given.

Research Proposal Templates

Expert Q&A

• It’s always a good idea to let someone else read your research proposals and make sure they’re clear. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Proofread! A great proposal could be ruined by typos and errors. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• Some proposal instructions are very specific, and applicants that don’t follow the format are eliminated. Always follow the instructions given to stay within the requirements. Thanks Helpful 3 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/15490_book_item_15490.pdf
• ↑ https://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/research-aims-and-objectives/
• ↑ https://www.uh.edu/~lsong5/documents/A%20sample%20proposal%20with%20comment.pdf
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282423/
• ↑ https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief3b.pdf
• ↑ https://www.open.edu/openlearncreate/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=231&section=8.6.2
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398294/
• ↑ https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0601009.pdf
• ↑ https://www.bpcc.edu/institutional-advancement-grants/how-to-write-goals-and-objectives-for-grant-proposals

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Aug 9, 2022

Did this article help you?

Mar 20, 2023

Relyn Jungco

May 15, 2022

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

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

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 14: The Research Proposal

14.1 What are the Goals of a Research Proposal?

The research proposal has a set of specific goals:

• To present and justify the need to study a research problem.
• To present a practical way in which the proposed research study should be undertaken.
• To demonstrate that the design elements and procedures being set forth to study the research problem meet with the governed standards within the predominant discipline in which the problem resides.

Regardless of the research problem being investigated and the methods chosen to study that problem, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to research.
• Why do you want to do it? In addition to detailing your research design, you must also conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that the topic is worthy of study. Be sure you answer the “so what?” question.
• How are you going to do it? Make sure that what you propose to do is doable. In other words, make sure you have the time, the resources and, most importantly, the stamina to undertake what you are proposing to do.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Writing a Research Proposal

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The goal of a research proposal is to present and justify a research idea you have and to present the practical ways in which you think this research should be conducted. The forms and procedures for such research are defined by the field of study, so guidelines for research proposals are generally more exacting and less formal than a project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews and must provide persuasive evidence that there is a need for the research study being proposed. In addition to providing rationale for the proposed research, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and/or benefits derived from the study.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study.
• Help learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to ensure a research problem has not already been answered [or you may determine the problem has been answered ineffectively] and, in so doing, become familiar with scholarship related to your topic.
• Improve your general research and writing skills.
• Practice identifying what logical steps must be taken to accomplish one's research goals.
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of doing scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a complete research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the results of the study and your analysis of those results. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing. It is, therefore, important that your writing is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succient in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to research.
• Why do you want to do it? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of study. Be sure to answer the "So what? question.
• How are you going to do it? Be sure that what you propose is doable.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise; being "all over the map" without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review.
• Failure to delimit the contextual boundaries of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.].
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research.
• Failure to stay focused on the research question; going off on unrelated tangents.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing. Poor grammar.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal .  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal . Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal . International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing a traditional research paper, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout the social sciences. Most proposals are between ten and fifteen pages in length. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study, and why?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on my topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In the end, your research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and highlight enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like--"Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

In general your proposal should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write your doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to sense your passion for the topic and be excited about its possible outcomes.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in one to three paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Why is this important research, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes from the study?

II.  Background and Significance

This section can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and flow of your proposal. This is where you explain the context of your project and outline why it's important. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the research problem; instead, you must choose what is relevant to help explain your goals for the study.

To that end, while there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to deal with some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction.
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing. Answer the "So what? question [i.e., why should anyone care].
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to the analysis of your topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus.
• Provide definitions of key concepts or terms, if necessary.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they've used, and what is your understanding of their findings. Assess what you believe is still missing, and state how previous research has failed to examine the issue that your study addresses.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study in relation to that of other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically describing materials one at a time.

To help frame your proposal's literature review, here are the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite : keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches and controversies expressed in the literature: what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, etc.] .
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, or synthesize what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research . As a consequence, the reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. The objective here is to ensure that the reader is convinced that your overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem. Your design and methods should be absolutely and unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to collect information, about the techniques you will use to analyze it, and about tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places or times].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover these issues:

• Specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results of these operations in relation to your research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while doing it.
• Keep in mind that a methodology is not just a list of research tasks; it is an argument as to why these tasks add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to perform does not demonstrate that they add up to the best feasible approach.
• Be sure to anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to get around them.

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, it doesn't mean that you can skip talking about the process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results of your study will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to the theoretical framework that frames the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the "real world"?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented, and what innovations will come about?

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief recap of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why your research study is unique, why it advances knowledge, and why the research problem is worth investigating.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study was done,
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempted to answer,
• The research design and methods used,
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem, and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so speak with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- lists only the literature that you actually used or cited in your proposal.
• Bibliography -- lists everything you used or cited in your proposal with additional citations of any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to make sure the project will complement and not duplicate the efforts of other researchers. Start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [i.e., education=APA; history=Chicago, etc]. This section normally does not count towards the total length of your proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal . Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal . The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. Developing and Writing a Research Proposal. In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills. Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal . Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal . International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal . University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Policy Memo
• Next: Acknowledgements >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

Aims and Objectives of a Research Proposal

22 jun 2018.

Formulating aims and objectives for your research studies helps sculpt and guide your work after you've decided on a topic. While your aims give your research thematic and theoretic direction, objectives give concrete steps on how to manifest those concepts and theories. A strong topic begins with an area you're interested in researching, then focuses on a need, problem or unexplored issue in that area, usually from a particular perspective or approach.

Explore this article

• What They Should Do
• Things to Avoid

A research proposal's aims are statements that broadly point out what you hope to accomplish and your desired outcomes from the research. Aims focus on long-term intended outcomes or your aspirations in reference to the research. They're typically not numbered in a research proposal. Strong research proposals include only a few aims with multiple supporting objectives.

2 Objectives

Objectives lay out how you plan to accomplish your aims. While aims are broad in nature, objectives are focused and practical. They tend to pinpoint your research's more immediate effects. Additionally, the objectives include an outline of practical steps and tasks that you will take in the process of finding the outcomes and impact of your defined aims. Objectives are typically numbered, so each one stands alone. Each objective must have a concrete method defined. If you're having trouble developing concrete objectives and methods, writing out a research timeline before defining your objectives may help.

3 What They Should Do

Both aims and objectives should be brief and concise. They must be interrelated. Each aim should have one or more objectives describing how that aim should be met. Aims and objectives should both be realistic goals and methods with respect to what resources you have available and the scope of research. Don't choose something too broad, for instance, or that would take much more research time than you have. Aims and objectives also let your advisers know how you intend to approach a given subject and how you plan to get access to subjects, goods and services, samplings and other resources. They also provide plans for dealing with ethical or practical problems you may encounter.

4 Things to Avoid

When you're writing your aims and objectives, don't make them too broad or vague. Aims are more general by definition than more focused objectives. However, in that broad scope, the included aims shouldn't be over-optimistic or unrealistic about what you want to achieve. They shouldn't repeat each other or be simple lists of items related to your research. Stay away from focusing content on your research site or job. Stick to the specific aims and objectives of your actual research study. Check that your aims and objectives contain methods that can sustain what you hope to find. If they don't match, rethink the methods or aims and objectives of your research.

• 1 Projet Guru: How To Frame The Right Research Objectives?
• 2 Monash: Writing a Research Proposal

Related Articles

What Is a Preliminary Research Design?

How to Write a Policy Report

How to Put Together an Ethnographic Research Paper

Tools to Help You Organize Thoughts & Write a Research...

How to Set Goals in a Ministry

Tips on Writing a Good Thesis Statement at the Middle...

How to Write a Rationale for Your Dissertation

How to Start a Research Paper Introduction

What Is Policy Analysis?

What Is the Purpose of the American Sociological Association...

How to Write Assumptions for a Thesis

How to Write a Research Proposal for College

How to Write a Research Report for a Science Fair

How to Do a Policy Analysis Paper

Policy Analysis Methods

How to Write a Research Design

How to Set Goals Spiritually

How to Write a Ph.D. Proposal for English Literature

How to Form a Theoretical Study of a Dissertation

How to Write a Research Paper Proposal

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

• Search entire site
• Search for a course
• Browse study areas

Analytics and Data Science

• Data Science and Innovation
• Postgraduate Research Courses
• Business Research Programs
• Undergraduate Business Programs
• Entrepreneurship
• MBA Programs
• Postgraduate Business Programs

Communication

• Animation Production
• Business Consulting and Technology Implementation
• Digital and Social Media
• Media Arts and Production
• Media Business
• Media Practice and Industry
• Music and Sound Design
• Social and Political Sciences
• Strategic Communication
• Writing and Publishing
• Postgraduate Communication Research Degrees

Design, Architecture and Building

• Architecture
• Built Environment
• DAB Research
• Public Policy and Governance
• Secondary Education
• Education (Learning and Leadership)
• Learning Design
• Postgraduate Education Research Degrees
• Primary Education

Engineering

• Civil and Environmental
• Computer Systems and Software
• Engineering Management
• Mechanical and Mechatronic
• Systems and Operations
• Telecommunications
• Postgraduate Engineering courses
• Undergraduate Engineering courses
• Sport and Exercise
• Palliative Care
• Public Health
• Nursing (Undergraduate)
• Nursing (Postgraduate)
• Health (Postgraduate)
• Research and Honours
• Health Services Management
• Child and Family Health
• Women's and Children's Health

Health (GEM)

• Coursework Degrees
• Clinical Psychology
• Genetic Counselling
• Good Manufacturing Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Speech Pathology
• Research Degrees

Information Technology

• Business Analysis and Information Systems
• Computer Science, Data Analytics/Mining
• Games, Graphics and Multimedia
• IT Management and Leadership
• Networking and Security
• Software Development and Programming
• Systems Design and Analysis
• Web and Cloud Computing
• Postgraduate IT courses
• Postgraduate IT online courses
• Undergraduate Information Technology courses
• International Studies
• Criminology
• International Relations
• Postgraduate International Studies Research Degrees
• Sustainability and Environment
• Practical Legal Training
• Commercial and Business Law
• Juris Doctor
• Legal Studies
• Master of Laws
• Intellectual Property
• Migration Law and Practice
• Overseas Qualified Lawyers
• Postgraduate Law Programs
• Postgraduate Law Research
• Undergraduate Law Programs
• Life Sciences
• Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• Postgraduate Science Programs
• Science Research Programs
• Undergraduate Science Programs

Transdisciplinary Innovation

• Creative Intelligence and Innovation
• Diploma in Innovation
• Postgraduate Research Degree
• Transdisciplinary Learning

How to Write a Research Proposal

What is the aim of a research proposal.

When you apply for a PhD or a master’s research degree, you will be required to write a research proposal. You will propose a topic area for research, explain the main elements of this research, and communicate a feasible plan for completing the stages of the research. A research proposal will achieve two main aims:

• Identify a research area that will make a significant contribution to knowledge
• Demonstrate that the expected outcomes can be achieved in a timely manner

What are the elements of a research proposal?

When you write a research proposal, you are communicating the value of your research to your discipline, as well as articulating your plan for achieving the requirements of the degree.

The main elements of a research proposal are:

A valuable research topic

A clear methodology, a feasible timeline, subject knowledge and research, awareness of all expectations related to the degree.

click on each arrow to find out more.

This is the ‘what’ of your research proposal. A valuable research topic is one that will make a significant contribution to knowledge. Often this topic will stem from your own interest – the questions you have in a particular discipline that are, as yet, unanswered. However, sometimes your research around a topic will reveal an aspect of this discipline which requires further research, and you will come to your research question this way. Regardless of how you arrive at your research question, you need to make a case for your topic being one which is worthy of research – that is, you need to make a case that your research into this topic will make a significant contribution to knowledge.

This is the ‘how’ of your research proposal. You will need to articulate the methodology or techniques you will use to conduct your research. These techniques may be based on techniques that are frequently used during research processes in your discipline. You will need to articulate any theoretical frameworks you will use, and any resources or tools you will need to conduct your research or collect data.

This is the ‘when’ of your research proposal. You will only have a set amount of time in which to undertake research, and you need to prove that the outcomes of the project are achievable.

The research proposal is an opportunity to demonstrate you have significant knowledge in the research area. You are not meant to prove you already know the answer to your question – otherwise, what would be the point of your research? Instead, you need to show that you understand the research area and discipline.

Depending on the nature of what you are researching, there will be a range of expectations you will be required to meet, to achieve your degree. These may include, but are not limited to: fieldwork, travel, conference participation, completion of training or additional study units, and ethics considerations. Your research proposal will be strengthened if you can articulate your awareness of all aspects of the research process, and if you can identify any potential challenges you might face throughout the process.

How do I write a strong research proposal?

An effective research proposal will be clear and focused. The precise structural requirements of a proposal in your area will be specific to your discipline, and you need to be clear on these before setting out.

The following can be used as a guide to structuring and writing a compelling research proposal.

Project title

Supervisor details, proposed mode of research, research question, aims and objectives, anticipated research contribution, methodology, ethical considerations, bibliography.

This should indicate the breadth and scope of your project. The project title is often refined throughout the research process.

Include the full names, departments and faculties of both your primary and auxiliary supervisor.

Describe the mode of your research and the form your research will take. This may include, but is not limited to, data, written work, field research, creative work, social performance and mixed media.

Questions to ask yourself:

• What will my research look like?
• What form will my research take?
• How many parts will there be to my research?
• How is my proposed research different/similar to existing works?

For many research proposals, you will be required to formulate the objectives of the research into a clear research question. Make sure you have a thorough understanding of the components of a strong research question in your field. Your research supervisor should be able to help you with this. It is also a good idea to look at the research questions of students who have successfully completed a similar project.

These should be focused statements articulating the output of your research – what you want to achieve. The aims and objectives should be written in a logical way. You should also indicate the scope of your research and include its limitations.

• What am I trying to achieve with this research?
• What do I want the end result of the research to be?
• What will be excluded from my research?
• What are the gaps that my research is addressing?

This is a brief summary of what your research is about. While it is similar to your aims and objectives, it also incorporates how you will achieve your aims and gives an overall idea of what your project will involve.

This is the ‘why’ of your research proposal. Once you’re clear on what you want to research, you’ll need to give a clear idea of the area you’ll be researching. This will involve writing a literature review, which is an overview of the relevant literature in this area. The review doesn’t need to cover everything around your topic – but needs to give a clear and accurate picture of the field you are researching so that you can show how your research fits in.

• What is the context around this research topic?
• What has led to the development of this research?
• What is the current discourse around this topic?
• What questions are scholars asking?
• What are the major problems in this area of study?
• What are the most recent developments in this area of study?

This should give your reader a strong sense of the conclusions you expect to reach, as well as an idea of how they will add to the body of knowledge in your field. While these will likely change over time, it is important that you have a firm idea at the beginning of the project about the ways in which (you hope) your research will contribute to current thinking. This also indicates to your reader that you are thinking about the implications of your research beyond the scope of your project.

• What is the significance of my project in the field?
• What impact will my findings have in the problem area?
• How will my research contribute to current debates?
• What impact might my research have on how research is conducted in future?

This is the part of your project where you explain how you will achieve the results. It is important when describing the methodology that you make a case to show that carrying out your research in this way is the best approach. It is a good idea to consider the theories and methods which were used for similar research projects, so you have an idea about how scholars have approached similar problems. You need to be specific about how you are going to approach the research and show how these steps will move you towards achieving the research outcomes.

• What tasks am I going to carry out?
• Will your methodology be qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method?
• How am I going to collect my data?
• What theories have other researchers used?
• What methods have other researchers used?
• Why is the method I am proposing the best approach?
• Are there any limitations of this methodology I need to be aware of?
• Are there any ethical considerations I need to be aware of?

This is a specific plan which communicates your strategy to complete the research over a specified period. It is important to be as clear as possible, and to allocate clear outcomes or performance indicators at each stage. It is a good idea to include key meetings and performance reviews in this plan, so check with your faculty about what is expected. Completing this will also give you a clear idea of the overall process and can help you manage your time effectively.

This is a complete list of the tools you will need to carry out your research. This will differ depending on the type of research proposes, but may include laboratory equipment, computer software, or any other equipment required to conduct the research effectively.

It is important to be aware of all ethical considerations related to your research. If you are unsure whether aspects of your project require ethics approval, check with your supervisor or faculty. The ethics approval process is often lengthy and time-consuming, and you will need to be aware of all the stages involved in this.

This is a complete list of sources you have referred to in your proposal, referenced according to the style of referencing you are required to use.

Back to top

UTS acknowledges the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, the Boorooberongal people of the Dharug Nation, the Bidiagal people and the Gamaygal people, upon whose ancestral lands our university stands. We would also like to pay respect to the Elders both past and present, acknowledging them as the traditional custodians of knowledge for these lands.

• {{item.title}} {{item.title}} 0" aria-label="Find options under this page" @click="mobchildshow(true, item.title)" class="more-menu">
• {{subitem.title}}

Writing a research proposal

How to write a research proposal.

For many subjects, writing a research proposal is a key part of your postgraduate research degree application. This is your opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge and how you want to contribute to the subject.  

We use the proposal to match your interest with an appropriate supervisor to make sure you have the best support during your degree. We are looking for originality and relevance when assessing the overall quality of your application, including your suitability for this level of study.  

We highly recommend that you explore which academic researchers are working in your subject area and contact them first with any questions, this is a good opportunity to firm up your ideas, further explore the topic and talk with others in your field.  

What is a research proposal?  

A research proposal is a concise and coherent document, usually between 1500 – 2000 words, maximum 4 x A4 pages. You should outline your proposed research project, why it is of relevance (rationale), what research questions are you going to ask, what you hope to achieve (aims and objectives) and how you plan to carry out your research (methodology).   

Step-by-step 

This page is your comprehensive guide to writing a research proposal and will cover seven key elements of a proposal:  

Working title

You should include a title for your thesis in the proposal.

Your title may change as you further your research, but at this stage it's important to state succinctly what your research will cover.

Introduction

Briefly identify your idea, what is your ‘research question’?

It could be the theory you want to test, or a more open question. It would be useful to give examples, 3-5 research questions from recently completed PhDs in a relevant field. You should discuss the context around your research topic, such as current debates and issues. The important thing here is that you introduce your research project with clarity and in a way that stimulates your reader’s interest.

Demonstrate the significance of your research project.

To do this, explain why your research is important, what makes it original and how it will contribute to existing knowledge within its field.

Aims and objectives

What are you hoping to achieve with your research?

Try and produce four or five bullet points of objectives for each aim, which demonstrate your understanding of how to meet your research aims. You can use the SMART acronym to support you in creating objectives, which involves making your objectives: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time specific.

Literature Review

Demonstrate your knowledge and awareness of relevant literature

A literature review is a discussion and evaluation of academic literature or a relevant body of knowledge (for practice-based research). You should use this section of your proposal to show that you are familiar with work in your chosen topic area and that your research will contribute something new and/or meaningful to it.

Methodology

Explain how you plan to carry out your research

The methodology section of your research proposal is where you explain how you plan to carry out your research. This should include the research techniques and methods you will use, why these are most appropriate and how you will implement them. You should also include a discussion of the research strategy (general approach) you will adopt, with appropriate justification, including the analytical approach. The section should also contain the range of research findings that will be gathered from the research and how you will analyse or evaluate this. For practice based research, include how will your portfolio of artefacts, code, software, compositions, computer games etc. articulate the originality of your research?

Reference all the materials you used in the preparation your proposal

You may also list references that you didn't directly draw upon, to demonstrate awareness of literature relating to your proposed material.

Support from academic staff in drafting your research proposal

Your research proposal will be read by academics with an interest in your field of research. You are therefore encouraged to contact members of academic staff informally prior to submitting your application to discuss to your research proposal. This can often speed up the applications process, as you can identify the member(s) of staff you have spoken to on your research degree application form.

Use the Huddersfield Research Portal to browse academic staff profiles and search using key words to find staff members who share your research interests.

Changing aspects of your research proposal after gaining a place as a research student

Your research proposal is your starting point, and we understand that as your idea develop s , your proposed research is likely to change. As such, you will not be obliged to adhere to the specifics of your proposal if you are offered a place as a research degree candidate at Huddersfield. However, as the proposal is the foundation of your working relationship with your supervisor(s), you will need to discuss any changes with them first. 

Useful tips for writing a research proposal

• Maintain a focus in your proposal: Your research proposal should be clear and concise, outlining your research idea and its benefits to your chosen field of study, in a way that the reader can clearly understand. Remember, your proposal is just the starting point and an outline and does not need to be overly complicated.
• Share your proposal: Ask someone you trust (a friend, family member, tutor) to read your proposal and provide some feedback. Do they understand what your research is about? Do they think your aims and objectives are achievable? Does your research engage them?
• Align your proposal topic with University research themes: Whilst it is important to choose a research topic that you are passionate about, your proposal will be assessed (in part) on its fit with our University research themes. You therefore need to choose a topic which aligns with topics of interest to the University or academic school you hoping to work within and make it clear how your project matches up with them.
• Be realistic in your proposal: Your proposal is assessed not only on its quality, originality and fit with our research themes but also the likelihood of completion, so make sure that the scope of your research project is reasonable and realistic .
• Take your time when writing your proposal: There are a lot of elements to a high-quality research proposal, so take the time to ensure that you meet them all. At the University of Huddersfield, there are three opportunities for enrolling onto a research degree programme during the academic year (October, January, and April), meaning less time pressure when working on your proposal and application.

Once you have written your proposal, what next?

Once you have written your research proposal you will need to complete an application form. Look at our how to apply webpage for more information.

How to apply for a research degree

Our step-by-step guide will help you to make the most out of your application for a research degree

Scholarships and funding

Explore our funding options, including scholarships and Doctoral Loans.

Writing a Research Proposal

Parts of a research proposal, prosana model, introduction, research question, methodology.

• Structure of a Research Proposal
• Common Proposal Writing Mistakes
• Proposal Writing Resources

A research proposal's purpose is to capture the evaluator's attention, demonstrate the study's potential benefits, and prove that it is a logical and consistent approach (Van Ekelenburg, 2010).  To ensure that your research proposal contains these elements, there are several aspects to include in your proposal (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Objective(s)
• Variables (independent and dependent)
• Research Question and/or hypothesis

Details about what to include in each element are included in the boxes below.  Depending on the topic of your study, some parts may not apply to your proposal.  You can also watch the video below for a brief overview about writing a successful research proposal.

Van Ekelenburg (2010) uses the PROSANA Model to guide researchers in developing rationale and justification for their research projects.  It is an acronym that connects the problem, solution, and benefits of a particular research project.  It is an easy way to remember the critical parts of a research proposal and how they relate to one another.  It includes the following letters (Van Ekelenburg, 2010):

• Problem: Describing the main problem that the researcher is trying to solve.
• Root causes: Describing what is causing the problem.  Why is the topic an issue?
• fOcus: Narrowing down one of the underlying causes on which the researcher will focus for their research project.
• Solutions: Listing potential solutions or approaches to fix to the problem.  There could be more than one.
• Approach: Selecting the solution that the researcher will want to focus on.
• Novelty: Describing how the solution will address or solve the problem.
• Arguments: Explaining how the proposed solution will benefit the problem.

Research proposal titles should be concise and to the point, but informative.  The title of your proposal may be different from the title of your final research project, but that is completely normal!  Your findings may help you come up with a title that is more fitting for the final project.  Characteristics of good proposal titles are (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Catchy: It catches the reader's attention by peaking their interest.
• Positive: It spins your project in a positive way towards the reader.
• Transparent: It identifies the independent and dependent variables.

It is also common for proposal titles to be very similar to your research question, hypothesis, or thesis statement (Locke et al., 2007).

An abstract is a brief summary (about 300 words) of the study you are proposing.  It includes the following elements (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Your primary research question(s).
• Hypothesis or main argument.
• Method you will use to complete the study.  This may include the design, sample population, or measuring instruments that you plan to use.

Our guide on writing summaries may help you with this step.

• Writing a Summary by Luann Edwards Last Updated May 22, 2023 1119 views this year

The purpose of the introduction is to give readers background information about your topic.  it gives the readers a basic understanding of your topic so that they can further understand the significance of your proposal.  A good introduction will explain (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• How it relates to other research done on the topic
• Why your research is significant to the field
• The relevance of your study

Your research objectives are the desired outcomes that you will achieve from the research project.  Depending on your research design, these may be generic or very specific.  You may also have more than one objective (Al-Riyami, 2008).

• General objectives are what the research project will accomplish
• Specific objectives relate to the research questions that the researcher aims to answer through the study.

Be careful not to have too many objectives in your proposal, as having too many can make your project lose focus.  Plus, it may not be possible to achieve several objectives in one study.

This section describes the different types of variables that you plan to have in your study and how you will measure them.  According to Al-Riyami (2008), there are four types of research variables:

• Independent:  The person, object, or idea that is manipulated by the researcher.
• Dependent:  The person, object, or idea whose changes are dependent upon the independent variable.  Typically, it is the item that the researcher is measuring for the study.
• Confounding/Intervening:  Factors that may influence the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.  These include physical and mental barriers.  Not every study will have intervening variables, but they should be studied if applicable.
• Background:   Factors that are relevant to the study's data and how it can be generalized.  Examples include demographic information such as age, sex, and ethnicity.

Your research proposal should describe each of your variables and how they relate to one another.  Depending on your study, you may not have all four types of variables present.  However, there will always be an independent and dependent variable.

A research question is the main piece of your research project because it explains what your study will discover to the reader.  It is the question that fuels the study, so it is important for it to be precise and unique.  You do not want it to be too broad, and it should identify a relationship between two variables (an independent and a dependent) (Al-Riyami, 2008).  There are six types of research questions (Academic Writer, n.d.):

• Example: "Do people get nervous before speaking in front of an audience?"
• Example: "What are the study habits of college freshmen at Tiffin University?"
• Example: "What primary traits create a successful romantic relationship?"
• Example: "Is there a relationship between a child's performance in school and their parents' socioeconomic status?"
• Example: "Are high school seniors more motivated than high school freshmen?"
• Example: "Do news media outlets impact a person's political opinions?"

For more information on the different types of research questions, you can view the "Research Questions and Hypotheses" tutorial on Academic Writer, located below.  If you are unfamiliar with Academic Writer, we also have a tutorial on using the database located below.

Compose papers in pre-formatted APA templates. Manage references in forms that help craft APA citations. Learn the rules of APA style through tutorials and practice quizzes.

Academic Writer will continue to use the 6th edition guidelines until August 2020. A preview of the 7th edition is available in the footer of the resource's site. Previously known as APA Style Central.

• Academic Writer Tutorial by Pfeiffer Library Last Updated May 22, 2023 15600 views this year

If you know enough about your research topic that you believe a particular outcome may occur as a result of the study, you can include a hypothesis (thesis statement) in your proposal.  A hypothesis is a prediction that you believe will be the outcome of your study.  It explains what you think the relationship will be between the independent and dependent variable (Al-Riyami, 2008).  It is ok if the hypothesis in your proposal turns out to be incorrect, because it is only a prediction!  If you are writing a proposal in the humanities, you may be writing a thesis statement instead of a hypothesis.  A thesis presents the main argument of your research project and leads to corresponding evidence to support your argument.

Hypotheses vs. Theories

Hypotheses are different from theories in that theories represent general principles and sets of rules that explain different phenomena.  They typically represent large areas of study because they are applicable to anything in a particular field.  Hypotheses focus on specific areas within a field and are educated guesses, meaning that they have the potential to be proven wrong (Academic Writer, n.d.).  Because of this, hypotheses can also be formed from theories.

For more information on writing effective thesis statements, you can view our guide on writing thesis statements below.

• Writing Effective Thesis Statements by Luann Edwards Last Updated May 23, 2023 226 views this year

In a research proposal, you must thoroughly explain how you will conduct your study.  This includes things such as (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Research design:  What research approach will your study take?  Will it be quantitative or qualitative?
• Research subjects/participants:  Who will be participating in your study?  Does your study require human participants?  How will you determine who to study?
• Sample size:  How many participants will your study require?  If you are not using human participants, how much of the sample will you be studying?
• Timeline:  A proposed list of the general tasks and events that you plan to complete the study.  This will include a time frame for each task/event and the order in which they will be completed.
• Interventions:  If you plan on using anything on human participants for the study, you must include information it here.  This is especially important if you plan on using any substances on human subjects.
• Ethical issues:  Are there any potential ethical issues surrounding this study?
• Potential limitations:  Are there any limitations that could skew the data and findings from your study?
• Appendixes:  If you need to present any consent forms, interview questions, surveys, questionnaires, or other items that will be used in your study, you should include samples of each item with an appendix to reference them.  If you are using a copyrighted document, you may need written permission from the original creator to use it in your study.  A copy of the written permission should be included in your proposal.
• Setting:  Where will you be conducting the study?
• Study instruments:  What measuring tools or computer software will you be using to collect data?  How will you collect the data?
• How you will analyze the data:  What strategies or tools will you use to analyze the data you collect?
• Quality control:  Will you have precautions in place to ensure that the study is conducted consistently and that outside factors will not skew the data?
• Budget:  What type of funding will you need for your study?  This will include the funds needed to afford measuring tools, software, etc.
• How you will share the study's findings:  What will you plan to do with the findings?
• Significance of the study: How will your study expand on existing knowledge of the subject area?

For more information on research methodologies, you can view our guide on research methods and methodologies below.

• Research Methodologies by Pfeiffer Library Last Updated Aug 2, 2022 15725 views this year
• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Structure of a Research Proposal >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://library.tiffin.edu/writingaresearchproposal

How to Write a PhD Proposal in 7 Steps

Learn the key steps to crafting a compelling PhD proposal. This guide breaks down the process into 7 manageable parts to help you succeed.

Derek Pankaew

Jun 11, 2024

How to Write a PhD Proposal in 7 Steps: A Proven Guide

Embarking on a PhD journey is a significant academic and personal commitment, and the first crucial step in this process is writing a compelling research proposal. A PhD research proposal serves as a detailed plan or 'blueprint' for your intended study.

It outlines your research questions, aims, methods, and proposed timetable, and it must clearly articulate your research question, demonstrate your understanding of existing literature, and outline your proposed research methodology. This guide will walk you through seven essential steps to craft a successful PhD research proposal.

Understanding the Research Proposal

What is a research proposal.

A research proposal is a comprehensive plan that details your intended research project. It serves as a roadmap for your study, laying out your research questions, objectives, methods, and the significance of your proposed research. It is crucial for securing a place in a PhD program and for gaining the support of potential supervisors and funding bodies.

A PhD research proposal must clearly articulate your research question, and your research context, demonstrate your understanding of existing literature, and outline your proposed research methodology. This document showcases your ability to identify and address a research gap, and it sets the stage for your future research endeavors.

Importance of a Well-Written Research Proposal

A well-written research proposal can make a strong impression and significantly increase your chances of acceptance into a PhD program. It showcases your expertise and knowledge of the existing field, highlighting how your research will contribute to it. A successful research proposal convinces potential supervisors and funders of the value and feasibility of your project.

The importance of a good research proposal extends beyond the application process. It serves as a foundation for your entire PhD journey, guiding your research and keeping you focused on your objectives. A clear and concise proposal ensures that you have a well-thought-out plan, which can save you time and effort in the long run.

Step 1: Conduct a Literature Review

Reviewing the current state of research in your field.

A literature review is a critical component of your next research study or proposal. It involves a comprehensive survey of all sources of scientific evidence related to your research topic. The review should be structured intelligently to help the reader grasp the argument related to your study about other researchers' work. Remember the five ‘C’s while writing a literature review: context, concept, critique, connection, and conclusion. This approach ensures that your literature review is thorough and well-organized.

To begin, search for relevant literature using databases such as Google Scholar, JSTOR, and PubMed. Read review articles and recent publications to get a sense of the current state of research in your field. Pay attention to the key themes, theories, and methodologies used in previous research by other researchers. This will help you identify gaps in the existing literature that your proposed research can address.

Identifying Gaps and Opportunities for Proposed Research

Your literature review should convey your understanding and awareness of the key issues and debates in the field. It should focus on the theoretical and practical knowledge gaps that your work aims to address. A well-written literature review not only demonstrates your expertise but also highlights the novelty and significance of your proposed research.

As you review the literature, take note of recurring findings, themes, and gaps in the research. Identify areas where there is a lack of empirical evidence or where existing theories have not been adequately tested. These gaps represent opportunities for your proposed research to make a meaningful contribution to the field.

Step 2: Define Your Research

Background and rationale: setting the context for your research.

The background and rationale section sets the stage for your research by specifying the subject area of your research and problem statement. This includes a detailed literature review summarizing existing knowledge surrounding your research topic. This section should discuss relevant theories, models, and bodies of text, establishing the foundation for your research question.

In this section, provide a brief overview of the historical and theoretical context of your research topic. Explain why this topic is important and how it fits into the broader field of study. Discuss any key debates or controversies that are relevant to your research problem. This will help to situate your research within the existing body of knowledge and demonstrate its significance.

Research Aims and Objectives: Clarifying the Purpose of Your Study

In this section, clearly state the problems your project intends specific aims to solve. Outline the measurable steps and outcomes required to achieve the aim. Explain why your proposed research is worth exploring, emphasizing its potential contributions to the field.

Your research aims and objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). Clearly articulate the research question or hypothesis that you intend to investigate. Break down your research aims into specific objectives that will guide your study. This will provide a clear roadmap for your research and help to keep you focused on your actual research goals.

Step 3: Develop Your Research Design and Methodology

Research design: outlining your approach.

Your research design and methodology section should provide a clear explanation of your research methods and procedures. Discuss the structure of your research design, including potential limitations and challenges. This section should offer a robust framework for how you plan to conduct your study.

Describe the overall research design, including whether your study will be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods. Discuss the rationale for choosing this design and how it will help you address your research questions. Provide details on the specific methods you will use for data collection and analysis, and explain how these methods are appropriate for your study.

Methodology: Selecting the Right Methods for Your Study

Outline the methods you’ll use to answer each of your research questions. A strong methodology is crucial, especially if your project involves extensive collection and analysis of primary data. Demonstrate your awareness of the limitations of your research method, and qualify the parameters you plan to introduce.

Discuss the sampling methods, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures you will use in your study. Provide a detailed plan for how you will collect and analyze your data, including any tools or instruments you will use. Address any potential ethical issues and explain how you will mitigate them. This will show that you have thoroughly considered the practical aspects of your research and are prepared to address any challenges that may arise.

Step 4: Consider Ethical Implications and Budget

Ethical considerations: addressing potential risks and concerns.

Ethical considerations are paramount, especially in medical or sensitive social research. Ensure that ethical standards are met, including the protection of participants' rights, obtaining informed consent, and the institutional review process (ethical approval). Addressing these issues upfront shows your commitment to conducting responsible research.

Discuss any potential risks to participants and how you will mitigate them. Describe the process for obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality. If your research involves vulnerable populations or sensitive topics, provide additional details on how you will protect participants' rights and well-being. This will demonstrate your commitment to ethical research practices and help to build trust with potential supervisors and funders.

Budget: Estimating Costs and Resources for Your Research

When preparing a research budget, predict and cost all aspects of the research, adding allowance for unforeseen issues, delays, and rising costs. Justify all items in the budget to show thorough planning and foresight.

Provide a detailed breakdown of the costs associated with your research, including expenses for data collection, travel, equipment, and materials. Include any anticipated costs for hiring research assistants or consultants, as well as costs for data analysis and dissemination. Justify each item in the budget, explaining why it is necessary for your research. This will show that you have carefully considered the financial aspects of your project and are prepared to manage the resources required for your study.

Step 5: Create a Timetable and Appendices

Timetable: outlining milestones and deadlines.

The timetable section should outline the various stages of your research project, providing an approximate timeline for each stage, including key milestones. Summarize your research plan and provide a clear overview of your research timeline to demonstrate your ability to manage and complete the project within the allotted time.

Create a detailed timeline that outlines the major phases of your research, including literature review, data collection, data analysis, and writing. Include specific milestones and deadlines for each phase, and provide a realistic estimate of the time required for each task. This will help you stay on track and ensure that your research progresses smoothly.

Appendices: Supporting Documents and Materials

Appendices support the proposal and application by including documents such as informed consent forms, questionnaires, measurement tools, and patient information in layman’s language. These documents are crucial for providing detailed information that supports your research proposal.

Include any additional documents that support your research proposal, such as letters of support from potential supervisors, sample questionnaires, and data collection instruments. Provide detailed information on any measurement tools or protocols you will use in your study. This will show that you have thoroughly planned your research and are prepared to carry out the proposed study.

Step 6: Write Your Research Proposal

Crafting a clear and concise research proposal.

Your research proposal is a key document that helps you secure funding and approval for your research. It is a demonstration of your research skills and knowledge. A well-written proposal can significantly increase your chances of getting accepted into a PhD program.

Begin research proposals by writing a clear and concise introduction that provides an overview of your research topic and its significance. Summarize your research aims and objectives, and provide a brief outline of the structure of your proposal. Use clear and concise language throughout the proposal, and avoid jargon or technical terms that may be unfamiliar to readers.

Ensuring Coherence and Consistency Throughout Your Proposal

Follow a logical and clear structure in your proposal, adhering to the same order as the headings provided above. Ensure that your proposal is coherent and consistent, following the format required by your university’s PhD thesis submissions. This consistency makes your proposal easier to read and more professional.

Use headings and subheadings to organize your proposal and make it easy to navigate. Ensure that each section flows logically from one to the next and that there is a clear connection between your research aims, objectives, and methods. Proofread your proposal carefully to ensure that it is free of errors and that the language is clear and concise.

Step 7: Finalize and Submit Your Research Proposal

Final checks: ensuring completeness and accuracy.

Before submitting your research proposal, ensure that you have adhered to the required format and that your proposal is well-written, clear, and concise. Double-check for completeness and accuracy to ensure that your proposal effectively communicates your research idea and methodology.

Review your proposal carefully to ensure that it includes all required sections and that each section is complete and accurate. Check for any inconsistencies or gaps in the information, and ensure that all references are properly cited. Ask a colleague or supervisor to review your proposal and provide feedback before submitting it.

Submitting Your Research Proposal: Tips for Success

A research proposal is a standard means of assessing your potential as a doctoral researcher. It explains the 'what' and 'why' of your research, showcasing your expertise and knowledge of the existing field, and demonstrating how your research will contribute to it. Ensure that your PhD research proposal clearly articulates your research question, demonstrates your understanding of existing literature, and outlines your proposed research methodology.

When submitting your research proposal, follow the guidelines provided by your university or funding body. Ensure that you have included all required documents and that your proposal is formatted correctly. Pay attention to any submission deadlines, and plan to ensure that you have enough time to complete and review your proposal before submitting it.

Writing a PhD proposal is a rigorous process that requires careful planning, detailed knowledge of your field, and a clear vision for your research project. By following these seven steps, you can craft a compelling and successful research proposal.

Remember to conduct a thorough literature review, define your research clearly, develop a robust research design and methodology, consider ethical implications and budget, create a detailed timetable and appendices, write a clear and concise proposal, and finalize and submit with confidence.

This guide provides a proven framework for prospective PhD students to write a strong and effective research proposal, increasing their chances of acceptance into a PhD program and securing the necessary support and funding for their research.

Embarking on a PhD journey is both challenging and rewarding. The process of writing a research proposal helps you to clarify your research goals, plan your study, and communicate your ideas to others. A well-crafted research proposal writing, not only increases your chances of acceptance into a PhD program but also sets the stage for a successful research project.

Throughout this guide, we have emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough literature review, defining your research aims and objectives, and developing a clear and robust research design and methodology. We have also highlighted the need to consider ethical implications and budget, create a detailed timetable and appendices, and write a clear and concise proposal. Finally, we have provided tips for finalizing and submitting your research proposal.

By following these steps, you can ensure that your research proposal is well-written, comprehensive, and compelling. This will not only help you to secure a place in a PhD program but also provide a solid foundation for your future research endeavors.

Remember, writing a research proposal is a process that takes time and effort. Be patient and persistent, and seek feedback from colleagues, supervisors, and mentors. Use the resources available to you, such as academic journals, databases, and online tools, to support your research and writing. With careful planning and dedication, you can write a successful research proposal that sets the stage for a rewarding and fulfilling PhD journey.

Easily pronounces technical words in any field

PhD proposal, dissertation proposal, graduate school, research proposal, academic writing

Recent articles

10 Best Universities in Canada

Glice Martineau

Jun 17, 2024

Best Universities

World University Rankings

Top Ranked Universities

Universities in Canada

Top 10 Universities in the United Kingdom

Amethyst Rayne

British Universities

Best Universities in the UK

UK Education System

Top 10 Universities in New Zealand

Kate Windsor

Jun 18, 2024

New Zealand education

Best universities in New Zealand

International student guide

Study abroad in New Zealand

Top universities in New Zealand

New Zealand universities

How to Ask a Professor to be Your Advisor? 5 Practical Tips

Jun 19, 2024

professor-student relationship

graduate school

academic advisor

Part 1. Overview Information

National Eye Institute ( NEI )

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ( NHLBI )

National Human Genome Research Institute ( NHGRI )

National Institute on Aging ( NIA )

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism ( NIAAA )

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID )

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases ( NIAMS )

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering ( NIBIB )

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development ( NICHD )

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders ( NIDCD )

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research ( NIDCR )

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases ( NIDDK )

National Institute on Drug Abuse ( NIDA )

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS )

National Institute of General Medical Sciences ( NIGMS )

National Institute of Mental Health ( NIMH )

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke ( NINDS )

National Institute of Nursing Research ( NINR )

National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities ( NIMHD )

National Library of Medicine ( NLM )

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health ( NCCIH )

Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives, Office of Research Infrastructure Programs ( ORIP )

Note: Not all NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) participate in Parent Announcements. Applicants should carefully note which ICs participate in this announcement and view their respective areas of research interest at the R01 IC-Specific Scientific Interests and Contact website. ICs that do not participate in this announcement will not consider applications for funding.

Reissue of PA-19-056

• April 26, 2024 - NINDS Policy for applications requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) on NIH Parent R01 Notices of Funding Opportunities. See notice NOT-NS-24-079
• April 11, 2024 - Notice to Extend Parent R01/R03/R21 Parent Notices of Funding Opportunities. See notice NOT-OD-24-099
• April 4, 2024 - NIAMS Announces a New Funding Policy. See Notice NOT-AR-24-013
• November 29, 2023 - Notice of Pre-Application Webinar for NOT-AG-23-060, "Notice of Special Interest (NOSI): Telehealth for People and Families Living with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD-Related Dementias (ADRD)". See Notice NOT-AG-23-073
• October 2, 2023 - Notice of Availability of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for NOT-HL-23-083. See Notice NOT-HL-23-0915 .
• June 28, 2023 - Notice of Early Expiration and Reissuance of NOT-HL-22-010 "Notice of Special Interest (NOSI): Research on barriers to care and risk of HIV-associated comorbidities among vulnerable population groups". See Notice NOT-HL-23-096
• March 27, 2023 - Notice to Extend Parent R01/R03/R21 Parent Notices of Funding Opportunities. See Notice NOT-OD-23-105 .
• NOT-OD-23-012 Reminder: FORMS-H Grant Application Forms and Instructions Must be Used for Due Dates On or After January 25, 2023 - New Grant Application Instructions Now Available
• NOT-OD-22-190 - Adjustments to NIH and AHRQ Grant Application Due Dates Between September 22 and September 30, 2022
• October 28, 2021 - Reminder: FORMS-G Grant Application Forms & Instructions Must be Used for Due Dates On or After January 25, 2022 - New Grant Application Instructions Now Available. See Notice NOT-OD-22-018 .
• September 13, 2021 - Updates to the Non-Discrimination Legal Requirements for NIH Recipients. See Notice NOT-OD-21-181 .
• August 5, 2021 - New NIH "FORMS-G" Grant Application Forms and Instructions Coming for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2022. See Notice NOT-OD-21-169 .
• August 5, 2021 - Update: Notification of Upcoming Change in Federal-wide Unique Entity Identifier Requirements. See Notice NOT-OD-21-170
• April 20, 2021 - Expanding Requirement for eRA Commons IDs to All Senior/Key Personnel. See Notice NOT-OD-21-109
• October 5,2020 - Consolidated Notice on NIMH Clinical Trials Policies. See Notice NOT-MH-20-105 .
• August 26, 2020 - Notice of Correction to Eligibility in NIH Funding Opportunity Announcements. See Notice NOT-OD-20-171

PA-20-183 - NIH Research Project Grant (Parent R01 Clinical Trial Required)

PA-20-184 Research Project Grant (Parent R01 Basic Experimental Studies with Humans Required)

93.213; 93.393, 93.394, 93.395, 93.396, 93.399; 93.172; 93.837, 93.838, 93.839, 93.840, 93.233; 93.866; 93.273; 93.855; 93.173; 93.847; 93.113; 93.853; 93.879; 93.351;93.867;93.846;93.286;93.865;93.279;93.859;93.242; 93.121; 93.307; 93.361

The NIH Research Project Grant supports a discrete, specified, circumscribed project in areas representing the specific interests and competencies of the investigator(s). The proposed project must be related to the programmatic interests of one or more of the participating NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) based on their scientific missions.

This Funding Opportunity Announcement does not accept applications proposing clinical trial(s).

Not applicable

Standard dates apply.

The first application due date for this FOA is June 5, 2020.

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of non-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on the listed date(s).

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.

Standard AIDS dates apply.

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of AIDS and AIDS-related applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on the listed date(s).

The first AIDS application due date for this FOA is September 7, 2020.

Standard dates apply

Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV . When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

• Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
• Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
• Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section i. funding opportunity description.

The NIH Research Project Grant supports a discrete, specified, circumscribed project in scientific areas that represent the investigators specific interests and competencies and that fall within the mission of the participating NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs). The R01 is the original, and historically the oldest, grant mechanism used by the NIH to support health-related research and development.

Research grant applications are assigned to participating ICs based on receipt and referral guidelines and applications may be assigned to multiple participating ICs with related research interests. Applicants are encouraged to identify a participating IC that supports their area of research via the R01 IC-Specific Scientific Interests and Contact website and contact Scientific/Research staff from relevant ICs to inquire about their interest in supporting the proposed research project.

For specific information about the mission of each NIH IC, visit the List of NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices website.?

Section II. Award Information

Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.

The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this FOA.

Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications

The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is 5 years.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. eligible applicants.

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)

For-Profit Organizations

• Small Businesses
• For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Local Governments

• State Governments
• County Governments
• City or Township Governments
• Special District Governments
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)

Federal Governments

• Eligible Agencies of the Federal Government
• U.S. Territory or Possession
• Independent School Districts
• Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
• Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
• Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
• Regional Organizations
• Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions)

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , are allowed.

Applicant organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

• Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) - All registrations require that applicants be issued a DUNS number. After obtaining a DUNS number, applicants can begin both SAM and eRA Commons registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• eRA Commons - Applicants must have an active DUNS number to register in eRA Commons. Organizations can register with the eRA Commons as they are working through their SAM or Grants.gov registration, but all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active DUNS number and SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

2. Cost Sharing

This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time. This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see NOT-OD-11-101 )

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. requesting an application package.

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Plan will be attached in the Other Plan(s) attachment in FORMS-H and subsequent application forms packages. For due dates on or before January 24, 2023, the Data Sharing Plan and Genomic Data Sharing Plan GDS) will continue to be attached in the Resource Sharing Plan attachment in FORMS-G application forms packages.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

R&R or Modular Budget

Other Plan(s):

Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Management and Sharing Plan will be attached in the Other Plan(s) attachment in FORMS-H and subsequent application forms packages. For due dates on or before January 24, 2023, the Data Sharing Plan and Genomic Data Sharing Plan GDS) will continue to be attached in the Resource Sharing Plan attachment in FORMS-G application forms packages.

All applicants planning research (funded or conducted in whole or in part by NIH) that results in the generation of scientific data are required to comply with the instructions for the Data Management and Sharing Plan. All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, must address a Data Management and Sharing Plan.

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Resource Sharing Plan : Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

The following modifications also apply:

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-definedclinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start). All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , and procedures for foreign institutions.

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply Application Guide . If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance . For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII .

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete or non-compliant will not be reviewed.

Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact a Scientific/ Research Contact at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy . Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.

Section V. Application Review Information

1. criteria.

Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Sharing Plan and Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) as part of the Resource Sharing Plan will not be evaluated at time of review.

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field ?

Investigator(s)

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project ? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) , justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

Protections for Human Subjects

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of thecategories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects .

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research .

Vertebrate Animals

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section .

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Resubmissions

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.

For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Applications from Foreign Organizations

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.

Select Agent Research

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Resource Sharing Plans

Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan ; (2) Sharing Model Organisms ; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) .

Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources:

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Budget and Period of Support

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures , using the stated review criteria . Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.

Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. award notices.

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official.

Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions . Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Grantee institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the awardee must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities . More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants .

Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex. This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html .

HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA.

• Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/fact-sheet-guidance/index.html and https://www.lep.gov . For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53 .
• Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html .
• HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html ; https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html; and https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/upload/fs-sex.pdf . For information about NIH's commitment to supporting a safe and respectful work environment, who to contact with questions or concerns, and what NIH's expectations are for institutions and the individuals supported on NIH-funded awards, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/harassment.htm .
• Recipients of FFA must also administer their programs in compliance with applicable federal religious nondiscrimination laws and applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws. Collectively, these laws prohibit exclusion, adverse treatment, coercion, or other discrimination against persons or entities on the basis of their consciences, religious beliefs, or moral convictions. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religious-freedom/index.html .

Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

Not Applicable

Data Management and Sharing

Note: The NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing is effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023.

Consistent with the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.

3. Reporting

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreementsare required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources) Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-480-7075

Participating NIH Institutes and Centers are listed in Components of Participating Organizations in Part 1. Overview . Scientific/Research Contact information is listed on the R01 IC-Specific Scientific Interests and Contact website

Participating NIH Institutes and Centers are listed in Components of Participating Organizations in Part 1. Overview . Financial/Grants Management Contact information is listed on the R01 IC-Specific Scientific Interests and Contact website

Section VIII. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts . All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75.

Research Proposal - THE EFFECT OF THIRD-PARTY LOGISTIC MANAGEMENT ON ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN U

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide [With Template]

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide [With Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write A Proposal

Writing a Proposal involves several key steps to effectively communicate your ideas and intentions to a target audience. Here’s a detailed breakdown of each step:

Identify the Purpose and Audience

• Clearly define the purpose of your proposal: What problem are you addressing, what solution are you proposing, or what goal are you aiming to achieve?
• Identify your target audience: Who will be reading your proposal? Consider their background, interests, and any specific requirements they may have.

Conduct Research

• Gather relevant information: Conduct thorough research to support your proposal. This may involve studying existing literature, analyzing data, or conducting surveys/interviews to gather necessary facts and evidence.
• Understand the context: Familiarize yourself with the current situation or problem you’re addressing. Identify any relevant trends, challenges, or opportunities that may impact your proposal.

Develop an Outline

• Create a clear and logical structure: Divide your proposal into sections or headings that will guide your readers through the content.
• Introduction: Provide a concise overview of the problem, its significance, and the proposed solution.
• Background/Context: Offer relevant background information and context to help the readers understand the situation.
• Objectives/Goals: Clearly state the objectives or goals of your proposal.
• Methodology/Approach: Describe the approach or methodology you will use to address the problem.
• Timeline/Schedule: Present a detailed timeline or schedule outlining the key milestones or activities.
• Budget/Resources: Specify the financial and other resources required to implement your proposal.
• Evaluation/Success Metrics: Explain how you will measure the success or effectiveness of your proposal.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main points and restate the benefits of your proposal.

Write the Proposal

• Grab attention: Start with a compelling opening statement or a brief story that hooks the reader.
• Clearly state the problem: Clearly define the problem or issue you are addressing and explain its significance.
• Present your proposal: Introduce your proposed solution, project, or idea and explain why it is the best approach.
• State the objectives/goals: Clearly articulate the specific objectives or goals your proposal aims to achieve.
• Provide supporting information: Present evidence, data, or examples to support your claims and justify your proposal.
• Explain the methodology: Describe in detail the approach, methods, or strategies you will use to implement your proposal.
• Address potential concerns: Anticipate and address any potential objections or challenges the readers may have and provide counterarguments or mitigation strategies.
• Recap the main points: Summarize the key points you’ve discussed in the proposal.
• Reinforce the benefits: Emphasize the positive outcomes, benefits, or impact your proposal will have.
• Call to action: Clearly state what action you want the readers to take, such as approving the proposal, providing funding, or collaborating with you.

Review and Revise

• Proofread for clarity and coherence: Check for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
• Ensure a logical flow: Read through your proposal to ensure the ideas are presented in a logical order and are easy to follow.
• Revise and refine: Fine-tune your proposal to make it concise, persuasive, and compelling.

Add Supplementary Materials

• Attach relevant documents: Include any supporting materials that strengthen your proposal, such as research findings, charts, graphs, or testimonials.
• Appendices: Add any additional information that might be useful but not essential to the main body of the proposal.

Formatting and Presentation

• Follow the guidelines: Adhere to any specific formatting guidelines provided by the organization or institution to which you are submitting the proposal.
• Use a professional tone and language: Ensure that your proposal is written in a clear, concise, and professional manner.
• Use headings and subheadings: Organize your proposal with clear headings and subheadings to improve readability.
• Pay attention to design: Use appropriate fonts, font sizes, and formatting styles to make your proposal visually appealing.
• Include a cover page: Create a cover page that includes the title of your proposal, your name or organization, the date, and any other required information.

Seek Feedback

• Share your proposal with trusted colleagues or mentors and ask for their feedback. Consider their suggestions for improvement and incorporate them into your proposal if necessary.

Finalize and Submit

• Make any final revisions based on the feedback received.
• Ensure that all required sections, attachments, and documentation are included.
• Double-check for any formatting, grammar, or spelling errors.
• Submit your proposal within the designated deadline and according to the submission guidelines provided.

Proposal Format

The format of a proposal can vary depending on the specific requirements of the organization or institution you are submitting it to. However, here is a general proposal format that you can follow:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your proposal, your name or organization’s name, the date, and any other relevant information specified by the guidelines.

2. Executive Summary:

•  Provide a concise overview of your proposal, highlighting the key points and objectives.
• Summarize the problem, proposed solution, and anticipated benefits.
• Keep it brief and engaging, as this section is often read first and should capture the reader’s attention.

3. Introduction:

• State the problem or issue you are addressing and its significance.
• Provide background information to help the reader understand the context and importance of the problem.
• Clearly state the purpose and objectives of your proposal.

4. Problem Statement:

• Describe the problem in detail, highlighting its impact and consequences.
• Use data, statistics, or examples to support your claims and demonstrate the need for a solution.

5. Proposed Solution or Project Description:

• Explain your proposed solution or project in a clear and detailed manner.
• Describe how your solution addresses the problem and why it is the most effective approach.
• Include information on the methods, strategies, or activities you will undertake to implement your solution.
• Highlight any unique features, innovations, or advantages of your proposal.

6. Methodology:

• Provide a step-by-step explanation of the methodology or approach you will use to implement your proposal.
• Include a timeline or schedule that outlines the key milestones, tasks, and deliverables.
• Clearly describe the resources, personnel, or expertise required for each phase of the project.

7. Evaluation and Success Metrics:

• Explain how you will measure the success or effectiveness of your proposal.
• Identify specific metrics, indicators, or evaluation methods that will be used.
• Describe how you will track progress, gather feedback, and make adjustments as needed.
• Present a detailed budget that outlines the financial resources required for your proposal.
• Include all relevant costs, such as personnel, materials, equipment, and any other expenses.
• Provide a justification for each item in the budget.

9. Conclusion:

•  Summarize the main points of your proposal.
•  Reiterate the benefits and positive outcomes of implementing your proposal.
• Emphasize the value and impact it will have on the organization or community.

10. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as research findings, charts, graphs, or testimonials.
•  Attach any relevant documents that provide further information but are not essential to the main body of the proposal.

Proposal Template

Here’s a basic proposal template that you can use as a starting point for creating your own proposal:

Dear [Recipient’s Name],

I am writing to submit a proposal for [briefly state the purpose of the proposal and its significance]. This proposal outlines a comprehensive solution to address [describe the problem or issue] and presents an actionable plan to achieve the desired objectives.

Thank you for considering this proposal. I believe that implementing this solution will significantly contribute to [organization’s or community’s goals]. I am available to discuss the proposal in more detail at your convenience. Please feel free to contact me at [your email address or phone number].

Yours sincerely,

Note: This template is a starting point and should be customized to meet the specific requirements and guidelines provided by the organization or institution to which you are submitting the proposal.

Proposal Sample

Here’s a sample proposal to give you an idea of how it could be structured and written:

Subject : Proposal for Implementation of Environmental Education Program

I am pleased to submit this proposal for your consideration, outlining a comprehensive plan for the implementation of an Environmental Education Program. This program aims to address the critical need for environmental awareness and education among the community, with the objective of fostering a sense of responsibility and sustainability.

Executive Summary: Our proposed Environmental Education Program is designed to provide engaging and interactive educational opportunities for individuals of all ages. By combining classroom learning, hands-on activities, and community engagement, we aim to create a long-lasting impact on environmental conservation practices and attitudes.

Introduction: The state of our environment is facing significant challenges, including climate change, habitat loss, and pollution. It is essential to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to understand these issues and take action. This proposal seeks to bridge the gap in environmental education and inspire a sense of environmental stewardship among the community.

Problem Statement: The lack of environmental education programs has resulted in limited awareness and understanding of environmental issues. As a result, individuals are less likely to adopt sustainable practices or actively contribute to conservation efforts. Our program aims to address this gap and empower individuals to become environmentally conscious and responsible citizens.

Proposed Solution or Project Description: Our Environmental Education Program will comprise a range of activities, including workshops, field trips, and community initiatives. We will collaborate with local schools, community centers, and environmental organizations to ensure broad participation and maximum impact. By incorporating interactive learning experiences, such as nature walks, recycling drives, and eco-craft sessions, we aim to make environmental education engaging and enjoyable.

Methodology: Our program will be structured into modules that cover key environmental themes, such as biodiversity, climate change, waste management, and sustainable living. Each module will include a mix of classroom sessions, hands-on activities, and practical field experiences. We will also leverage technology, such as educational apps and online resources, to enhance learning outcomes.

Evaluation and Success Metrics: We will employ a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Pre- and post-assessments will gauge knowledge gain, while surveys and feedback forms will assess participant satisfaction and behavior change. We will also track the number of community engagement activities and the adoption of sustainable practices as indicators of success.

Budget: Please find attached a detailed budget breakdown for the implementation of the Environmental Education Program. The budget covers personnel costs, materials and supplies, transportation, and outreach expenses. We have ensured cost-effectiveness while maintaining the quality and impact of the program.

Conclusion: By implementing this Environmental Education Program, we have the opportunity to make a significant difference in our community’s environmental consciousness and practices. We are confident that this program will foster a generation of individuals who are passionate about protecting our environment and taking sustainable actions. We look forward to discussing the proposal further and working together to make a positive impact.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [your email address or phone number].

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

• Open access
• Published: 18 June 2024

Patient safety in orthodontic care: a scoping literature review with proposal for terminology and future research agenda

• Nikolaos Ferlias 1 , 3 ,
• Ambrosina Michelotti 2 &
• Peter Stoustrup 1  

BMC Oral Health volume  24 , Article number:  702 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

32 Accesses

Metrics details

Knowledge about patient safety in orthodontics is scarce. Lack of standardisation and a common terminology hinders research and limits our understanding of the discipline. This study aims to 1) summarise current knowledge about patient safety incidents (PSI) in orthodontic care by conducting a systematic literature search, 2) propose a new standardisation of PSI terminology and 3) propose a future research agenda on patient safety in the field of orthodontics.

A systematic literature search was performed in the main online sources of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and OpenGrey from their inception to 1 July 2023. Inclusion criteria were based on the World Health Organization´s (WHO) research cycle on patient safety. Studies providing information about the cycle’s steps related to orthodontics were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two of the authors.

A total of 3,923 articles were retrieved. After review of titles and abstracts, 41 articles were selected for full-text review and 25 articles were eligible for inclusion. Seven provided information on the WHO’s research cycle step 1 (“measuring harm”), twenty-one on “understanding causes” (step 2) and twelve on “identifying solutions” (step 3). No study provided information on Steps 4 and 5 (“evaluating impact” or “translating evidence into safer care”).

Current evidence on patient safety in orthodontics is scarce due to a lack of standardised reporting and probably also under-reporting of PSIs. Current literature on orthodontic patient safety deals primarily with “measuring harms” and “understanding causes of patient safety”, whereas less attention has been devoted to initiatives “identifying solutions”, “evaluating impact” and “translating evidence into safer care”. The present project holds a proposal for a new categorisation, terminology and future research agenda that may serve as a framework to support future research and clinical initiatives to improve patient safety in orthodontic care.

Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42022371982).

Peer Review reports

Introduction

For decades, patient safety has been recognised as a healthcare discipline. However, the awareness-raising publication of “To Err Is Human” by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in the US drew considerable attention to this important aspect of healthcare [ 1 , 2 ]. In this publication, experts estimated that in the US in any given year as many as 98,000 people die from medical errors that occur in hospitals [ 1 ]. The definition of patient safety by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 2009 is: “the freedom for a patient from unnecessary harm or potential harm related to healthcare” [ 2 ]. Similarly, in their report, Kohn et al. recognised safety as “freedom from accidental injury” [ 1 ]. In this context, a patient safety incident (PSI) is an event or circumstance that could have resulted or did result in unnecessary harm to a patient [ 2 ].

Patient safety is a crucial aspect of healthcare that seeks to minimise preventable harm, accidents, complications and adverse events (AEs). AEs are defined as injuries resulting from poor management practices that could have been prevented but are not attributed to an underlying disease process [ 2 , 3 ]. The WHO classifies certain AEs as "never events", which are serious incidents that should not occur given the presence of strong systemic safety measures [ 4 ]. Never events can have a profound impact on patients, and their prevention is a key objective of healthcare organisations. In this context, patient safety aims to limit the impact of AEs adverse events and promote the avoidance of preventable harm.

Patient safety is a priority from the patient’s perspective, and for care providers it falls in line with the Hippocratic Oath ("primum non nocere"), which is an important element of modern healthcare. Patient safety initiatives analyse characteristics and features of healthcare systems that may lead to the occurrence of AEs. These features are latent risks that may be of any nature from a soft tissue laceration or a loose wire to inhalation of an orthodontic appliance [ 5 ]. Throughout most healthcare treatment courses, multiple latent risks exist and this makes patient safety multifactorial and complex. When an AE occurs, patient safety does not aim to punish but rather to investigate how and why the protective barriers failed [ 6 , 7 ].

Improving the quality of care is a road that passes through patient safety. Additionally, patient safety has additional psychosocial and financial benefits. Dealing with the consequences of an adverse event has an economic cost to the practitioner, the patient and society. By improving patient safety, dental practitioners increase their quality of care, which is associated with safer and better treatment outcomes [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. In addition, it affords increased legal security by minimising the risk of legal claims [ 6 ].

Knowledge about patient safety in dental care and orthodontics in particular is scarce. The absence of patient safety guidelines in orthodontics is a major concern. This issue is further complicated by the absence of standardized terminology in the field, challenging the development of consistent safety protocols. Additionally, there is a noticeable lack of research and publications in this area, which hinders progress in developing effective, evidence-based strategies to ensure patient safety in orthodontic care [ 11 ]. Therefore, an urgent need exists for studies in the field of orthodontics in particular [ 2 , 3 , 12 ]. Among others, the lack of a common language among orthodontic caregivers ultimately hinders research and limits our understanding of the discipline [ 13 , 14 ]. The aims of this study were to 1) summarise current knowledge about PSIs in orthodontic care by performing a systematic literature search; 2) propose a new standardisation of PSI terminology; 3) propose a research agenda on patient safety in the field of orthodontics that may serve to further develop and provide direction for future research on the subject.

Materials and methods

Protocol and registration.

Prior to the initiation of the project, the study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (reg. no. CRD42022371982). No ethical approval was deemed necessary.

Search strategy

A systematic literature search was performed in the main online sources of MEDLINE (through PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus as well as the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (Open-Grey) from their inception to 1 July 2023. No language limitation was set in the search, and all types of eligible human studies were included.

The inclusion criteria for articles were based on the WHO research cycle on patient safety [ 15 , 16 ]. The various steps of the cycle aim to measure harm and identify causes while identifying solutions to improve patient safety. The ultimate goal is to translate evidence into safer care (Fig.  1 ). Only studies that provided relevant information in at least one of the following categories were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review:

Measuring harm: Studies characterising and/or reporting on the occurrence of AEs or orthodontic-related patient harm.

Understanding causes: Reports focusing on understanding causes leading to patient harm and AEs from orthodontic care.

Identifying solutions: Studies identifying solutions that are effective in reducing the occurrence of AEs and patient harm.

Evaluating impact: Studies evaluating the effectiveness of solutions in terms of impact, affordability and acceptability.

The World Health Organization’s research cycle on patient safety consisting of five steps with the main goal of measuring harm and its causes while identifying solutions and their impact. Ultimately, this evidence should lead to safer care with a set of actions and preventable measures

Only full-text articles were included. In addition, studies dealing with patient safety from a general dental-care perspective were included only if they were directly relevant to orthodontic care and the WHO research cycle. For example, although studies on oral surgery were excluded, wrong-tooth-extraction studies or articles investigating the light-curing safety on patients were included owing to their relevance to orthodontics.

The following MESH terms were used for the systematic search:

(((orthodontic*) OR (dental)) AND (patient safety)) AND ((((((((((((((((((((((((((harm) OR (risk*)) OR (malpractice)) OR (adverse event*)) OR (adverse effect*)) OR (never event*)) OR (iatrogenic)) OR (damage)) OR (incident*)) OR (accident*)) OR (delay* diagnos*)) OR (misdiagnosis)) OR (complication*)) OR (allerg*)) OR (infection)) OR (failure)) OR (error*)) OR (white spot lesion*)) OR (root resorption)) OR (relapse)) OR (decalcification)) OR (caries)) OR (periodontal disease)) OR (nerve damage)) OR (injury)) OR (temporomandibular joint dysfunction)).

Data extraction

After removal of duplicates, all results returned from the systematic literature search were initially screened by their title to establish their relevance. The second filtering decided relevance for inclusion based on the content of the abstract. Finally, the third filtering level was applied to the main text, and the remaining studies were then included in the review. All screening was performed independently by one of the authors (NF) and was later re-checked by another author (PS). Any disputes in study selection were addressed and resolved through discussion between the reviewing authors. On all included studies the main outcome/result was recorded. This was studies investigating prevalence (“measuring harm”- step 1) or assessing contributing factors (“understanding causes”-step 2). For all studies providing information on the cycle’s step 3 (“identifying solutions”), all recommended solutions to prevent harm were also noted. Due to the nature of the data in the included studies, no risk of bias assessment was possible. For the same reason, no quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis was performed. Based on these findings, the intention to conduct a systematic review was revised to a scoping literature review instead [ 17 ].

Study selection

A total of 3,923 studies were identified from the systematic search and imported into Excel (Microsoft®, USA) (PubMed n = 2,049, Web of Science n = 663, Scopus n = 1203 and OpenGrey n = 8). Among the 3,923 articles, 237 were deemed relevant according to the inclusion criteria after screening their titles. Filtering by abstracts, left 41 articles for inclusion after removal of the duplicates. In one case, the full-text of an article was unavailable and it was therefore excluded [ 18 ]. Three relevant articles found in the reference lists were also added [ 4 , 14 , 19 ]. Finally, 25 studies were included as they were found to provide information within any of the categories of the WHO’s research cycle on patient safety related to the orthodontic field (flowchart presented in Fig.  2 ).

PRISMA flowchart diagram of the systematic literature search and inclusion procedure

Study characteristics

Study characteristics are shown in Table  1 . Nine of the included papers were retrospective studies of AEs studying: eye wear protection and ocular trauma in orthodontic practice [ 19 ], clinical evaluation of a locking orthodontic facebow [ 20 ], adverse reactions to dental materials [ 3 ], case reports of latex allergy [ 21 ], wrong tooth extraction claims [ 4 ], dental and orthodontic PSIs in a UK register [ 7 ] and a Finnish register [ 8 ], adverse reactions to dental devices reported at the US Food and Drug Administration [ 9 ] and investigation of monomer release from orthodontic adhesives [ 22 ].

The remaining sixteen studies reported risk assessments of orthodontic procedures or materials. These included safety assessment of dental radiography [ 23 ], bonding of brackets under general anaesthesia [ 24 ], orthodontic facebows [ 10 ], mini-implants [ 12 , 25 , 26 ], soft-tissue lasers in orthodontics [ 13 ], effect of orthodontic treatment on patients’ diet [ 14 ], eye safety of curing lights [ 27 ], safety of metal fixed appliance during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [ 28 ], pulp safety of various types of curing lights [ 29 ], wrong tooth extraction in orthodontics [ 30 , 31 , 32 ], orthodontic treatment by identifying orthodontic never events [ 33 ] and complications after orthognathic surgery [ 34 ]. These studies identified risks in orthodontic procedures or materials and proposed solutions to manage and minimise these risks.

Study results

Measuring harm.

Seven of the studies included provided information in the first category of the WHO’s research cycle on patient safety, which is “measuring harm” [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 19 , 22 , 34 ]. Sims et al. conducted a postal survey on eye protection in the UK and found that ocular injuries were reported in 37.7% of all respondents involving orthodontists, assistants and patients [ 19 ]. Peleg et al. conducted a root-cause analysis of wrong-tooth extraction in 54 insurance claims in Israel and reported that in two thirds of all claims an identification error was the cause of the incorrect tooth extraction [ 4 ]. Also, a cross-sectional study on PSIs in the UK found that orthodontic PSIs accounted for 8.9% of all reported dental PSIs in the country [ 7 ]. Hebballi et al. investigated the frequency and types of AEs associated with dental devices as reported to the Food and Drug Administration and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) in the US [ 9 ]. They reported that orthodontic appliances and accessories accounted for 1% of all AEs involving dental devices. In a similar investigation in hospital and private settings in Finland, Hiivala et al. reported that orthodontic PSIs accounted for 3.6% of all dental PSIs [ 8 ]. Finally, a multi-centre retrospective review of orthognathic surgeries assessing complications and risk factors studied a population of 674 patients [ 34 ]. They reported that adverse events were rare (4.3%) with superficial incisional infection being the most common. They also concluded that the setting, the type of surgery as well as the patients’ ethnicity were identified as risk factors for some types of complications.

Understanding causes of harm & identifying solutions

Twenty-one of the included studies identified the underlying causes of AEs that caused patient harm (WHO’s Category 2 “Understanding the causes”) [ 3 , 4 , 7 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 ]. In addition, twelve studies identified possible solutions that may be effective in reducing the occurrence of AEs (WHO’s Cycle Category 3 “Identifying solutions”) [ 4 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 31 , 32 ]. These solutions included: health and safety instructions for eye-protection goggles to prevent ocular trauma [ 19 ], use of non-latex materials [ 21 ], clear instructions with a brief description of the tooth to be extracted addressed to the clinician using two different identification methods to prevent wrong-site extraction and use of a computerised checklist [ 4 , 31 , 32 ], use of facebows with a locking mechanism and self-releasing head strap to prevent injuries from headgear [ 10 , 20 ], suggestions to improve safety in dental radiography [ 23 ], use of rubber dam during bonding of brackets under general anaesthesia [ 24 ], recommendations to overcome failures and risks during placement, loading and removal of mini-implants [ 12 , 25 ] and, finally, instructions for safe use of soft-tissue lasers in orthodontics recommending that the clinician obtained appropriate training and certification, use of proper eye wear by all involved parties, obtaining informed consent and providing proper post-operative instructions [ 13 ].

None of the included studies provided information on how to evaluate the impact of such solutions or on how to translate evidence into safer care in terms of affordability and acceptability. Data synthesis and meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the different studies and the nature of the data.

Patient safety incidents in orthodontics

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic investigation of patient safety in orthodontics. The lack of evidence in the field manifests in our results. Twenty-five studies were included in this review and these studies were only peripherally related to orthodontics while providing some information based on the WHO’s research cycle. This cycle describes a process to identify solutions for enhancing patient safety and reducing patient harm. It consists of five steps representing the natural process for patient-safety initiatives. It seems that dentistry in general and orthodontics in particular have yet to take even the initial steps of the cycle (steps 1 and 2), which are to measure the harm and understand the causes of harm [ 16 ]. This is evident from the results as the included studies were either reviews of risks associated with specific orthodontic procedures (like mini-implant insertion, soft-tissue laser, facebow use, etc.) or retrospective reviews of AEs peripherally related to orthodontics (incidence of ocular trauma, adverse reactions to materials, etc.).

The results of this review document that current evidence relating to orthodontics is scarce. Without a basic understanding of PSIs and harms we cannot begin to understand the causes and identify solutions that will subsequently translate into safer care for our patients [ 16 ]. A major limitation to this is a trend towards potential under-reporting of PSIs in our field. In fact, a review of the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) database in the UK revealed that orthodontics is among the lowest reporting specialties along with dental surgery and paediatric dentistry [ 35 ]. A contributing factor in this may be the lesser severity of some PSIs in orthodontics, which may be smaller injuries like soft-tissue laceration from loose wires [ 16 ]. One way to overcome the underreporting issues may be effective keeping of patient records and clinical notes, which may prove an essential tool in clinical audits and will also underpin the reporting of more AEs [ 36 ]. Also, the lack of standardisation in terminology and reporting process of AEs makes it challenging if not impossible to summarise and categorise all PSIs in orthodontics, let alone analyse the data in depth.

Additionally, we hypothesise that an underreporting bias may exist between dental specialities. Dental implants are more expensive and dentists and/or patients may therefore report them more often when asking for replacements [ 9 ]. This leads, e.g., to many more reported PSIs for implants than for burs. Finally, another contributing factor in the lack of evidence on patient safety is the overlap found in some areas within dentistry. This makes it more challenging to precisely measure AEs in only one field. A clear example of this is the AE of wrong-tooth extraction for orthodontic reasons, which may fall in both the orthodontic and surgical category.

Standardisation and terminology

The lack of a standardised terminology and reporting of PSIs in orthodontics seems to hinder any effort to summarise and categorise PSIs, which could be a reasonable first research step to enhance our knowledge in this field. For future work in this field, we therefore suggest that PSIs related to orthodontics may be summarised into two main categories; local and systemic. Categorisation with subcategories and examples are shown in Table  2 . Terminology according to the WHO is proposed in Table  3 .

Local PSIs refer to any harm on dental tissues (root resorption, white spot lesions, pulp necrosis, caries) and soft tissues. This may be damage to both periodontal and surrounding soft tissues that could have been avoided (gingival recessions, soft tissue lacerations, local allergic reaction/contact dermatitis). In addition, local PSIs include treatment injuries with a negative effect on orofacial function. This may be development of lip catch as a result of orthodontic treatment. Finally, any harm related to any unwanted tooth movement is also included in this category. This may be unwanted tooth movement due to an active retainer.

Systemic PSIs refer to harm at a systemic level. This may be excessive pain and discomfort as a result of the orthodontic treatment due to a defective appliance or even hypersensitivity due to excessive interproximal reduction. In addition, systemic PSIs include potential emotional damage to patients. This may be development of general discomfort/odontophobia/mistrust towards the clinician or the healthcare system or deterioration of the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Systemic PSIs may be a result of delayed treatment initiation due to delayed/inadequate diagnosis. Finally, harm caused by poor cross-infection control, inhalation of orthodontic parts and extraction of a wrong tooth are also considered systemic PSIs.

Future research agenda

A proposal for a future research agenda in orthodontic patient safety is shown in Table  4 . The agenda is intended as inspiration to promote future research and development in patient safety in orthodontics. It should not be considered absolute as topics other than those listed may be of interest for future patient safety initiatives. Two main categories of studies are presented in Table  4 : Retrospective or prospective studies dealing with patient safety (26).

Retrospective studies are reactive in nature and focus on the incidence, characteristics and severity of PSIs using an acknowledged methodology such as journal file audit and root cause analysis (RCA) (26,27). They investigate PSIs that have already occurred with the intention of generating knowledge to promote learning and guidance for future patient safety initiatives. RCA allows us to focus on individual PSIs and investigate, through a comprehensive analysis, all the contributing factors that lead to the occurrence of an AE.

Conversely, prospective studies assess potential risks associated with a treatment, appliance or material. The methodology in these studies is failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) (27,28). This approach is the analysis of a method, treatment, material or procedure by first creating a risk map and then implementing measures to reduce the likelihood or impact of a PSI (27–30).

Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are key factors in the establishment of safer future orthodontic care. Intrinsic motivation is shaped by professional ethics, norms and patient-reported outcomes and expectations [ 1 , 37 , 38 ]. The articles included in our review, however, mainly focused on the extrinsic motivation, which refers to the environment, policies and strategies that we may develop with the ultimate goal of improving patient safety in orthodontics.

In orthodontic patient safety research, a need exists to increase our focus on this aspect and on clinical routines and administrative, organisational and legal contexts. One strategy that may help us move in this direction is to establish excellent records and clinical notes through periodical audits [ 30 ]. This will help clinicians and/or patients report more AEs in future. Honest exchange of such information between health professionals is a necessary first step and a founding rock for safer care and further research. To achieve this, it is important to establish a non-blame culture with psychological safety and a feeling of partnership, enthusiasm and commitment to improving patient safety in orthodontics [ 36 ].

Research on patient safety is more advanced in other parts of healthcare than orthodontics. Even other fields of dentistry have taken steps in this direction with the creation of checklists, i.e. in endodontics, orofacial function and oral surgery [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. Checklists seem to have a positive effect on patient safety [ 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Most of the checklists are adaptations of the WHO’s surgical checklist that is now used in a wide range of surgical specialties in medicine [ 47 ]. Adjusting this to fit our orthodontic needs and implementing it in daily practice may be an important step towards improving safety in orthodontics [ 48 ]. In the past decade, the WHO has published several guidelines and educational curricula to enhance the level of patient safety in healthcare in general [ 49 , 50 ]. These publications may provide a starting point for the spreading of local patient safety initiatives and the introduction of educational and organisational measures to further patient safety.

Some orthodontic societies seem to have taken steps towards patient safety, however all societies in different countries need to follow and implement policies for safer care. In its core patient safety is the purpose of audit and clinical governance. Amongst other, research is a vital element in this process. Nevertheless, a limitation in this could be that clinical governance might differ from one country to another.

Traditionally, patient safety was focused on rare types of incidents with a significant degree of harm referred to as “never events” in the literature [ 51 ]. However, in recent years, more efforts have been devoted to understanding the frequency and causes of PSIs that we assume occur more frequently than is reported today [ 51 ]. The perceived threshold determining what is considered a PSI may often be vague; and the border is not absolute, particularly as we come to understand patient safety better. It is important to emphasize that common side effects (e.g., root resorption) are not considered PSIs as these side effects may also occur when a patient has undergone an optimally performed course of treatment, unless, of course, these side effects were avoidable and appropriate measures had been adopted [ 52 ]. The extent of such side effects, however, can vary and probably depends on a wide range of factors (force magnitude, treatment duration) [ 53 ]. Excessive root resorption, however, may be considered a PSI if the risk factors were not assessed before initiating treatment and if precautionary measures were not taken in advance. A step towards safer orthodontics may be to incorporate such “risk maps” routinely in systematic reviews. For example, when a systematic review compares A to B, reporting just which of the two is more efficient or faster may be insufficient. The burden and the risk of harm to the patient should also be reported. This reporting may include anything that may be considered a PSI, from excessive root resorption to increased exposure to radiation, cytotoxicity, effect on patients’ OHRQoL, late diagnosis, overtreatment, gingival recessions or bone dehiscence, etc. A cultural change in the way we approach these “side effects” and further patient-centred research will improve patient safety in our field. In addition, in today's rapidly evolving technological landscape, where new advancements outpace research capabilities, emphasizing the safety of orthodontic materials is crucial while treatment decisions need to be patient-centred, based on their perspective [ 54 ].

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this systematic review include an extensive literature search, a predefined protocol, a priori registration with PROSPERO and the adoption of a strict methodology at all study stages [ 55 ]. Also, the fact that there was no date or language limitation in the search, provided us with data that likely reflect the current understanding and knowledge about PSI in orthodontics. In addition, the proposed categorisation of PSIs in orthodontics and the future-agenda proposals may spark interest and lead to further research in the field of orthodontic patient safety.

Certain limitations need further consideration: mainly the inability to assess precise prevalence of orthodontic PSIs and categorise them accordingly. This inability is due to the poor current evidence and lack of standardisation and terminology and the fact that many PSIs are probably underreported. It can also be due to the fact that patient safety is a topic of increasing complexity, especially with the new risks arising directly from the use of new technologies [ 51 ]. Also, there is inherent risk of bias due to the nature of the studies included which were mostly retrospective [ 56 ]. Furthermore, in this study, the final selection of the included studies was consensus-based instead of individually assessing the suitability of the articles during the review process. Finally, despite thorough searching, there could be studies overlooked during the process, possibly originating from databases not encompassed in the search.

Current evidence on patient safety in orthodontics is scarce due to a lack of standardisation and potential under-reporting of PSIs. The current literature on orthodontic patient safety deals mostly with “measuring harms” and “understanding causes of patient safety”, whereas less attention has been devoted to initiatives “identifying solutions”, “evaluating impact” and “translating evidence into safer care”. The present project presents proposals for a new categorisation, terminology and a future research agenda that may serve as a framework to support future research and clinical initiatives to improve patient safety in orthodontic care.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000;52:1–287.

Google Scholar  

World Health Organization (WHO). Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety Final Technical Report. International Classification [Internet]. 2009;(January):3–101. Available from: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/taxonomy/ICPS_Statement_of_Purpose.pdf

Scott A, Egner W, Gawkrodger DJ, Hatton P V., Sherriff M, Van Noort R, et al. The national survey of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK: A preliminary study by the UK Adverse Reactions Reporting Project. Vol. 196, British Dental Journal. Nature Publishing Group; 2004. p. 471–7.

Peleg O, Givot DMDN, Halamish-shani T, Taicher S. Wrong tooth extraction: root cause analysis. Br Dent J. 2011;210(4):163–163.

Article   Google Scholar  

Yamalik N, Perea PB. Patient safety and dentistry: What do we need to know? Fundamentals of patient safety, the safety culture and implementation of patient safety measures in dental practice. Int Dent J. 2012;62(4):189–96.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dehghanian D, Heydarpoor P, Attaran N, Khoshnevisan M. Clinical governance in general dental practice. Journal of International Oral Health. 2019;11(3):107–11.

Thusu S, Panesar S, Bedi R. Patient safety in dentistry - State of play as revealed by a national database of errors. Br Dent J. 2012;213(3):E3.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hiivala N, Mussalo-Rauhamaa H, Tefke HL, Murtomaa H. An analysis of dental patient safety incidents in a patient complaint and healthcare supervisory database in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand [Internet]. 2016 Feb 17;74(2):81–9. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2015.1042040

Hebballi NB, Ramoni R, Kalenderian E, Delattre VF, Stewart DCL, Kent K, et al. The dangers of dental devices as reported in the food and drug administration manufacturer and user facility device experience database. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(2):102–10.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Samuels RHA, Brezniak N. Orthodontic facebows: Safety issues and current management. J Orthod. 2002;29(2):101–7.

Bailey E, Tickle M, Campbell S, O’Malley L. Systematic review of patient safety interventions in dentistry. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(1):152.

Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B. Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131(4):S43-51.

Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B. Soft-tissue lasers in orthodontics: An overview. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4 SUPPL):S110-4.

Johal A, Abed Al Jawad F, Marcenes W, Croft N. Does orthodontic treatment harm children’s diets? J Dent. 2013;41(11):949–54.

World Health Organization. WHO patient safety research : better knowledge for safer care. 2009;12 p.

Tokede O, Walji M, Ramoni R, Rindal D, Worley D, Hebballi N, et al. Quantifying Dental Office–Originating Adverse Events: The Dental Practice Study Methods. J Patient Saf. 2017;Publish Ah(00):1–8.

Vaid N. Scoping studies: Should there be more in orthodontic literature? APOS Trends in Orthodontics. 2019;9(3):124–5.

Rak D. X-ray examinations in orthodontic diagnostics as a source of ionizing radiation. Bilten Udruzenja ortodonata Jugoslavije. Bulletin Orthod Soc Yugosl. 1989;22:37–48.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Sims AP, Roberts-Harry TJ, Roberts-Harry DP. The incidence and prevention of ocular injuries in orthodontic practice. Br J Orthod. 1993;20(4):339–43.

Samuels R, O’Neill J, Bhavra G, Hills D, Thomas P, Hug H, et al. A clinical evaluation of a locking orthodontic facebow. American J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(3):344–50.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Raggio DP, Camargo LB, Naspitz GMCC, Bonifacio CC, Politano GT, Mendes FM, et al. Latex allergy in dentistry: Clinical cases report. J Clin Exp Dent. 2010;2(1):e55–9.

Bationo R, Jordana F, Boileau MJ, Colat-Parros J. Release of monomers from orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;150(3):491–8.

Abbott P. Are dental radiographs safe? Aust Dent J. 2000;45(3):208–13.

Chaushu S, Zeltser R, Becker A. Safe orthodontic bonding for children with disabilities during general anaesthesia. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(3):225–8.

Suzuki M, Deguchi T, Watanabe H, Seiryu M, Iikubo M, Sasano T, et al. Evaluation of optimal length and insertion torque for miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144(2):251–9.

Kuroda S, Tanaka E. Risks and complications of miniscrew anchorage in clinical orthodontics. Japan Dent Sci Rev. 2014;50:79–85.

McCusker N, Lee SM, Robinson S, Patel N, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ. Light curing in orthodontics; Should we be concerned? Dent Mater. 2013;29(6):e85-90.

Görgülü S, Ayyildiz S, Kamburoǧlu K, Gökçe S, Ozen T. Effect of orthodontic brackets and different wires on radiofrequency heating and magnetic field interactions during 3-T MRI. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2014;43(2):20130356.

Mouhat M, Mercer J, Stangvaltaite L, Örtengren U. Light-curing units used in dentistry: factors associated with heat development—potential risk for patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(5):1687–96.

Anwar H, Waring D. Improving patient safety through a clinical audit spiral: prevention of wrong tooth extraction in orthodontics. Br Dent J. 2017;223(1):48–52.

Cullingham P, Saksena A, Pemberton MN. Patient safety: Reducing the risk of wrong tooth extraction. Br Dent J. 2017;222(10):759–63.

Jacob O, Gough E, Thomas H. Preventing wrong tooth extraction. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2021;55(3):316–24.

Jerrold L, Danoff-Rudick J. Never events in clinical orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2022;161(4):480–9.

Knoedler S, Baecher H, Hoch CC, Obed D, Matar DY, Rendenbach C, et al. Early Outcomes and Risk Factors in Orthognathic Surgery for Mandibular and Maxillary Hypo- and Hyperplasia: A 13-Year Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Database. J Clin Med. 2023;12(4):1444.

Bagley CHM, Panesar SS, Patel B, Cleary K, Pickles J. Safer cut: Revelations of surgical harm through a national database [Internet]. Vol. 71, British Journal of Hospital Medicine. MA Healthcare London; 2010. p. 484–5. Available from: https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/10.12968/hmed.2010.71.9.78155

Yamalik N. Quality systems in dentistry Part 2. Quality assurance and improvement (QA/I) tools that have implications for dentistry. Int Dent J [Internet]. 2007;57(6):459–67. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18265780/

Hua F. Dental patient-reported outcomes update 2022. J Evid Based Dent Pract. Mosby. 2023;23:1–6.

Tao Z, Zhao T, Ngan P, Qin D, Hua F, He H. The use of dental patient-reported outcomes among randomized controlled trials in orthodontics: a methodological study. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2023;23(1): 101795.

Díaz-Flores-García V, Perea-Pérez B, Labajo-González E, Santiago-Sáez A, Cisneros-Cabello R. Proposal of a “Checklist” for endodontic treatment. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014;6(2):104–9.

Wright S, Ucer TC, Crofts G. The adaption and implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist for dental procedures. Br Dent J. 2018;225(8):727–9.

Nenad MW, Halupa C, Spolarich AE, Gurenlian JAR. A Dental Radiography Checklist as a Tool for Quality Improvement. J Dent Hyg. 2016;90(6):386–93.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beddis HP, Davies SJ, Budenberg A, Horner K, Pemberton MN. Temporomandibular disorders, trismus and malignancy: Development of a checklist to improve patient safety. Br Dent J. 2014;217(7):351–5.

Schmitt CM, Buchbender M, Musazada S, Bergauer B, Neukam FW. Evaluation of Staff Satisfaction After Implementation of a Surgical Safety Checklist in the Ambulatory of an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department and its Impact on Patient Safety. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(8):1616–39.

Wilson L, Walker L. The WHO surgical safety checklist: The evidence. J Perioper Pract [Internet]. 2009;19(10):362–4. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/175045890901901002

Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Dziekan G, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Gawande AA. Effect of A 19-item surgical safety checklist during urgent operations in a global patient population. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):976–80.

Vats A, Vincent CA, Nagpal K, Davies RW, Darzi A, Moorthy K. Practical challenges of introducing WHO surgical checklist: UK pilot experience. BMJ (Online). 2010;340(7738):133–5.

World Health Organization. Tool and Resources [Internet]. WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. 2009. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/research/safe-surgery/tool-and-resources

Clark S, Hamilton L. WHO surgical checklist: Needs to be customised by specialty. Vol. 340, BMJ (Online). British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2010. p. 280.

World Health Organization (WHO). Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030 [Internet]. Vol. 53, World Health Organization. 2020. 1689–1699 p. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/policy/global-patient-safety-action-plan

World Health Organization (WHO). Patient Safety Research course.2022; Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/guidance/patient-safety-research-course

Vincent C, Amalberti R. Safer Healthcare: Strategies for the Real World. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 1–157.

Stoustrup P, Ferlias N. Patientskader i forbindelse med ortodonti Tandlaegebladet. 2022;126:812–22.

Yassir YA, McIntyre GT, Bearn DR. Orthodontic treatment and root resorption: An overview of systematic reviews. Eur J Orthod. 2021;43(4):442–56.

Alansari R, Vaiid N. Why do patients transition between orthodontic appliances? A qualitative analysis of patient decision-making. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2023;00:1–8.

Higgins, Julian PT and Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training. Vol. 2, Handbook. 2011. p. 649.

OCEBM Table of Evidence Working Group = Jeremy Howick, Iain Chalmers (James Lind Library), Paul Glasziou, Trish Greenhalgh, Carl Heneghan, Alessandro Liberati, Ivan Moschetti, Bob Phillips, Hazel Thornton OG and MH. OCEBM Levels of Evidence — Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), University of Oxford [Internet]. 2011. p. 1. Available from: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Section of Orthodontics, Department of Dentistry and Oral Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Nikolaos Ferlias & Peter Stoustrup

Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Oral Sciences, Section of Orthodontics and Temporomandibular Disorders, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

Ambrosina Michelotti

Private Practice, Brighton, UK

Nikolaos Ferlias

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

NF: Conceptualization, Search strategy, Data synthesis, interpretation and analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing original draft, Writing review & editing. AM: Investigation, Methodology, Data interpretation and analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing review & editing. PS: Conceptualization, Search strategy, Data synthesis, interpretation and analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing original draft, Writing review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos Ferlias .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., 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.

Ferlias, N., Michelotti, A. & Stoustrup, P. Patient safety in orthodontic care: a scoping literature review with proposal for terminology and future research agenda. BMC Oral Health 24 , 702 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04375-7

Download citation

Received : 11 March 2024

Accepted : 14 May 2024

Published : 18 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04375-7

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

• Systematic review
• Patient safety
• Orthodontics
• Patient safety incidents
• Patient harm
• Adverse events

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

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

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 18 June 2024

From wearable sensor data to digital biomarker development: ten lessons learned and a framework proposal

• Paola Daniore   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3319-1125 1 , 2 ,
• Vasileios Nittas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6685-8275 3 , 4 ,
• Christina Haag   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9662-5245 1 , 4 ,
• Jürgen Bernard 2 , 5 ,
• Roman Gonzenbach 6 &
• Viktor von Wyl   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8754-9797 1 , 2 , 4 , 7  

npj Digital Medicine volume  7 , Article number:  161 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

34 Accesses

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Clinical trials
• Diagnostic markers

Wearable sensor technologies are becoming increasingly relevant in health research, particularly in the context of chronic disease management. They generate real-time health data that can be translated into digital biomarkers, which can provide insights into our health and well-being. Scientific methods to collect, interpret, analyze, and translate health data from wearables to digital biomarkers vary, and systematic approaches to guide these processes are currently lacking. This paper is based on an observational, longitudinal cohort study, BarKA-MS, which collected wearable sensor data on the physical rehabilitation of people living with multiple sclerosis (MS). Based on our experience with BarKA-MS, we provide and discuss ten lessons we learned in relation to digital biomarker development across key study phases. We then summarize these lessons into a guiding framework (DACIA) that aims to informs the use of wearable sensor data for digital biomarker development and chronic disease management for future research and teaching.

Similar content being viewed by others

Digital health technologies and machine learning augment patient reported outcomes to remotely characterise rheumatoid arthritis

Modeling multiple sclerosis using mobile and wearable sensor data

Development and large-scale validation of the Watch Walk wrist-worn digital gait biomarkers

Introduction.

The increasing popularity of ubiquitous mobile technologies, such as wearables, has the potential to transform chronic disease management 1 , 2 , 3 . The broad adoption of wearables, particularly commercial activity trackers, is driven by their affordability, user-friendliness, and overall high accuracy 4 . The rising amount of research on chronic diseases that involves wearables highlights this trend 5 , 6 , 7 . Wearables are equipped with sensors that generate health-related data in real-time, creating opportunities for personalized care 8 . The clinical relevance of this data ultimately depends on their translation into digital biomarkers 9 , 10 . This process generally requires the definition of normal ranges, which is either informed by external benchmarks (e.g., 10,000 daily steps) or intra-individual norms (e.g., individual average step counts during the week) that can be further validated with patient-reported data (e.g., surveys) 11 , 12 , 13 . However, most wearables have fixed measurement capabilities (e.g., physical activity and heart rate), which currently limit their translation to digital biomarkers.

For the potential of digital biomarkers to be achieved, aligning wearable capabilities and study design with recommended practices for meaningful clinical measures is essential 14 . The Food and Drug Agency (FDA) guidance document on the use of digital health technologies for remote data acquisition in clinical investigations proposes a multi-step approach towards digital biomarker development, in which the validation and verification steps take central roles 15 . Along similar lines, the framework by the Digital Medicine Society on best practices for evaluating monitoring technologies for use in clinical trials emphasizes verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3) as central steps 16 , 17 . While these documents provide useful high-level guidance, they offer limited support for the development of digital, wearable-based biomarkers. Furthermore, in current guidance there is an absence of study design and conduct elements that involve all stakeholders in an iterative approach and focus on the implementation of digital biomarkers in practice. Consequently, researchers and health professionals often rely on limited guidance for the use of wearable data in clinical practice and chronic disease management 18 , 19 .

Digital biomarkers may significantly improve the management of complex chronic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis (MS). MS is a serious neurodegenerative health condition that is characterized by both extensive and highly variable physical and mental symptoms. More than 15,000 people are currently living with MS in Switzerland alone 20 . Optimizing and tailoring treatment options has been limited by a still unexplained heterogeneity in symptom patterns and disease course. For this reason, MS is often referred to as the ‘disease with 1000 faces’ 21 . In this paper, we briefly introduce the BarKA-MS study program (section “Introduction”), which collected sensor data from wearables on the physical rehabilitation of people living with MS (PwMS), and summarize ten important lessons learned (section “The BarKA-MS study program”) across key study phases related to methods aimed at guiding the development of digital biomarkers 22 . We then present the DACIA framework (section “Lessons learned from BarKA-MS”) as a crosscut between the ten lessons and five crucial steps of digital biomarker development, which has been applied twice in the course “Digital Health in Practice” for medical students at the University of Zurich. Finally, we discuss the DACIA framework in the context of existing guidance and highlight its relevance. Our work aims to inform (1) future research on the development wearable-based digital biomarkers for chronic disease management, as well as (2) teaching curricula, through the application of our framework 10 , 11 .

The BarKA-MS study program

BarKA-MS is a semi-remote observational, longitudinal cohort pilot study program that explored the physical activity rehabilitation of PwMS, which informed several independent analyses as part of the program 18 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 . The methods and results of BarKA-MS are published elsewhere 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 . The study was planned in collaboration between the researchers, clinical staff, as well as experts in human-centered and interactive visual data analytics (IVDA). During study design, clinicians and researchers defined relevant clinical measures for potential future use in a rehabilitation clinic. Study nurses from the clinical staff were consulted to identify feasible data collection methods, drawing on their experiences with PwMS and their understanding of patient needs. Data collection was planned with the Fitabase activity tracker database 27 to enable the statistical analysts and IVDA experts to effectively translate wearable sensor data to digital biomarkers.

BarKA-MS was divided in two phases. First, the physical activity of participants was measured during their inpatient rehabilitation stay at the Valens Rehabilitation Centre in Switzerland, which for most patients lasted between two to three weeks. Second, their physical activity was measured upon return to their homes. Participants were asked to wear the Fitbit Inspire HR during the entire duration of the study 28 and an additional research-grade wearable sensor, the Actigraph GTX, during their last week of rehabilitation and the first week back home 25 . Participants were followed up for up to eight weeks i.e., two to four weeks in the first phase and four weeks in the second phase. Technical and motivational support was provided throughout the study. The study protocol obtained ethical approval from the Zurich cantonal ethics commission (BASEC-no. 2020–02350). All participants provided written informed consent.

Participant demographics of BarKA-MS are available in Supplementary Table 1 . At baseline, most participants were female, had a median age of 46, had MS for a median of 11 years and were either working part-time or were unemployed. These characteristics align with the typical demographics observed in MS populations with a more progressed disease state 29 , 30 , 31 . A follow-up study 23 involving participants with different characteristics and chronic illnesses, such as cardiovascular diseases, revealed conclusions consistent with the main BarKA-MS analyses, suggesting that the findings discussed in this lessons learned paper may be applicable to other chronic disease populations.

Relevant wearable sensor data was collected longitudinally and included heart rate, step count, sleep indicators, physical activity intensity (time spent in light, moderate, or vigorous physical activity), and sedentary time. These measurements were available at the minute, hourly, and daily granularity levels. To provide additional context to the physical activity measures from the wearable sensors, we collected self-reported data using the following instruments: (1) the 18-item Barriers to Health Promoting Activities for Disabled Persons Scale 32 to assess perceived barriers to physical activity, (2) the 12-item MS Walking Scale-12 33 to assess the walking ability of the participants and (3) the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions 34 to assess MS-related cognitive and motor fatigue. The study achieved a weekly survey completion of 96%, as well as 99% and 97% valid Fitbit wear days at the rehabilitation clinic and in the home setting, respectively.

Lessons learned from BarKA-MS

In the following sections, we present our insights (lessons learned) from designing and implementing BarKA-MS, as well several independent analyses of sensor measurements and patient reported outcomes 18 , 24 , 25 , 26 , and a follow-up study that was modeled after BarKA-MS 23 that examined the implementation of a physical activity post-rehabilitation program from the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals. We specifically selected insights that are relevant to the use of wearable sensor data for digital biomarker development. All our lessons learned were discussed and co-formulated with healthcare professionals, clinical staff and researchers involved in BarKA-MS, and categorized in four key study phases, including: (1) early study design, (2) study execution, (3) data analysis, and (4) data interpretation.

Early study design

For BarKA-MS, we chose to use the Fitbit Inspire HR commercial wearable after an assessment against other devices due its low cost, ease of use and ability to collect relevant data with Fitabase 27 , a secure third-party data collection tool that enables remote monitoring of data quality and completeness checks. By contrast, the Actigraph accelerometer was not chosen as the primary wearable device for data collection due to its higher costs, lower participant preference from discomfort of wearing it around the hip, and increased complexity due to limited storage capacity and the requirement to actively download data with a cable. These initial decisions were taken during the protocol writing phase and in agreement with healthcare professionals and clinical staff. Central to these decisions was also designing the study to protect the privacy of the participants, by ensuring the safe collection and use of data. In particular, only non-identifiable user accounts were used for wearable devices and potentially sensitive features of the devices, such as location tracking or data sharing via social media, were disabled. These decisions led to the following lessons.

Lesson 1: Aligning study goals and technology

The choice of measurement tools should be guided by the research question and the study outcomes of interest. In our case, the primary outcome was daily-life physical activity, a proximal outcome that was directly derived from the Fitbit Inspire HR. To decide whether a wearable is the most suitable option, it is key to fully understand the functions, but most importantly the potential limitations of devices. Understanding the limitations reduces the risk of unreliable measurements. A relevant example comes from one of our previous unpublished sub-analyses of BarKA-MS, which examined correlations of self-reported fatigue (using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 score 35 ) and sensor measurements, including sleep length and daily-life physical activity. Our findings revealed weak associations, which were likely due to the wearable’s indirect measurement of distances 26 . Having missed this limitation would have likely led to incorrect measurements.

Lesson 2: Aligning measurement and outcome assessment timeframes

A second lesson learned during the early design phases of BarKA-MS is the importance of required timeframes, or the time needed until relevant study outcomes can be fully measured. Chronic diseases, such as MS, progress over years or decades. Recent digital health studies on chronic diseases have reported monitoring periods of up to 12 months 2 . However, the optimal timeframe to detect a change of interest depends on the study question. In the case of BarKA-MS, we detected clinically relevant changes in self-reported measures related to barriers to physical activity for severe fatigue scores in 8 out of the 38 participants, and a median improvement of 16.7 points in the MS Walking Scale-12 after an 8-week follow-up 24 , 26 . By contrast, health behaviors, such as daily-life physical activity, fluctuate on much smaller time scales, such as days, weeks, or months. Nevertheless, our experiences with BarKA-MS and a follow-up study 23 suggest that even timeframes of 4 to 12 weeks require significant efforts to keep participants engaged. Being aware of the expected efforts during the study, the availability of resources, and the characteristics of the study population, such as their age, level of disability and educational level, will ultimately determine whether (a) the use of wearables is scientifically meaningful, and (b) what duration periods will likely be needed 24 . Commercial wearables are well-geared towards measuring health behavior changes on weekly or monthly time scales, while also supporting longer study durations due to their ease of use and wear comfort. Not defining timeframes correctly and early enough risks delays and waste of resources.

Lesson 3: Defining the role of wearables

Wearables can take different roles and thus, support different goals in chronic disease management. In our discussions with healthcare professionals involved in BarKA-MS, we identified the need for clarity regarding the role of wearables in digital biomarker studies. Two central questions emerged: “how can sensor data improve patient health?”, and “who should take action to achieve health benefits?”. These questions led to the development of our “goal pyramid” (Fig. 1 ), which outlines various healthcare goals that wearable data can support. These goals range from low-effort (bottom of the pyramid), to high-effort, yet clinically more informative, goals (top of the pyramid). For example, prediction studies might require longer follow-up times, larger sample sizes, and additional data for prediction model validation. Overall, the “goal pyramid” is a useful tool to facilitate discussions with healthcare professionals about study designs and for clarifying technology’s role in achieving health outcomes, along with the associated efforts.

Goal versus effort pyramid to inform the role of wearable sensors in achieving research goals.

Study execution

Not all study execution challenges can be anticipated during the design phase. For example, BarKA-MS offered comprehensive participant support, which resulted in high study compliance. However, we recognize that this approach is likely not an option for studies with larger samples. Overall, our experiences, based also on feedback from clinical staff, point to a trade-off between collecting high-quality and near-complete data while optimizing participant burden and maintaining high compliance. The following two lessons reflect our experiences during study execution.

Lesson 4: Combining passive monitoring with actively collected data

BarKA-MS taught us that the combination of wearable sensor data with other data types (e.g., clinical, physiological, or patent-reported data) may enhance the accuracy of digital biomarker development. Rationales for collecting additional data types may include sensor validation, multivariable predictions of health outcomes, or stratification through subgroup analyses. In BarKA-MS, we deliberately used commercial wearables not specifically designed for use by PwMS. To enhance and contextualize the rather generic wearable sensor data, we collected patient-reported symptoms, frequency of physical activity, and its associated barriers, along with free-text feedback on wearable use and acceptability. In BarKA-MS, assessing this combination of passively and actively collected data was a crucial first step in exploring possible digital biomarkers of barriers to physical activity in the context of shifts in fatigue and mobility 26 . However, previous examples have also demonstrated that active data collection, such as through surveys, carries a risk of drop-outs or non-compliance 36 that may be higher than in studies with only passive data collection (e.g., wearables). Although a recent scoping review 4 was unable to identify clear associations of participant burden due to active data collection, this aspect should be carefully monitored and possibly adjusted during the study.

Lesson 5: Maintaining and supporting participant compliance

Data completeness and participant compliance are particularly relevant, especially for studies that are conducted remotely. A key initial consideration for digital health studies is ensuring that participants are representative of the study’s target population, including relevant underrepresented groups 37 . This may require targeted recruiting efforts, as well as possible contextual and cultural adaptations of the study design 38 . In BarKA-MS and a follow-up study 23 , efforts were taken to enhance the diversity of the study population in terms of age and gender by providing participant onboarding and technical support during follow-up. Participants also provided weekly feedback about their experience with and usability of the Fitbit. Problems were either addressed by the clinical staff at the rehabilitation clinic or the two involved researchers. For example, when participants encountered technical issues with their Fitbit, researchers promptly scheduled phone calls to resolve the problems 23 , 24 . As shown by an internal assessment of support logs, these measures helped retain older or more impaired study participants with higher MS symptom burden 24 . BarKA-MS achieved high study compliance but also required considerable efforts to actively monitor data collection (e.g., frequent personal reminders from the researchers). Missing data and dropouts are also inevitable. Declining participant motivation or health, inconvenient timing, or burdensome data collection can all contribute to low compliance and missing data. In BarKA-MS, declining health often demotivated participants who preferred not to receive physical activity reminders, as these highlighted their physical limitations. This further illustrates that challenges may emerge and even multiply over longer observation periods, underscoring the need for continuous participant support.

Data analysis

For BarKA-MS, we focused the data analysis on: (1) time series assessments of wearable sensor data for recurring patterns within/between PwMS, and (2) descriptive analyses to explore physical activity barriers for PwMS. To better visualize and assess these results, we conducted an unpublished sub-study in collaboration with experts in IVDA. These were then discussed with IVDA experts and healthcare professionals to better understand the present data quality and analytical challenges, and contribute to the formulation of new hypotheses. The following lessons reflect these experiences.

Lesson 6: Defining appropriate data aggregation level

Wearable sensors collect data at different time scales. For example, step count, time spent in active physical activity, and heart rate are available at the minute level, while resting heart rate, which is measured at nighttime, is only available as a single daily value. Finding the most appropriate temporal aggregation level depends on the expected timeframe needed to observe an effect in the outcome of interest (lesson 2), as well as mitigating redundancy and low data resolution 39 , or ensuring that outcome measures comply with those relevant in clinical settings 40 . In BarKA-MS, we collaborated with healthcare professionals to create interactive visualizations from the study’s sensor data. These experiences highlighted that daily aggregations were meaningful for most parameters to develop informative composite measures, but longer-term assessments might benefit from weekly or even monthly data aggregations, with the option to switch between aggregation levels. Further considerations include whether data aggregation can help with managing high volumes of data. Data aggregation can help with reducing information overload, which can help healthcare professionals and patients understand the data and its signals more easily. In BarKA-MS, we followed a user-centered design methodology to co-design sensor data visualizations together with healthcare professionals, to facilitate informed decision-making based on meaningful data signals. The resulting data visualizations also revealed useful for guiding researchers in analyzing BarKA-MS data.

Lesson 7: Contextualizing sensor measurements

In BarKA-MS, the main challenge of developing digital biomarkers was the contextualization of our data. A common issue was distinguishing between patterns in physical activity due to exercise or unrelated activities, such as knitting or playing the piano. This was highlighted in a BarKA-MS analysis that revealed weak correlations between different sensor measurements in a real-world setting 25 , echoing similar reported difficulties in the scientific literature 41 , 42 , 43 . Another challenge involved connecting irregular patterns of activity or inactivity with individual or group-level factors that influence motivation. For example, among PwMS there is a high prevalence of fatigue (affecting over 70% of PwMS 44 ), which may demotivate them from exercising, as observed in a BarKA-MS analysis revealing a positive correlation between levels of fatigue and barriers to physical activity 26 . Individual-level visualization of the data with healthcare professionals as part of BarKA-MS highlighted the need for contextual information related or unrelated to sensor measurements to help identify patterns of interest for individual participants 45 . For example, visualizations of physical activity and sleep data from BarKA-MS suggested cyclical within-person patterns, such as higher physical activity on weekends. In BarKA-MS, we also used weather condition data to assess whether deviations in activities could be contextualized to other, external influencing factors. Knowledge about the temporal occurrence of such factors may overall help to better interpret sensor measurement data.

Lesson 8: Discerning signal from noise

Filtering out “noise”, or signals in the data collection that are of low value and are not indicative of the presence of an actual signal 46 , within sensor data is a key, yet challenging task. Building on lesson 7, contextual data, such as weather patterns, can help distinguish between trivial explanations for patterns, or nuisance parameters, and the actual patterns of interest to the study 47 . For example, by applying interactive visualizations to our BarKA-MS data we observed differences in step counts or sleep patterns between weekdays or weekends. In some individuals, healthcare professionals also noticed distinct within-day patterns, such as reduced activity in afternoons, which they identified as possible signs of fatigue, a common symptom in PwMS. Another approach is to build a time series model that includes these noise parameters to predict expected sensor measurements. This de-noising approach involves gathering and analyzing data from nuisance variables that introduce noise, such as daily routines, weather and calendar data, alongside sensor measurements. The inclusion of such nuisance variables, if they are indeed associated with the outcome, has the potential to decrease noise. Ideally, the identification of variables required for “de-noising” should be considered at the study planning stage.

Data interpretation

The data interpretation phase is linked with the analysis phase, however, focuses more on the contextual interpretation of results. For BarKA-MS, visual data analytics and discussions with healthcare professionals played a key role. We derived the following two lessons.

Lesson 9: Choosing internal and external benchmarks

Digital biomarkers should ideally be characterized by clear norm ranges. However, it is difficult to develop universal norms, as observed with healthy individuals occasionally having laboratory values outside the norm, or the other way around. Data interpretation is further challenged by possible systematic measurement inaccuracies, such as those from Light Emission Diode-based wearable devices that may be less accurate for people of color 42 , 48 , or datasets omitting underrepresented groups 49 , which can contribute to biased benchmarks. Considering these challenges, digital biomarker studies should focus on inter-individual changes rather than absolute benchmarks 50 , 51 . In BarKA-MS, physical activity level digital biomarkers were informed by internal and external benchmarks. Internal benchmarks were derived to assess if individual PwMS exhibited certain patterns that occurred more frequently than expected, considering a normal distribution. External benchmarks were obtained directly from the wearables, using calculated measures of e.g., physical activity intensity, such as the amount of time spent in light, moderate, or vigorous physical activity 25 . These measures served as digital biomarkers for low or high levels of physical activity. For such metrics in chronic disease populations, such as MS, personal contexts play an important role. This underlines the need for studies on chronic disease populations to assess changes in intra-individual norms and, ideally, health status assessments from clinicians to develop meaningful digital biomarkers.

Lesson 10: Deriving clear actions

For digital biomarkers to be of clinical value, they should be linked to an action plan. Such an action plan may include defining the rules that confirm digital biomarker deviations (e.g., outside-norm signals in two subsequent weeks), monitoring frequently, and adjusting intervention delivery (e.g., motivational phone call to participant). Building on lesson 3, such action plans should be aligned with the overall goal of the study and the role of wearables, as illustrated by the “goal pyramid” (Fig. 1 ). For BarKA-MS, the interactive data visualizations and discussions with healthcare professionals revealed important preconditions for reacting to digital biomarker changes. For example, healthcare professionals stated that such processes should be compatible with existing workflows to avoid additional burden to clinical staff and healthcare professionals themselves, or that technical support for both patients and clinical staff should be made available 23 . A follow-up study explored these topics using the normalization process theory framework, focusing on how healthcare professionals and patients can collaborate effectively in remote activity tracking for rehabilitation aftercare 23 .

The DACIA framework to inform planning of wearable sensor data use in healthcare research, management and teaching

Drawing on identified patterns and themes from the ten lessons from BarKA-MS, observations from a follow-up study 23 , and feedback received when used in the course “Digital Health in Practice” for medical students at the University of Zurich, we developed the DACIA framework. This framework is based on the notion that digital biomarker development is informed by: (1) d ata, (2) a ggregation, (3) c ontextualization, (4) i nterpretation, and (5) a ctions (Fig. 2 ). These constructs aim to guide future early-stage research on wearable sensor-based digital biomarker development and are scalable to larger studies. The DACIA framework also serves as an interactive teaching tool for medical students to plan and execute a hands-on wearable sensor data collection and analysis for a mock digital health intervention.

DACIA framework constructs and feedback loops.

In this section, we present the five DACIA constructs along with examples for guiding questions to inform study planning (Table 1 ), which can also be used to support teaching. We then present data loops among the DACIA constructs, depicted by the orange box, to illustrate the iterative and flexible aspects of digital biomarker development. To provide further context on DACIA’s applicability to a study, we apply the constructs of the framework to BarKA-MS (Supplementary Table 2 ).

Feedback loops in the DACIA framework (orange box, informed by lessons 4, 7, 8, and 10)

During BarKA-MS, we regularly collected user feedback on the study and device acceptability in free-text fields. User studies were also conducted to identify healthcare professionals’ needs for data visualizations and considerations for appropriate data interpretation. This feedback was useful for study improvements. Therefore, since critical aspects for the study’s success may only surface during study conduct (e.g., through interim analyses or user feedback), we recommend that wearable sensor studies be adaptable to such feedback and evolving data requirements. This is visualized by the orange box in Fig. 2 .

Regularly engaging participants through user feedback, e.g., as part of a weekly survey or after a data collection task has been completed, may also be beneficial for overall study compliance. In response to the feedback, researchers can promptly respond and provide motivational or technical support. The involved researchers can also keep support logs to record technical and non-technical issues that require further communication with participants. Considering participant burden, researchers should also assess the usefulness of individual data items during data collection, discarding those irrelevant to the study’s goals to reduce unnecessary burden. Researchers can also reduce burden by collecting data less frequently or re-using existing information, for example through linkage with clinical data.

Regular communication with study participants and healthcare professionals may also be useful for the interpretation of detected digital biomarker signals. Studies can explore implementing automated feedback loops to share deviating digital biomarker signals with study participants and healthcare professionals, gathering valuable data for process improvement or supervised machine learning models. These models should be critically assessed to ensure algorithmic fairness based on a diverse study population, to ensure that they are externally valid in other clinical settings and do not exclude underrepresented groups. Reviewing model results and predictions directly with involved stakeholders and diverse patient groups can help identify potential issues. Importantly, algorithms and digital biomarkers should also undergo external validation with independent patient populations before use in healthcare and clinical practice.

Our paper provides key lessons learned from the BarKA-MS study program for the use of wearable sensor data for digital biomarker development. Based on these, we propose the DACIA framework, which aims to guide and inform future research and support teaching curricula on digital health interventions. The framework is easily applicable to studies across various chronic conditions, in both observational as well as interventional study designs.

The DACIA framework in the context of current guidance

In light of current guidelines, the DACIA framework provides interdisciplinary guidance on how to use wearable sensor data for digital biomarker development. Our work can be seen as complementary to other frameworks. The Framework for Meaningful Measurement by Manta et al. 52 , for example, provides a sequential list of data collection-related considerations to evaluate the meaningfulness of sensor signals. The Digital Biomarker Discovery Pipeline from Bent et al. 53 , goes a step further and focuses more specifically on aligning study goals with the collected data and different types of analyses. Guidance from Coravos et al. 9 rather focuses on the variability in types of sensor technologies, digital biomarkers and their clinical relevance. Combined with high-level guidance from the FDA 15 and Digital Medicine Society 16 , 17 , the DACIA framework provides a more comprehensive approach for planning and conducting research with wearable sensors to develop digital biomarkers that places focus on involving relevant stakeholders in each key step of DACIA in an iterative manner. This is especially of relevance in the action construct of the framework, going beyond digital biomarker development guidelines into meaningfully applying and assessing them along with relevant stakeholders in clinical practice. Furthermore, the DACIA framework places a more participant-centric approach that focuses on reducing their burden through support and continuous feedback. Overall, the DACIA framework complements existing guidance by focusing on participant needs as a crucial factor for study success, making it relevant for both short and long-duration studies.

Implication for future studies

The DACIA framework fills an important gap by placing a stronger focus on the interdisciplinary and iterative planning, analysis and interpretation of wearable sensor data, to enhance the clinical relevance of future research in wearable sensor-based digital biomarker development. In particular, DACIA helps to assign the relevant responsibilities and clarify data requirements for assessing study outcomes and measurement contexts. It also underlines the importance of necessary measurement frequency to support relevant actions, such as by collecting user feedback and adapting the delivery of the study tasks based on this feedback in real-time, or regularly communicating with stakeholders to interpret and react to detected digital biomarker signals. While initially designed for the development of digital biomarkers from wearable sensors that measure physical activity, the DACIA framework can be applied to explore digital biomarkers using various devices or signal measurements, including for digital health interventions focused on behavior change.

An important consideration when implementing the DACIA framework in research studies is its applicability to larger study samples. BarKA-MS included 45 participants who received consistent support from the clinical staff and researchers to ensure completion of both the in-person and remote study components. The combination of a smaller sample size and the continuous support enabled higher personalization. However, we recognize that such approaches may not be directly applicable to larger studies or studies with limited resources. In the orange feedback loop of the DACIA framework, we propose approaches to streamline and automate certain study steps to reduce reliance on clinical staff and researchers. We also recommend referring to additional guidance documents 9 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 52 , 53 and implementation science theories, such as the normalization process theory 54 , to further inform design actions that align smoothly with healthcare workflows, meet stakeholder needs, and utilize available resources efficiently.

Strengths and limitations

This paper presents some limitations. The ten lessons are primarily derived from a single study program, which includes four published outcome analyses and a subsequent follow-up study, resulting in a relatively constrained experience base from a limited range of devices and data collection methods relevant to BarKA-MS. Moreover, the participant pool in BarKA-MS is limited to individuals with more advanced stages of MS, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings to those living with other chronic diseases.

It is also important to note that the individual steps of the DACIA framework may not hold the same significance for certain applications and studies, particularly those that do not involve interventions. While we believe the DACIA framework adequately addresses important study design and conduct decisions relevant for digital biomarker development, we cannot rule out the possibility that certain studies may demand additional considerations beyond the scope of the framework. Therefore, further refinements and real-world testing are advisable.

Nevertheless, the DACIA framework builds on substantial research, data from wearable sensors and valid survey instruments, practical experience in conducting various digital health studies that use sensor measurements from wearables, and teaching experience with medical students. As such, we consider the framework to be well-grounded and reflective of real-world challenges in such studies, which can be informative for future research and teaching.

Overall, this paper outlines a set of important lessons learned for transforming wearable sensor data to digital biomarkers. The DACIA framework was developed as a crosscut between the lessons learned, which were summarized into five key steps of digital biomarker development and adapted based on student feedback. It highlights important elements to be considered when using wearable sensor data as digital biomarkers and provides practical guidance for future research and teaching. Our findings are applicable beyond MS and aim to inform any related digital health study for chronic disease management. As the popularity and use of wearables continuous to grow, our work provides an important first step towards the systematic and transparent development of meaningful digital biomarkers.

Data availability

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

Steinhubl, S. R., Muse, E. D. & Topol, E. J. Can mobile health technologies transform health care? JAMA 310 , 2395–2396 (2013).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cilli, E., Ranieri, J., Guerra, F., Ferri, C. & Di Giacomo, D. Naturalizing digital and quality of life in chronic diseases: systematic review to research perspective into technological advancing and personalized medicine. Digit. Health 8 , 20552076221144857 (2022).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bonato, P. Advances in wearable technology and its medical applications. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. Annu. Int. Conf . 2010 , 2021–2024 (2010).

Daniore, P., Nittas, V. & von Wyl, V. Enrollment and retention of participants in remote digital health studies: scoping review and framework proposal. J. Med. Internet Res. 24 , e39910 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lu, L. et al. Wearable health devices in health care: narrative systematic review. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 8 , e18907 (2020).

Stern, A. D. et al. Advancing digital health applications: priorities for innovation in real-world evidence generation. Lancet Digit. Health 4 , e200–e206 (2022).

Vasudevan, S., Saha, A., Tarver, M. E. & Patel, B. Digital biomarkers: convergence of digital health technologies and biomarkers. Npj Digit Med. 5 , 1–3 (2022).

Article   Google Scholar  

Jones, M. & Johnston, D. Understanding phenomena in the real world: the case for real time data collection in health services research. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 16 , 172–176 (2011).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Coravos, A., Khozin, S. & Mandl, K. D. Developing and adopting safe and effective digital biomarkers to improve patient outcomes. Npj Digit Med. 2 , 1–5 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Motahari-Nezhad, H. et al. Digital biomarker–based studies: scoping review of systematic reviews. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 10 , e35722 (2022).

Dillenseger, A. et al. Digital biomarkers in multiple sclerosis. Brain Sci. 11 , 1519 (2021).

Wortley, D., An, J. Y. & Nigg, C. Wearable technologies, health and well-being: a case review. Digit Med. 3 , 11 (2017).

Goldsack, J. C., Dowling, A. V., Samuelson, D., Patrick-Lake, B. & Clay, I. Evaluation, acceptance, and qualification of digital measures: from proof of concept to endpoint. Digit Biomark. 5 , 53–64 (2021).

Dunn, J. et al. Wearable sensors enable personalized predictions of clinical laboratory measurements. Nat. Med. 27 , 1105–1112 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Digital Health Technologies for Remote Data Acquisition in Clinical Investigations. Published (2023). Accessed January 14, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/digital-health-technologies-remote-data-acquisition-clinical-investigations .

Goldsack, J. C. et al. Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3): the foundation of determining fit-for-purpose for Biometric Monitoring Technologies (BioMeTs). Npj Digit Med. 3 , 1–15 (2020).

General Practice and the Community: Research on health service, quality improvements and training. Selected abstracts from the EGPRN Meeting in Vigo, Spain, 17–20 October 2019. Eur. J. Gen. Pract . 26 , 42–50 (2020).

Polhemus, A. et al. Methodological heterogeneity biases physical activity metrics derived from the Actigraph GT3X in multiple sclerosis: A rapid review and comparative study. Front Rehabil. Sci . 3 (2022). Accessed August 29, 2023. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fresc.2022.989658 .

Borges do Nascimento, I. J. et al. Barriers and facilitators to utilizing digital health technologies by healthcare professionals. Npj Digit Med. 6 , 1–28 (2023).

Kaufmann, M. et al. A framework for estimating the burden of chronic diseases: design and application in the context of multiple sclerosis. Front. Neurol . 10 (2019). Accessed October 4, 2023. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2019.00953 .

Reich, D. S., Lucchinetti, C. F. & Calabresi, P. A. Multiple sclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 378 , 169–180 (2018).

von Wyl, V. Barriers to Physical Activity in People With MS (Barrieren Für Körperliche Aktivität Bei MS-Betroffenen - BarKA-MS) - A Longitudinal Observational Study. clinicaltrials.gov; 2021 . Accessed February 26, 2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04746807 .

Lu, Z. et al. Implementation of remote activity sensing to support a rehabilitation aftercare program: observational mixed methods study with patients and health care professionals. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 11 , e50729 (2023).

Sieber, C. et al. Feasibility and scalability of a fitness tracker study: Results from a longitudinal analysis of persons with multiple sclerosis. Front Digit. Health 5 , 1006932 (2023).

Polhemus, A. et al. Non-equivalent, but still valid: establishing the construct validity of a consumer fitness tracker in persons with multiple sclerosis. PLOS Digit Health 2 , e0000171 (2023).

Sieber, C. et al. Exploring the major barriers to physical activity in persons with multiple sclerosis: observational longitudinal study. JMIR Rehabil. Assist Technol. 11 , e52733 (2024).

Fitabase - Research Device Data and Analytics. Accessed August 30, 2023. https://www.fitabase.com/ .

Fitbit Inspire 2 manual. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://help.fitbit.com/manuals/manual_inspire_2_en_US.pdf .

Koch-Henriksen, N. & Sørensen, P. S. The changing demographic pattern of multiple sclerosis epidemiology. Lancet Neurol. 9 , 520–532 (2010).

Moore, P. et al. Demographic and clinical factors associated with changes in employment in multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. J. 19 , 1647–1654 (2013).

Andersson, P. B., Waubant, E., Gee, L. & Goodkin, D. E. Multiple sclerosis that is progressive from the time of onset: clinical characteristics and progression of disability. Arch. Neurol. 56 , 1138–1142 (1999).

Kayes, N. M. et al. Exploring the facilitators and barriers to engagement in physical activity for people with multiple sclerosis. Disabil. Rehabil. 33 , 1043–1053 (2011).

McGuigan, C. & Hutchinson, M. Confirming the validity and responsiveness of the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12). Neurology 62 , 2103–2105 (2004).

Penner, I. et al. The Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (FSMC): validation of a new instrument to assess multiple sclerosis-related fatigue. Mult. Scler. J. 15 , 1509–1517 (2009).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hobart, J., Lamping, D., Fitzpatrick, R., Riazi, A. & Thompson, A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 124 , 962–973 (2001).

Perez, M. V. et al. Large-scale assessment of a smartwatch to identify atrial fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 381 , 1909–1917 (2019).

Daniore, P., Nittas, V., Gille, F. & von Wyl, V. Promoting participation in remote digital health studies: an expert interview study. Digit Health 9 , 20552076231212063 (2023).

Nittas, V., Daniore, P., Chavez, S. J. & Wray, T. B. Challenges in implementing cultural adaptations of digital health interventions. Commun. Med. 4 , 1–5 (2024).

Meng, Y. et al. A machine learning approach to classifying self-reported health status in a cohort of patients with heart disease using activity tracker data. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 24 , 878–884 (2020).

Liang, Z. & Chapa-Martell, M. A. Accuracy of Fitbit wristbands in measuring sleep stage transitions and the effect of user-specific factors. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 7 , e13384 (2019).

Mikkelsen, M. L. K. et al. Estimating physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a free-living environment: a comparative study between Fitbit Charge 2 and Actigraph GT3X. PLOS One. 15 , e0234426 (2020).

Shcherbina, A. et al. Accuracy in wrist-worn, sensor-based measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure in a diverse cohort. J. Pers. Med. 7 , 3 (2017).

Shin, G. D. Investigating the impact of daily life context on physical activity in terms of steps information generated by wearable activity tracker. Int. J. Med Inf. 141 , 104222 (2020).

Oliva Ramirez, A. et al. Prevalence and burden of multiple sclerosis-related fatigue: a systematic literature review. BMC Neurol. 21 , 468 (2021).

Li, I. Personal informatics & context: Using context to reveal factors that affect behavior. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ. 4 , 71–72 (2012).

Dobson, R. et al. Use of consumer wearables in health research: issues and considerations. J. Med Internet Res. 25 , e52444 (2023).

Lederer, L. et al. The importance of data quality control in using Fitbit device data from the All of us research program. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 11 , e45103 (2023).

Fallow, B. A., Tarumi, T. & Tanaka, H. Influence of skin type and wavelength on light wave reflectance. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 27 , 313–317 (2013).

Hicks, J. L. et al. Best practices for analyzing large-scale health data from wearables and smartphone apps. Npj Digit Med. 2 , 1–12 (2019).

Huckvale, K., Venkatesh, S. & Christensen, H. Toward clinical digital phenotyping: a timely opportunity to consider purpose, quality, and safety. Npj Digit Med. 2 , 88 (2019).

Voigt, I. et al. Digital twins for multiple sclerosis. Front Immunol . 12 , (2021). Accessed November 1, 2023. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.669811 .

Manta, C., Patrick-Lake, B. & Goldsack, J. C. Digital measures that matter to patients: a framework to guide the selection and development of digital measures of health. Digit Biomark. 4 , 69–77 (2020).

Bent, B. et al. The digital biomarker discovery pipeline: an open-source software platform for the development of digital biomarkers using mHealth and wearables data. J. Clin. Transl. Sci. 5 , e19 (2021).

May, C. R. et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci. 4 , 29 (2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank the participants in the Barrieren für körperliche Aktivität bei Multiple Sklerosis-Betroffenen (Barriers to Physical Activity in People With Multiple Sclerosis) study who dedicated their time to support multiple sclerosis research. The authors also thank Ramona Sylvester and Dr. Jan Kool for their invaluable feedback from their on-site experiences with the BarKA-MS study. The authors also thank the researchers who conducted all the studies that informed this paper, including Dr. Chloé Sieber, Dr. Ziyuan Lu, Yves Rutishauser and Gabriela Morgenshtern. Lastly, the authors thank Dr. Sarah Haile and Andreas Baumer for their assistance with the revision of the previous version of this paper. This study was funded by the Digital Society Initiative.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Paola Daniore, Christina Haag & Viktor von Wyl

Digital Society Initiative, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Paola Daniore, Jürgen Bernard & Viktor von Wyl

Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University, Providence, USA

Vasileios Nittas

Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Vasileios Nittas, Christina Haag & Viktor von Wyl

Department of Computer Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Jürgen Bernard

Valens Rehabilitation Centre, Valens, Switzerland

Roman Gonzenbach

Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), Zurich, Switzerland

Viktor von Wyl

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

V.V.W. and P.D. conceptualized and wrote the first version of this paper, and revised the final version of this paper. V.V.W. additionally provided relevant input and feedback that informed the content of this paper. V.N. assisted with the conceptualization of the first version of this paper, and revised and approved the final version of this paper. V.V.W., C.H., and R.G. conducted the BarKA-MS study that informed this paper. C.H., J.B., and R.G. provided relevant input and feedback that informed the content of this paper, and revised and approved the final version of this paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viktor von Wyl .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplemental material, 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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Daniore, P., Nittas, V., Haag, C. et al. From wearable sensor data to digital biomarker development: ten lessons learned and a framework proposal. npj Digit. Med. 7 , 161 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01151-3

Download citation

Received : 02 November 2023

Accepted : 29 May 2024

Published : 18 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01151-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

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

Watch CBS News

L.A. board votes to ban students from using cell phones during the school day