objective of study in research methodology

• Open access
• Published: 07 September 2020

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

• Lawrence Mbuagbaw   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5855-5461 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Daeria O. Lawson 1 ,
• Livia Puljak 4 ,
• David B. Allison 5 &
• Lehana Thabane 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  20 , Article number:  226 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

38k Accesses

53 Citations

58 Altmetric

Metrics details

Methodological studies – studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports – play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a “frequently asked questions” format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

Peer Review reports

The field of meta-research (or research-on-research) has proliferated in recent years in response to issues with research quality and conduct [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. As the name suggests, this field targets issues with research design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Various types of research reports are often examined as the unit of analysis in these studies (e.g. abstracts, full manuscripts, trial registry entries). Like many other novel fields of research, meta-research has seen a proliferation of use before the development of reporting guidance. For example, this was the case with randomized trials for which risk of bias tools and reporting guidelines were only developed much later – after many trials had been published and noted to have limitations [ 4 , 5 ]; and for systematic reviews as well [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, studies that report on research differ substantially in how they are named, conducted and reported [ 9 , 10 ]. This creates challenges in identifying, summarizing and comparing them. In this tutorial paper, we will use the term methodological study to refer to any study that reports on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary or secondary research-related reports (such as trial registry entries and conference abstracts).

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of terms related to methodological studies (based on records retrieved with a keyword search [in the title and abstract] for “methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study” in PubMed up to December 2019), suggesting that these studies may be appearing more frequently in the literature. See Fig.  1 .

Trends in the number studies that mention “methodological review” or “meta-

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

The methods used in many methodological studies have been borrowed from systematic and scoping reviews. This practice has influenced the direction of the field, with many methodological studies including searches of electronic databases, screening of records, duplicate data extraction and assessments of risk of bias in the included studies. However, the research questions posed in methodological studies do not always require the approaches listed above, and guidance is needed on when and how to apply these methods to a methodological study. Even though methodological studies can be conducted on qualitative or mixed methods research, this paper focuses on and draws examples exclusively from quantitative research.

The objectives of this paper are to provide some insights on how to conduct methodological studies so that there is greater consistency between the research questions posed, and the design, analysis and reporting of findings. We provide multiple examples to illustrate concepts and a proposed framework for categorizing methodological studies in quantitative research.

What is a methodological study?

Any study that describes or analyzes methods (design, conduct, analysis or reporting) in published (or unpublished) literature is a methodological study. Consequently, the scope of methodological studies is quite extensive and includes, but is not limited to, topics as diverse as: research question formulation [ 11 ]; adherence to reporting guidelines [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] and consistency in reporting [ 15 ]; approaches to study analysis [ 16 ]; investigating the credibility of analyses [ 17 ]; and studies that synthesize these methodological studies [ 18 ]. While the nomenclature of methodological studies is not uniform, the intents and purposes of these studies remain fairly consistent – to describe or analyze methods in primary or secondary studies. As such, methodological studies may also be classified as a subtype of observational studies.

Parallel to this are experimental studies that compare different methods. Even though they play an important role in informing optimal research methods, experimental methodological studies are beyond the scope of this paper. Examples of such studies include the randomized trials by Buscemi et al., comparing single data extraction to double data extraction [ 19 ], and Carrasco-Labra et al., comparing approaches to presenting findings in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) summary of findings tables [ 20 ]. In these studies, the unit of analysis is the person or groups of individuals applying the methods. We also direct readers to the Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) and Studies Within a Review (SWAR) programme operated through the Hub for Trials Methodology Research, for further reading as a potential useful resource for these types of experimental studies [ 21 ]. Lastly, this paper is not meant to inform the conduct of research using computational simulation and mathematical modeling for which some guidance already exists [ 22 ], or studies on the development of methods using consensus-based approaches.

When should we conduct a methodological study?

Methodological studies occupy a unique niche in health research that allows them to inform methodological advances. Methodological studies should also be conducted as pre-cursors to reporting guideline development, as they provide an opportunity to understand current practices, and help to identify the need for guidance and gaps in methodological or reporting quality. For example, the development of the popular Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were preceded by methodological studies identifying poor reporting practices [ 23 , 24 ]. In these instances, after the reporting guidelines are published, methodological studies can also be used to monitor uptake of the guidelines.

These studies can also be conducted to inform the state of the art for design, analysis and reporting practices across different types of health research fields, with the aim of improving research practices, and preventing or reducing research waste. For example, Samaan et al. conducted a scoping review of adherence to different reporting guidelines in health care literature [ 18 ]. Methodological studies can also be used to determine the factors associated with reporting practices. For example, Abbade et al. investigated journal characteristics associated with the use of the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (PICOT) format in framing research questions in trials of venous ulcer disease [ 11 ].

How often are methodological studies conducted?

There is no clear answer to this question. Based on a search of PubMed, the use of related terms (“methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study”) – and therefore, the number of methodological studies – is on the rise. However, many other terms are used to describe methodological studies. There are also many studies that explore design, conduct, analysis or reporting of research reports, but that do not use any specific terms to describe or label their study design in terms of “methodology”. This diversity in nomenclature makes a census of methodological studies elusive. Appropriate terminology and key words for methodological studies are needed to facilitate improved accessibility for end-users.

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

Methodological studies provide information on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary and secondary research and can be used to appraise quality, quantity, completeness, accuracy and consistency of health research. These issues can be explored in specific fields, journals, databases, geographical regions and time periods. For example, Areia et al. explored the quality of reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastroenterology [ 25 ]; Knol et al. investigated the reporting of p -values in baseline tables in randomized trial published in high impact journals [ 26 ]; Chen et al. describe adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in Chinese Journals [ 27 ]; and Hopewell et al. describe the effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on reporting of abstracts over time [ 28 ]. Methodological studies provide useful information to researchers, clinicians, editors, publishers and users of health literature. As a result, these studies have been at the cornerstone of important methodological developments in the past two decades and have informed the development of many health research guidelines including the highly cited CONSORT statement [ 5 ].

Where can we find methodological studies?

Methodological studies can be found in most common biomedical bibliographic databases (e.g. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science). However, the biggest caveat is that methodological studies are hard to identify in the literature due to the wide variety of names used and the lack of comprehensive databases dedicated to them. A handful can be found in the Cochrane Library as “Cochrane Methodology Reviews”, but these studies only cover methodological issues related to systematic reviews. Previous attempts to catalogue all empirical studies of methods used in reviews were abandoned 10 years ago [ 29 ]. In other databases, a variety of search terms may be applied with different levels of sensitivity and specificity.

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

In this section, we have outlined responses to questions that might help inform the conduct of methodological studies.

Q: How should I select research reports for my methodological study?

A: Selection of research reports for a methodological study depends on the research question and eligibility criteria. Once a clear research question is set and the nature of literature one desires to review is known, one can then begin the selection process. Selection may begin with a broad search, especially if the eligibility criteria are not apparent. For example, a methodological study of Cochrane Reviews of HIV would not require a complex search as all eligible studies can easily be retrieved from the Cochrane Library after checking a few boxes [ 30 ]. On the other hand, a methodological study of subgroup analyses in trials of gastrointestinal oncology would require a search to find such trials, and further screening to identify trials that conducted a subgroup analysis [ 31 ].

The strategies used for identifying participants in observational studies can apply here. One may use a systematic search to identify all eligible studies. If the number of eligible studies is unmanageable, a random sample of articles can be expected to provide comparable results if it is sufficiently large [ 32 ]. For example, Wilson et al. used a random sample of trials from the Cochrane Stroke Group’s Trial Register to investigate completeness of reporting [ 33 ]. It is possible that a simple random sample would lead to underrepresentation of units (i.e. research reports) that are smaller in number. This is relevant if the investigators wish to compare multiple groups but have too few units in one group. In this case a stratified sample would help to create equal groups. For example, in a methodological study comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, Kahale et al. drew random samples from both groups [ 34 ]. Alternatively, systematic or purposeful sampling strategies can be used and we encourage researchers to justify their selected approaches based on the study objective.

Q: How many databases should I search?

A: The number of databases one should search would depend on the approach to sampling, which can include targeting the entire “population” of interest or a sample of that population. If you are interested in including the entire target population for your research question, or drawing a random or systematic sample from it, then a comprehensive and exhaustive search for relevant articles is required. In this case, we recommend using systematic approaches for searching electronic databases (i.e. at least 2 databases with a replicable and time stamped search strategy). The results of your search will constitute a sampling frame from which eligible studies can be drawn.

Alternatively, if your approach to sampling is purposeful, then we recommend targeting the database(s) or data sources (e.g. journals, registries) that include the information you need. For example, if you are conducting a methodological study of high impact journals in plastic surgery and they are all indexed in PubMed, you likely do not need to search any other databases. You may also have a comprehensive list of all journals of interest and can approach your search using the journal names in your database search (or by accessing the journal archives directly from the journal’s website). Even though one could also search journals’ web pages directly, using a database such as PubMed has multiple advantages, such as the use of filters, so the search can be narrowed down to a certain period, or study types of interest. Furthermore, individual journals’ web sites may have different search functionalities, which do not necessarily yield a consistent output.

Q: Should I publish a protocol for my methodological study?

A: A protocol is a description of intended research methods. Currently, only protocols for clinical trials require registration [ 35 ]. Protocols for systematic reviews are encouraged but no formal recommendation exists. The scientific community welcomes the publication of protocols because they help protect against selective outcome reporting, the use of post hoc methodologies to embellish results, and to help avoid duplication of efforts [ 36 ]. While the latter two risks exist in methodological research, the negative consequences may be substantially less than for clinical outcomes. In a sample of 31 methodological studies, 7 (22.6%) referenced a published protocol [ 9 ]. In the Cochrane Library, there are 15 protocols for methodological reviews (21 July 2020). This suggests that publishing protocols for methodological studies is not uncommon.

Authors can consider publishing their study protocol in a scholarly journal as a manuscript. Advantages of such publication include obtaining peer-review feedback about the planned study, and easy retrieval by searching databases such as PubMed. The disadvantages in trying to publish protocols includes delays associated with manuscript handling and peer review, as well as costs, as few journals publish study protocols, and those journals mostly charge article-processing fees [ 37 ]. Authors who would like to make their protocol publicly available without publishing it in scholarly journals, could deposit their study protocols in publicly available repositories, such as the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ ).

Q: How to appraise the quality of a methodological study?

A: To date, there is no published tool for appraising the risk of bias in a methodological study, but in principle, a methodological study could be considered as a type of observational study. Therefore, during conduct or appraisal, care should be taken to avoid the biases common in observational studies [ 38 ]. These biases include selection bias, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of exposure or outcome. In other words, to generate a representative sample, a comprehensive reproducible search may be necessary to build a sampling frame. Additionally, random sampling may be necessary to ensure that all the included research reports have the same probability of being selected, and the screening and selection processes should be transparent and reproducible. To ensure that the groups compared are similar in all characteristics, matching, random sampling or stratified sampling can be used. Statistical adjustments for between-group differences can also be applied at the analysis stage. Finally, duplicate data extraction can reduce errors in assessment of exposures or outcomes.

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

A: In all instances where one is not using the target population (i.e. the group to which inferences from the research report are directed) [ 39 ], a sample size justification is good practice. The sample size justification may take the form of a description of what is expected to be achieved with the number of articles selected, or a formal sample size estimation that outlines the number of articles required to answer the research question with a certain precision and power. Sample size justifications in methodological studies are reasonable in the following instances:

Comparing two groups

Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier

Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

For example, El Dib et al. computed a sample size requirement for a methodological study of diagnostic strategies in randomized trials, based on a confidence interval approach [ 40 ].

Q: What should I call my study?

A: Other terms which have been used to describe/label methodological studies include “ methodological review ”, “methodological survey” , “meta-epidemiological study” , “systematic review” , “systematic survey”, “meta-research”, “research-on-research” and many others. We recommend that the study nomenclature be clear, unambiguous, informative and allow for appropriate indexing. Methodological study nomenclature that should be avoided includes “ systematic review” – as this will likely be confused with a systematic review of a clinical question. “ Systematic survey” may also lead to confusion about whether the survey was systematic (i.e. using a preplanned methodology) or a survey using “ systematic” sampling (i.e. a sampling approach using specific intervals to determine who is selected) [ 32 ]. Any of the above meanings of the words “ systematic” may be true for methodological studies and could be potentially misleading. “ Meta-epidemiological study” is ideal for indexing, but not very informative as it describes an entire field. The term “ review ” may point towards an appraisal or “review” of the design, conduct, analysis or reporting (or methodological components) of the targeted research reports, yet it has also been used to describe narrative reviews [ 41 , 42 ]. The term “ survey ” is also in line with the approaches used in many methodological studies [ 9 ], and would be indicative of the sampling procedures of this study design. However, in the absence of guidelines on nomenclature, the term “ methodological study ” is broad enough to capture most of the scenarios of such studies.

Q: Should I account for clustering in my methodological study?

A: Data from methodological studies are often clustered. For example, articles coming from a specific source may have different reporting standards (e.g. the Cochrane Library). Articles within the same journal may be similar due to editorial practices and policies, reporting requirements and endorsement of guidelines. There is emerging evidence that these are real concerns that should be accounted for in analyses [ 43 ]. Some cluster variables are described in the section: “ What variables are relevant to methodological studies?”

A variety of modelling approaches can be used to account for correlated data, including the use of marginal, fixed or mixed effects regression models with appropriate computation of standard errors [ 44 ]. For example, Kosa et al. used generalized estimation equations to account for correlation of articles within journals [ 15 ]. Not accounting for clustering could lead to incorrect p -values, unduly narrow confidence intervals, and biased estimates [ 45 ].

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

A: Yes. Duplicate data extraction takes more time but results in less errors [ 19 ]. Data extraction errors in turn affect the effect estimate [ 46 ], and therefore should be mitigated. Duplicate data extraction should be considered in the absence of other approaches to minimize extraction errors. However, much like systematic reviews, this area will likely see rapid new advances with machine learning and natural language processing technologies to support researchers with screening and data extraction [ 47 , 48 ]. However, experience plays an important role in the quality of extracted data and inexperienced extractors should be paired with experienced extractors [ 46 , 49 ].

Q: Should I assess the risk of bias of research reports included in my methodological study?

A : Risk of bias is most useful in determining the certainty that can be placed in the effect measure from a study. In methodological studies, risk of bias may not serve the purpose of determining the trustworthiness of results, as effect measures are often not the primary goal of methodological studies. Determining risk of bias in methodological studies is likely a practice borrowed from systematic review methodology, but whose intrinsic value is not obvious in methodological studies. When it is part of the research question, investigators often focus on one aspect of risk of bias. For example, Speich investigated how blinding was reported in surgical trials [ 50 ], and Abraha et al., investigated the application of intention-to-treat analyses in systematic reviews and trials [ 51 ].

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

A: There is empirical evidence that certain variables may inform the findings in a methodological study. We outline some of these and provide a brief overview below:

Country: Countries and regions differ in their research cultures, and the resources available to conduct research. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there may be differences in methodological features across countries. Methodological studies have reported loco-regional differences in reporting quality [ 52 , 53 ]. This may also be related to challenges non-English speakers face in publishing papers in English.

Authors’ expertise: The inclusion of authors with expertise in research methodology, biostatistics, and scientific writing is likely to influence the end-product. Oltean et al. found that among randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery, the use of analyses that accounted for clustering was more likely when specialists (e.g. statistician, epidemiologist or clinical trials methodologist) were included on the study team [ 54 ]. Fleming et al. found that including methodologists in the review team was associated with appropriate use of reporting guidelines [ 55 ].

Source of funding and conflicts of interest: Some studies have found that funded studies report better [ 56 , 57 ], while others do not [ 53 , 58 ]. The presence of funding would indicate the availability of resources deployed to ensure optimal design, conduct, analysis and reporting. However, the source of funding may introduce conflicts of interest and warrant assessment. For example, Kaiser et al. investigated the effect of industry funding on obesity or nutrition randomized trials and found that reporting quality was similar [ 59 ]. Thomas et al. looked at reporting quality of long-term weight loss trials and found that industry funded studies were better [ 60 ]. Kan et al. examined the association between industry funding and “positive trials” (trials reporting a significant intervention effect) and found that industry funding was highly predictive of a positive trial [ 61 ]. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane Methodology Review by Hansen et al. [ 62 ]

Journal characteristics: Certain journals’ characteristics may influence the study design, analysis or reporting. Characteristics such as journal endorsement of guidelines [ 63 , 64 ], and Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been shown to be associated with reporting [ 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 ].

Study size (sample size/number of sites): Some studies have shown that reporting is better in larger studies [ 53 , 56 , 58 ].

Year of publication: It is reasonable to assume that design, conduct, analysis and reporting of research will change over time. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in reporting over time or after the publication of reporting guidelines [ 68 , 69 ].

Type of intervention: In a methodological study of reporting quality of weight loss intervention studies, Thabane et al. found that trials of pharmacologic interventions were reported better than trials of non-pharmacologic interventions [ 70 ].

Interactions between variables: Complex interactions between the previously listed variables are possible. High income countries with more resources may be more likely to conduct larger studies and incorporate a variety of experts. Authors in certain countries may prefer certain journals, and journal endorsement of guidelines and editorial policies may change over time.

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

A: Investigators may choose to investigate only high impact journals because they are more likely to influence practice and policy, or because they assume that methodological standards would be higher. However, the JIF may severely limit the scope of articles included and may skew the sample towards articles with positive findings. The generalizability and applicability of findings from a handful of journals must be examined carefully, especially since the JIF varies over time. Even among journals that are all “high impact”, variations exist in methodological standards.

Q: Can I conduct a methodological study of qualitative research?

A: Yes. Even though a lot of methodological research has been conducted in the quantitative research field, methodological studies of qualitative studies are feasible. Certain databases that catalogue qualitative research including the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) have defined subject headings that are specific to methodological research (e.g. “research methodology”). Alternatively, one could also conduct a qualitative methodological review; that is, use qualitative approaches to synthesize methodological issues in qualitative studies.

Q: What reporting guidelines should I use for my methodological study?

A: There is no guideline that covers the entire scope of methodological studies. One adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines has been published, which works well for studies that aim to use the entire target population of research reports [ 71 ]. However, it is not widely used (40 citations in 2 years as of 09 December 2019), and methodological studies that are designed as cross-sectional or before-after studies require a more fit-for purpose guideline. A more encompassing reporting guideline for a broad range of methodological studies is currently under development [ 72 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, the requirements for scientific reporting should be respected, and authors of methodological studies should focus on transparency and reproducibility.

Q: What are the potential threats to validity and how can I avoid them?

A: Methodological studies may be compromised by a lack of internal or external validity. The main threats to internal validity in methodological studies are selection and confounding bias. Investigators must ensure that the methods used to select articles does not make them differ systematically from the set of articles to which they would like to make inferences. For example, attempting to make extrapolations to all journals after analyzing high-impact journals would be misleading.

Many factors (confounders) may distort the association between the exposure and outcome if the included research reports differ with respect to these factors [ 73 ]. For example, when examining the association between source of funding and completeness of reporting, it may be necessary to account for journals that endorse the guidelines. Confounding bias can be addressed by restriction, matching and statistical adjustment [ 73 ]. Restriction appears to be the method of choice for many investigators who choose to include only high impact journals or articles in a specific field. For example, Knol et al. examined the reporting of p -values in baseline tables of high impact journals [ 26 ]. Matching is also sometimes used. In the methodological study of non-randomized interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair, Parker et al. matched prospective studies with retrospective studies and compared reporting standards [ 74 ]. Some other methodological studies use statistical adjustments. For example, Zhang et al. used regression techniques to determine the factors associated with missing participant data in trials [ 16 ].

With regard to external validity, researchers interested in conducting methodological studies must consider how generalizable or applicable their findings are. This should tie in closely with the research question and should be explicit. For example. Findings from methodological studies on trials published in high impact cardiology journals cannot be assumed to be applicable to trials in other fields. However, investigators must ensure that their sample truly represents the target sample either by a) conducting a comprehensive and exhaustive search, or b) using an appropriate and justified, randomly selected sample of research reports.

Even applicability to high impact journals may vary based on the investigators’ definition, and over time. For example, for high impact journals in the field of general medicine, Bouwmeester et al. included the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and PLoS Medicine ( n  = 6) [ 75 ]. In contrast, the high impact journals selected in the methodological study by Schiller et al. were BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM ( n  = 4) [ 76 ]. Another methodological study by Kosa et al. included AIM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM ( n  = 5). In the methodological study by Thabut et al., journals with a JIF greater than 5 were considered to be high impact. Riado Minguez et al. used first quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for a specific year to determine “high impact” [ 77 ]. Ultimately, the definition of high impact will be based on the number of journals the investigators are willing to include, the year of impact and the JIF cut-off [ 78 ]. We acknowledge that the term “generalizability” may apply differently for methodological studies, especially when in many instances it is possible to include the entire target population in the sample studied.

Finally, methodological studies are not exempt from information bias which may stem from discrepancies in the included research reports [ 79 ], errors in data extraction, or inappropriate interpretation of the information extracted. Likewise, publication bias may also be a concern in methodological studies, but such concepts have not yet been explored.

A proposed framework

In order to inform discussions about methodological studies, the development of guidance for what should be reported, we have outlined some key features of methodological studies that can be used to classify them. For each of the categories outlined below, we provide an example. In our experience, the choice of approach to completing a methodological study can be informed by asking the following four questions:

What is the aim?

Methodological studies that investigate bias

A methodological study may be focused on exploring sources of bias in primary or secondary studies (meta-bias), or how bias is analyzed. We have taken care to distinguish bias (i.e. systematic deviations from the truth irrespective of the source) from reporting quality or completeness (i.e. not adhering to a specific reporting guideline or norm). An example of where this distinction would be important is in the case of a randomized trial with no blinding. This study (depending on the nature of the intervention) would be at risk of performance bias. However, if the authors report that their study was not blinded, they would have reported adequately. In fact, some methodological studies attempt to capture both “quality of conduct” and “quality of reporting”, such as Richie et al., who reported on the risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacy practice interventions [ 80 ]. Babic et al. investigated how risk of bias was used to inform sensitivity analyses in Cochrane reviews [ 81 ]. Further, biases related to choice of outcomes can also be explored. For example, Tan et al investigated differences in treatment effect size based on the outcome reported [ 82 ].

Methodological studies that investigate quality (or completeness) of reporting

Methodological studies may report quality of reporting against a reporting checklist (i.e. adherence to guidelines) or against expected norms. For example, Croituro et al. report on the quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals based on their adherence to the PRISMA statement [ 83 ], and Khan et al. described the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals based on the CONSORT extension for harms [ 84 ]. Other methodological studies investigate reporting of certain features of interest that may not be part of formally published checklists or guidelines. For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described how often the implications for research are elaborated using the Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (EPICOT) format [ 30 ].

Methodological studies that investigate the consistency of reporting

Sometimes investigators may be interested in how consistent reports of the same research are, as it is expected that there should be consistency between: conference abstracts and published manuscripts; manuscript abstracts and manuscript main text; and trial registration and published manuscript. For example, Rosmarakis et al. investigated consistency between conference abstracts and full text manuscripts [ 85 ].

Methodological studies that investigate factors associated with reporting

In addition to identifying issues with reporting in primary and secondary studies, authors of methodological studies may be interested in determining the factors that are associated with certain reporting practices. Many methodological studies incorporate this, albeit as a secondary outcome. For example, Farrokhyar et al. investigated the factors associated with reporting quality in randomized trials of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery [ 53 ].

Methodological studies that investigate methods

Methodological studies may also be used to describe methods or compare methods, and the factors associated with methods. Muller et al. described the methods used for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies [ 86 ].

Methodological studies that summarize other methodological studies

Some methodological studies synthesize results from other methodological studies. For example, Li et al. conducted a scoping review of methodological reviews that investigated consistency between full text and abstracts in primary biomedical research [ 87 ].

Methodological studies that investigate nomenclature and terminology

Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al. investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ].

Other types of methodological studies

In addition to the previously mentioned experimental methodological studies, there may exist other types of methodological studies not captured here.

What is the design?

Methodological studies that are descriptive

Most methodological studies are purely descriptive and report their findings as counts (percent) and means (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range). For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described the reporting of research recommendations in Cochrane HIV systematic reviews [ 30 ]. Gohari et al. described the quality of reporting of randomized trials in diabetes in Iran [ 12 ].

Methodological studies that are analytical

Some methodological studies are analytical wherein “analytical studies identify and quantify associations, test hypotheses, identify causes and determine whether an association exists between variables, such as between an exposure and a disease.” [ 89 ] In the case of methodological studies all these investigations are possible. For example, Kosa et al. investigated the association between agreement in primary outcome from trial registry to published manuscript and study covariates. They found that larger and more recent studies were more likely to have agreement [ 15 ]. Tricco et al. compared the conclusion statements from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of the primary outcome and found that non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to report positive findings. These results are a test of the null hypothesis that the proportions of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews that report positive results are equal [ 90 ].

What is the sampling strategy?

Methodological studies that include the target population

Methodological reviews with narrow research questions may be able to include the entire target population. For example, in the methodological study of Cochrane HIV systematic reviews, Mbuagbaw et al. included all of the available studies ( n  = 103) [ 30 ].

Methodological studies that include a sample of the target population

Many methodological studies use random samples of the target population [ 33 , 91 , 92 ]. Alternatively, purposeful sampling may be used, limiting the sample to a subset of research-related reports published within a certain time period, or in journals with a certain ranking or on a topic. Systematic sampling can also be used when random sampling may be challenging to implement.

What is the unit of analysis?

Methodological studies with a research report as the unit of analysis

Many methodological studies use a research report (e.g. full manuscript of study, abstract portion of the study) as the unit of analysis, and inferences can be made at the study-level. However, both published and unpublished research-related reports can be studied. These may include articles, conference abstracts, registry entries etc.

Methodological studies with a design, analysis or reporting item as the unit of analysis

Some methodological studies report on items which may occur more than once per article. For example, Paquette et al. report on subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews of atrial fibrillation in which 17 systematic reviews planned 56 subgroup analyses [ 93 ].

This framework is outlined in Fig.  2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

Methodological studies have examined different aspects of reporting such as quality, completeness, consistency and adherence to reporting guidelines. As such, many of the methodological study examples cited in this tutorial are related to reporting. However, as an evolving field, the scope of research questions that can be addressed by methodological studies is expected to increase.

In this paper we have outlined the scope and purpose of methodological studies, along with examples of instances in which various approaches have been used. In the absence of formal guidance on the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of methodological studies, we have provided some advice to help make methodological studies consistent. This advice is grounded in good contemporary scientific practice. Generally, the research question should tie in with the sampling approach and planned analysis. We have also highlighted the variables that may inform findings from methodological studies. Lastly, we have provided suggestions for ways in which authors can categorize their methodological studies to inform their design and analysis.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Abbreviations

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe

Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

Studies Within a Review

Studies Within a Trial

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gotzsche PC, Krumholz HM, Ghersi D, van der Worp HB. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tibshirani R. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–20.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Bmj. 2017;358:j4008.

Lawson DO, Leenus A, Mbuagbaw L. Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review. Pilot Feasibility Studies. 2020;6(1):13.

Puljak L, Makaric ZL, Buljan I, Pieper D. What is a meta-epidemiological study? Analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions. J Comp Eff Res. 2020.

Abbade LPF, Wang M, Sriganesh K, Jin Y, Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L. The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: a systematic survey. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(5):892–900.

Gohari F, Baradaran HR, Tabatabaee M, Anijidani S, Mohammadpour Touserkani F, Atlasi R, Razmgir M. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes in Iran; a systematic review. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015;15(1):36.

Wang M, Jin Y, Hu ZJ, Thabane A, Dennis B, Gajic-Veljanoski O, Paul J, Thabane L. The reporting quality of abstracts of stepped wedge randomized trials is suboptimal: a systematic survey of the literature. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;8:1–10.

Shanthanna H, Kaushal A, Mbuagbaw L, Couban R, Busse J, Thabane L: A cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of pilot or feasibility trials in high-impact anesthesia journals Can J Anaesthesia 2018, 65(11):1180–1195.

Kosa SD, Mbuagbaw L, Borg Debono V, Bhandari M, Dennis BB, Ene G, Leenus A, Shi D, Thabane M, Valvasori S, et al. Agreement in reporting between trial publications and current clinical trial registry in high impact journals: a methodological review. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2018;65:144–50.

Zhang Y, Florez ID, Colunga Lozano LE, Aloweni FAB, Kennedy SA, Li A, Craigie S, Zhang S, Agarwal A, Lopes LC, et al. A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:57–66.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hernández AV, Boersma E, Murray GD, Habbema JD, Steyerberg EW. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J. 2006;151(2):257–64.

Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, Borg Debono V, Dillenburg R, Zhang S, Fruci V, Dennis B, Bawor M, Thabane L. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:169–88.

Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697–703.

Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Santesso N, Neumann I, Mustafa RA, Mbuagbaw L, Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta I, De Stio C, McCullagh LJ, Alonso-Coello P. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 1: a randomized trial shows improved understanding of content in summary-of-findings tables with a new format. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:7–18.

The Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research: SWAT/SWAR Information [ https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/SWATSWARInformation/ ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Chick S, Sánchez P, Ferrin D, Morrice D. How to conduct a successful simulation study. In: Proceedings of the 2003 winter simulation conference: 2003; 2003. p. 66–70.

Google Scholar  

Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106(3):485–8.

Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mount Sinai J Med New York. 1996;63(3–4):216–24.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Areia M, Soares M, Dinis-Ribeiro M. Quality reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastrointestinal journals: where do we stand on the use of the STARD and CONSORT statements? Endoscopy. 2010;42(2):138–47.

Knol M, Groenwold R, Grobbee D. P-values in baseline tables of randomised controlled trials are inappropriate but still common in high impact journals. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19(2):231–2.

Chen M, Cui J, Zhang AL, Sze DM, Xue CC, May BH. Adherence to CONSORT items in randomized controlled trials of integrative medicine for colorectal Cancer published in Chinese journals. J Altern Complement Med. 2018;24(2):115–24.

Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e4178.

The Cochrane Methodology Register Issue 2 2009 [ https://cmr.cochrane.org/help.htm ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Mbuagbaw L, Kredo T, Welch V, Mursleen S, Ross S, Zani B, Motaze NV, Quinlan L. Critical EPICOT items were absent in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:66–72.

Barton S, Peckitt C, Sclafani F, Cunningham D, Chau I. The influence of industry sponsorship on the reporting of subgroup analyses within phase III randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(18):2732–9.

Setia MS. Methodology series module 5: sampling strategies. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61(5):505–9.

Wilson B, Burnett P, Moher D, Altman DG, Al-Shahi Salman R. Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: a systematic review. Eur Stroke J. 2018;3(4):337–46.

Kahale LA, Diab B, Brignardello-Petersen R, Agarwal A, Mustafa RA, Kwong J, Neumann I, Li L, Lopes LC, Briel M, et al. Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:14–23.

De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJPM, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered?: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors*. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(2):146–8.

Ohtake PJ, Childs JD. Why publish study protocols? Phys Ther. 2014;94(9):1208–9.

Rombey T, Allers K, Mathes T, Hoffmann F, Pieper D. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):57.

Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet. 2002;359(9302):248–52.

Porta M (ed.): A dictionary of epidemiology, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2008.

El Dib R, Tikkinen KAO, Akl EA, Gomaa HA, Mustafa RA, Agarwal A, Carpenter CR, Zhang Y, Jorge EC, Almeida R, et al. Systematic survey of randomized trials evaluating the impact of alternative diagnostic strategies on patient-important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:61–9.

Helzer JE, Robins LN, Taibleson M, Woodruff RA Jr, Reich T, Wish ED. Reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. I. a methodological review. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34(2):129–33.

Chung ST, Chacko SK, Sunehag AL, Haymond MW. Measurements of gluconeogenesis and Glycogenolysis: a methodological review. Diabetes. 2015;64(12):3996–4010.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1513–24.

Moen EL, Fricano-Kugler CJ, Luikart BW, O’Malley AJ. Analyzing clustered data: why and how to account for multiple observations nested within a study participant? PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146721.

Zyzanski SJ, Flocke SA, Dickinson LM. On the nature and analysis of clustered data. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(3):199–200.

Mathes T, Klassen P, Pieper D. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):152.

Bui DDA, Del Fiol G, Hurdle JF, Jonnalagadda S. Extractive text summarization system to aid data extraction from full text in systematic review development. J Biomed Inform. 2016;64:265–72.

Bui DD, Del Fiol G, Jonnalagadda S. PDF text classification to leverage information extraction from publication reports. J Biomed Inform. 2016;61:141–8.

Maticic K, Krnic Martinic M, Puljak L. Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):32.

Speich B. Blinding in surgical randomized clinical trials in 2015. Ann Surg. 2017;266(1):21–2.

Abraha I, Cozzolino F, Orso M, Marchesi M, Germani A, Lombardo G, Eusebi P, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Iorio A, et al. A systematic review found that deviations from intention-to-treat are common in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:37–46.

Zhong Y, Zhou W, Jiang H, Fan T, Diao X, Yang H, Min J, Wang G, Fu J, Mao B. Quality of reporting of two-group parallel randomized controlled clinical trials of multi-herb formulae: A survey of reports indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded. Eur J Integrative Med. 2011;3(4):e309–16.

Farrokhyar F, Chu R, Whitlock R, Thabane L. A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting coronary artery bypass grafting trials. Can J Surg. 2007;50(4):266–77.

Oltean H, Gagnier JJ. Use of clustering analysis in randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:17.

Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Pandis N. Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines? PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96407.

Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):663–7.

de Vries TW, van Roon EN. Low quality of reporting adverse drug reactions in paediatric randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(12):1023–6.

Borg Debono V, Zhang S, Ye C, Paul J, Arya A, Hurlburt L, Murthy Y, Thabane L. The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:13.

Kaiser KA, Cofield SS, Fontaine KR, Glasser SP, Thabane L, Chu R, Ambrale S, Dwary AD, Kumar A, Nayyar G, et al. Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? Int J Obes. 2012;36(7):977–81.

Thomas O, Thabane L, Douketis J, Chu R, Westfall AO, Allison DB. Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials. Int J Obes. 2008;32(10):1531–6.

Khan NR, Saad H, Oravec CS, Rossi N, Nguyen V, Venable GT, Lillard JC, Patel P, Taylor DR, Vaughn BN, et al. A review of industry funding in randomized controlled trials published in the neurosurgical literature-the elephant in the room. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(5):890–7.

Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Hrobjartsson A. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;8:Mr000047.

Kiehna EN, Starke RM, Pouratian N, Dumont AS. Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(2):280–5.

Liu LQ, Morris PJ, Pengel LH. Compliance to the CONSORT statement of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation: a 3-year overview. Transpl Int. 2013;26(3):300–6.

Bala MM, Akl EA, Sun X, Bassler D, Mertz D, Mejza F, Vandvik PO, Malaga G, Johnston BC, Dahm P, et al. Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(3):286–95.

Lee SY, Teoh PJ, Camm CF, Agha RA. Compliance of randomized controlled trials in trauma surgery with the CONSORT statement. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75(4):562–72.

Ziogas DC, Zintzaras E. Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in acute and chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes as governed by the CONSORT statement. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19(7):494–500.

Alvarez F, Meyer N, Gourraud PA, Paul C. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):1159–65.

Mbuagbaw L, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, Borg Debono V, Kosa S, Zhang S, Ye C, Parpia S, Dennis BB, Thabane L. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review. Contemporary Clin trials. 2014;38(2):245–50.

Thabane L, Chu R, Cuddy K, Douketis J. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Obes. 2007;31(10):1554–9.

Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evidence Based Med. 2017;22(4):139.

METRIC - MEthodological sTudy ReportIng Checklist: guidelines for reporting methodological studies in health research [ http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#METRIC ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Jager KJ, Zoccali C, MacLeod A, Dekker FW. Confounding: what it is and how to deal with it. Kidney Int. 2008;73(3):256–60.

Parker SG, Halligan S, Erotocritou M, Wood CPJ, Boulton RW, Plumb AAO, Windsor ACJ, Mallett S. A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed. Hernia. 2019.

Bouwmeester W, Zuithoff NPA, Mallett S, Geerlings MI, Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Reporting and methods in clinical prediction research: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2012;9(5):1–12.

Schiller P, Burchardi N, Niestroj M, Kieser M. Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials--update and extension. Trials. 2012;13:214.

Riado Minguez D, Kowalski M, Vallve Odena M, Longin Pontzen D, Jelicic Kadic A, Jeric M, Dosenovic S, Jakus D, Vrdoljak M, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews published in the highest ranking journals in the field of pain. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(4):1348–54.

Thabut G, Estellat C, Boutron I, Samama CM, Ravaud P. Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism. Eur Heart J. 2005;27(2):227–36.

Puljak L, Riva N, Parmelli E, González-Lorenzo M, Moja L, Pieper D. Data extraction methods: an analysis of internal reporting discrepancies in single manuscripts and practical advice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;117:158–64.

Ritchie A, Seubert L, Clifford R, Perry D, Bond C. Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review. Int J Pharm Pract. 2019.

Babic A, Vuka I, Saric F, Proloscic I, Slapnicar E, Cavar J, Pericic TP, Pieper D, Puljak L. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019.

Tan A, Porcher R, Crequit P, Ravaud P, Dechartres A. Differences in treatment effect size between overall survival and progression-free survival in immunotherapy trials: a Meta-epidemiologic study of trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15):1686–94.

Croitoru D, Huang Y, Kurdina A, Chan AW, Drucker AM. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(6):1469–76.

Khan MS, Ochani RK, Shaikh A, Vaduganathan M, Khan SU, Fatima K, Yamani N, Mandrola J, Doukky R, Krasuski RA: Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2019.

Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME. From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals. FASEB J. 2005;19(7):673–80.

Mueller M, D’Addario M, Egger M, Cevallos M, Dekkers O, Mugglin C, Scott P. Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):44.

Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, et al. A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):181.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):203.

Analytical study [ https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/analytical+study ]. Accessed 31 Aug 2020.

Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(4):380–6 e381.

Schalken N, Rietbergen C. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1395.

Ranker LR, Petersen JM, Fox MP. Awareness of and potential for dependent error in the observational epidemiologic literature: A review. Ann Epidemiol. 2019;36:15–9 e12.

Paquette M, Alotaibi AM, Nieuwlaat R, Santesso N, Mbuagbaw L. A meta-epidemiological study of subgroup analyses in cochrane systematic reviews of atrial fibrillation. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):241.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Daeria O. Lawson & Lehana Thabane

Biostatistics Unit/FSORC, 50 Charlton Avenue East, St Joseph’s Healthcare—Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha Wing, Room H321, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada

Lawrence Mbuagbaw & Lehana Thabane

Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Livia Puljak

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health – Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

David B. Allison

Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Lehana Thabane

Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LM conceived the idea and drafted the outline and paper. DOL and LT commented on the idea and draft outline. LM, LP and DOL performed literature searches and data extraction. All authors (LM, DOL, LT, LP, DBA) reviewed several draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Mbuagbaw .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

DOL, DBA, LM, LP and LT are involved in the development of a reporting guideline for methodological studies.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mbuagbaw, L., Lawson, D.O., Puljak, L. et al. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why. BMC Med Res Methodol 20 , 226 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7

Download citation

Received : 27 May 2020

Accepted : 27 August 2020

Published : 07 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7

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

• Methodological study
• Meta-epidemiology
• Research methods
• Research-on-research

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is research methodology?

The basics of research methodology

Why do you need a research methodology, what needs to be included, why do you need to document your research method, what are the different types of research instruments, qualitative / quantitative / mixed research methodologies, how do you choose the best research methodology for you, frequently asked questions about research methodology, related articles.

When you’re working on your first piece of academic research, there are many different things to focus on, and it can be overwhelming to stay on top of everything. This is especially true of budding or inexperienced researchers.

If you’ve never put together a research proposal before or find yourself in a position where you need to explain your research methodology decisions, there are a few things you need to be aware of.

Once you understand the ins and outs, handling academic research in the future will be less intimidating. We break down the basics below:

A research methodology encompasses the way in which you intend to carry out your research. This includes how you plan to tackle things like collection methods, statistical analysis, participant observations, and more.

You can think of your research methodology as being a formula. One part will be how you plan on putting your research into practice, and another will be why you feel this is the best way to approach it. Your research methodology is ultimately a methodological and systematic plan to resolve your research problem.

In short, you are explaining how you will take your idea and turn it into a study, which in turn will produce valid and reliable results that are in accordance with the aims and objectives of your research. This is true whether your paper plans to make use of qualitative methods or quantitative methods.

The purpose of a research methodology is to explain the reasoning behind your approach to your research - you'll need to support your collection methods, methods of analysis, and other key points of your work.

Think of it like writing a plan or an outline for you what you intend to do.

When carrying out research, it can be easy to go off-track or depart from your standard methodology.

Tip: Having a methodology keeps you accountable and on track with your original aims and objectives, and gives you a suitable and sound plan to keep your project manageable, smooth, and effective.

With all that said, how do you write out your standard approach to a research methodology?

As a general plan, your methodology should include the following information:

• Your research method.  You need to state whether you plan to use quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, or mixed-method research methods. This will often be determined by what you hope to achieve with your research.
• Explain your reasoning. Why are you taking this methodological approach? Why is this particular methodology the best way to answer your research problem and achieve your objectives?
• Explain your instruments.  This will mainly be about your collection methods. There are varying instruments to use such as interviews, physical surveys, questionnaires, for example. Your methodology will need to detail your reasoning in choosing a particular instrument for your research.
• What will you do with your results?  How are you going to analyze the data once you have gathered it?
• Advise your reader.  If there is anything in your research methodology that your reader might be unfamiliar with, you should explain it in more detail. For example, you should give any background information to your methods that might be relevant or provide your reasoning if you are conducting your research in a non-standard way.
• How will your sampling process go?  What will your sampling procedure be and why? For example, if you will collect data by carrying out semi-structured or unstructured interviews, how will you choose your interviewees and how will you conduct the interviews themselves?
• Any practical limitations?  You should discuss any limitations you foresee being an issue when you’re carrying out your research.

In any dissertation, thesis, or academic journal, you will always find a chapter dedicated to explaining the research methodology of the person who carried out the study, also referred to as the methodology section of the work.

A good research methodology will explain what you are going to do and why, while a poor methodology will lead to a messy or disorganized approach.

You should also be able to justify in this section your reasoning for why you intend to carry out your research in a particular way, especially if it might be a particularly unique method.

Having a sound methodology in place can also help you with the following:

• When another researcher at a later date wishes to try and replicate your research, they will need your explanations and guidelines.
• In the event that you receive any criticism or questioning on the research you carried out at a later point, you will be able to refer back to it and succinctly explain the how and why of your approach.
• It provides you with a plan to follow throughout your research. When you are drafting your methodology approach, you need to be sure that the method you are using is the right one for your goal. This will help you with both explaining and understanding your method.
• It affords you the opportunity to document from the outset what you intend to achieve with your research, from start to finish.

A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research.

The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology.

There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research.

Generally, they can be grouped as follows:

• Interviews (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that is asked of the interviewee. In a group interview, you may choose to ask the interviewees to give you their opinions or perceptions on certain topics.
• Surveys (online or in-person). In survey research, you are posing questions in which you ask for a response from the person taking the survey. You may wish to have either free-answer questions such as essay-style questions, or you may wish to use closed questions such as multiple choice. You may even wish to make the survey a mixture of both.
• Focus Groups.  Similar to the group interview above, you may wish to ask a focus group to discuss a particular topic or opinion while you make a note of the answers given.
• Observations.  This is a good research instrument to use if you are looking into human behaviors. Different ways of researching this include studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in their everyday life, or something more structured. A structured observation is research conducted at a set time and place where researchers observe behavior as planned and agreed upon with participants.

These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take.

It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.

There are three different types of methodologies, and they are distinguished by whether they focus on words, numbers, or both.

➡️ Want to learn more about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and how to use both methods? Check out our guide for that!

If you've done your due diligence, you'll have an idea of which methodology approach is best suited to your research.

It’s likely that you will have carried out considerable reading and homework before you reach this point and you may have taken inspiration from other similar studies that have yielded good results.

Still, it is important to consider different options before setting your research in stone. Exploring different options available will help you to explain why the choice you ultimately make is preferable to other methods.

If proving your research problem requires you to gather large volumes of numerical data to test hypotheses, a quantitative research method is likely to provide you with the most usable results.

If instead you’re looking to try and learn more about people, and their perception of events, your methodology is more exploratory in nature and would therefore probably be better served using a qualitative research methodology.

It helps to always bring things back to the question: what do I want to achieve with my research?

Once you have conducted your research, you need to analyze it. Here are some helpful guides for qualitative data analysis:

➡️  How to do a content analysis

➡️  How to do a thematic analysis

➡️  How to do a rhetorical analysis

Research methodology refers to the techniques used to find and analyze information for a study, ensuring that the results are valid, reliable and that they address the research objective.

Data can typically be organized into four different categories or methods: observational, experimental, simulation, and derived.

Writing a methodology section is a process of introducing your methods and instruments, discussing your analysis, providing more background information, addressing your research limitations, and more.

Your research methodology section will need a clear research question and proposed research approach. You'll need to add a background, introduce your research question, write your methodology and add the works you cited during your data collecting phase.

The research methodology section of your study will indicate how valid your findings are and how well-informed your paper is. It also assists future researchers planning to use the same methodology, who want to cite your study or replicate it.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is Research Methodology? Definition, Types, and Examples

Research methodology 1,2 is a structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyze, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. A research methodology is like a plan for carrying out research and helps keep researchers on track by limiting the scope of the research. Several aspects must be considered before selecting an appropriate research methodology, such as research limitations and ethical concerns that may affect your research.

The research methodology section in a scientific paper describes the different methodological choices made, such as the data collection and analysis methods, and why these choices were selected. The reasons should explain why the methods chosen are the most appropriate to answer the research question. A good research methodology also helps ensure the reliability and validity of the research findings. There are three types of research methodology—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method, which can be chosen based on the research objectives.

What is research methodology ?

A research methodology describes the techniques and procedures used to identify and analyze information regarding a specific research topic. It is a process by which researchers design their study so that they can achieve their objectives using the selected research instruments. It includes all the important aspects of research, including research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and the overall framework within which the research is conducted. While these points can help you understand what is research methodology, you also need to know why it is important to pick the right methodology.

Why is research methodology important?

Having a good research methodology in place has the following advantages: 3

• Helps other researchers who may want to replicate your research; the explanations will be of benefit to them.
• You can easily answer any questions about your research if they arise at a later stage.
• A research methodology provides a framework and guidelines for researchers to clearly define research questions, hypotheses, and objectives.
• It helps researchers identify the most appropriate research design, sampling technique, and data collection and analysis methods.
• A sound research methodology helps researchers ensure that their findings are valid and reliable and free from biases and errors.
• It also helps ensure that ethical guidelines are followed while conducting research.
• A good research methodology helps researchers in planning their research efficiently, by ensuring optimum usage of their time and resources.

Writing the methods section of a research paper? Let Paperpal help you achieve perfection

Types of research methodology.

There are three types of research methodology based on the type of research and the data required. 1

• Quantitative research methodology focuses on measuring and testing numerical data. This approach is good for reaching a large number of people in a short amount of time. This type of research helps in testing the causal relationships between variables, making predictions, and generalizing results to wider populations.
• Qualitative research methodology examines the opinions, behaviors, and experiences of people. It collects and analyzes words and textual data. This research methodology requires fewer participants but is still more time consuming because the time spent per participant is quite large. This method is used in exploratory research where the research problem being investigated is not clearly defined.
• Mixed-method research methodology uses the characteristics of both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies in the same study. This method allows researchers to validate their findings, verify if the results observed using both methods are complementary, and explain any unexpected results obtained from one method by using the other method.

What are the types of sampling designs in research methodology?

Sampling 4 is an important part of a research methodology and involves selecting a representative sample of the population to conduct the study, making statistical inferences about them, and estimating the characteristics of the whole population based on these inferences. There are two types of sampling designs in research methodology—probability and nonprobability.

• Probability sampling

In this type of sampling design, a sample is chosen from a larger population using some form of random selection, that is, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. The different types of probability sampling are:

• Systematic —sample members are chosen at regular intervals. It requires selecting a starting point for the sample and sample size determination that can be repeated at regular intervals. This type of sampling method has a predefined range; hence, it is the least time consuming.
• Stratified —researchers divide the population into smaller groups that don’t overlap but represent the entire population. While sampling, these groups can be organized, and then a sample can be drawn from each group separately.
• Cluster —the population is divided into clusters based on demographic parameters like age, sex, location, etc.
• Convenience —selects participants who are most easily accessible to researchers due to geographical proximity, availability at a particular time, etc.
• Purposive —participants are selected at the researcher’s discretion. Researchers consider the purpose of the study and the understanding of the target audience.
• Snowball —already selected participants use their social networks to refer the researcher to other potential participants.
• Quota —while designing the study, the researchers decide how many people with which characteristics to include as participants. The characteristics help in choosing people most likely to provide insights into the subject.

What are data collection methods?

During research, data are collected using various methods depending on the research methodology being followed and the research methods being undertaken. Both qualitative and quantitative research have different data collection methods, as listed below.

Qualitative research 5

• One-on-one interviews: Helps the interviewers understand a respondent’s subjective opinion and experience pertaining to a specific topic or event
• Document study/literature review/record keeping: Researchers’ review of already existing written materials such as archives, annual reports, research articles, guidelines, policy documents, etc.
• Focus groups: Constructive discussions that usually include a small sample of about 6-10 people and a moderator, to understand the participants’ opinion on a given topic.
• Qualitative observation : Researchers collect data using their five senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing).

Quantitative research 6

• Sampling: The most common type is probability sampling.
• Interviews: Commonly telephonic or done in-person.
• Observations: Structured observations are most commonly used in quantitative research. In this method, researchers make observations about specific behaviors of individuals in a structured setting.
• Document review: Reviewing existing research or documents to collect evidence for supporting the research.
• Surveys and questionnaires. Surveys can be administered both online and offline depending on the requirement and sample size.

Let Paperpal help you write the perfect research methods section. Start now!

What are data analysis methods.

The data collected using the various methods for qualitative and quantitative research need to be analyzed to generate meaningful conclusions. These data analysis methods 7 also differ between quantitative and qualitative research.

Quantitative research involves a deductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed at the beginning of the research and precise measurement is required. The methods include statistical analysis applications to analyze numerical data and are grouped into two categories—descriptive and inferential.

Descriptive analysis is used to describe the basic features of different types of data to present it in a way that ensures the patterns become meaningful. The different types of descriptive analysis methods are:

• Measures of frequency (count, percent, frequency)
• Measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode)
• Measures of dispersion or variation (range, variance, standard deviation)
• Measure of position (percentile ranks, quartile ranks)

Inferential analysis is used to make predictions about a larger population based on the analysis of the data collected from a smaller population. This analysis is used to study the relationships between different variables. Some commonly used inferential data analysis methods are:

• Correlation: To understand the relationship between two or more variables.
• Cross-tabulation: Analyze the relationship between multiple variables.
• Regression analysis: Study the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable.
• Frequency tables: To understand the frequency of data.
• Analysis of variance: To test the degree to which two or more variables differ in an experiment.

Qualitative research involves an inductive method for data analysis where hypotheses are developed after data collection. The methods include:

• Content analysis: For analyzing documented information from text and images by determining the presence of certain words or concepts in texts.
• Narrative analysis: For analyzing content obtained from sources such as interviews, field observations, and surveys. The stories and opinions shared by people are used to answer research questions.
• Discourse analysis: For analyzing interactions with people considering the social context, that is, the lifestyle and environment, under which the interaction occurs.
• Grounded theory: Involves hypothesis creation by data collection and analysis to explain why a phenomenon occurred.
• Thematic analysis: To identify important themes or patterns in data and use these to address an issue.

How to choose a research methodology?

Here are some important factors to consider when choosing a research methodology: 8

• Research objectives, aims, and questions —these would help structure the research design.
• Review existing literature to identify any gaps in knowledge.
• Check the statistical requirements —if data-driven or statistical results are needed then quantitative research is the best. If the research questions can be answered based on people’s opinions and perceptions, then qualitative research is most suitable.
• Sample size —sample size can often determine the feasibility of a research methodology. For a large sample, less effort- and time-intensive methods are appropriate.
• Constraints —constraints of time, geography, and resources can help define the appropriate methodology.

Got writer’s block? Kickstart your research paper writing with Paperpal now!

How to write a research methodology .

A research methodology should include the following components: 3,9

• Research design —should be selected based on the research question and the data required. Common research designs include experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, descriptive, and exploratory.
• Research method —this can be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method.
• Reason for selecting a specific methodology —explain why this methodology is the most suitable to answer your research problem.
• Research instruments —explain the research instruments you plan to use, mainly referring to the data collection methods such as interviews, surveys, etc. Here as well, a reason should be mentioned for selecting the particular instrument.
• Sampling —this involves selecting a representative subset of the population being studied.
• Data collection —involves gathering data using several data collection methods, such as surveys, interviews, etc.
• Data analysis —describe the data analysis methods you will use once you’ve collected the data.
• Research limitations —mention any limitations you foresee while conducting your research.
• Validity and reliability —validity helps identify the accuracy and truthfulness of the findings; reliability refers to the consistency and stability of the results over time and across different conditions.
• Ethical considerations —research should be conducted ethically. The considerations include obtaining consent from participants, maintaining confidentiality, and addressing conflicts of interest.

Streamline Your Research Paper Writing Process with Paperpal

The methods section is a critical part of the research papers, allowing researchers to use this to understand your findings and replicate your work when pursuing their own research. However, it is usually also the most difficult section to write. This is where Paperpal can help you overcome the writer’s block and create the first draft in minutes with Paperpal Copilot, its secure generative AI feature suite.  

With Paperpal you can get research advice, write and refine your work, rephrase and verify the writing, and ensure submission readiness, all in one place. Here’s how you can use Paperpal to develop the first draft of your methods section.  

• Generate an outline: Input some details about your research to instantly generate an outline for your methods section 
• Develop the section: Use the outline and suggested sentence templates to expand your ideas and develop the first draft.  
• P araph ras e and trim : Get clear, concise academic text with paraphrasing that conveys your work effectively and word reduction to fix redundancies. 
• Choose the right words: Enhance text by choosing contextual synonyms based on how the words have been used in previously published work.  
• Check and verify text : Make sure the generated text showcases your methods correctly, has all the right citations, and is original and authentic. .   

You can repeat this process to develop each section of your research manuscript, including the title, abstract and keywords. Ready to write your research papers faster, better, and without the stress? Sign up for Paperpal and start writing today!

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What are the key components of research methodology?

A1. A good research methodology has the following key components:

• Research design
• Data collection procedures
• Data analysis methods
• Ethical considerations

Q2. Why is ethical consideration important in research methodology?

A2. Ethical consideration is important in research methodology to ensure the readers of the reliability and validity of the study. Researchers must clearly mention the ethical norms and standards followed during the conduct of the research and also mention if the research has been cleared by any institutional board. The following 10 points are the important principles related to ethical considerations: 10

• Participants should not be subjected to harm.
• Respect for the dignity of participants should be prioritized.
• Full consent should be obtained from participants before the study.
• Participants’ privacy should be ensured.
• Confidentiality of the research data should be ensured.
• Anonymity of individuals and organizations participating in the research should be maintained.
• The aims and objectives of the research should not be exaggerated.
• Affiliations, sources of funding, and any possible conflicts of interest should be declared.
• Communication in relation to the research should be honest and transparent.
• Misleading information and biased representation of primary data findings should be avoided.

Q3. What is the difference between methodology and method?

A3. Research methodology is different from a research method, although both terms are often confused. Research methods are the tools used to gather data, while the research methodology provides a framework for how research is planned, conducted, and analyzed. The latter guides researchers in making decisions about the most appropriate methods for their research. Research methods refer to the specific techniques, procedures, and tools used by researchers to collect, analyze, and interpret data, for instance surveys, questionnaires, interviews, etc.

Research methodology is, thus, an integral part of a research study. It helps ensure that you stay on track to meet your research objectives and answer your research questions using the most appropriate data collection and analysis tools based on your research design.

Accelerate your research paper writing with Paperpal. Try for free now!

• Research methodologies. Pfeiffer Library website. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://library.tiffin.edu/researchmethodologies/whatareresearchmethodologies
• Types of research methodology. Eduvoice website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://eduvoice.in/types-research-methodology/
• The basics of research methodology: A key to quality research. Voxco. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.voxco.com/blog/what-is-research-methodology/
• Sampling methods: Types with examples. QuestionPro website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/types-of-sampling-for-social-research/
• What is qualitative research? Methods, types, approaches, examples. Researcher.Life blog. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-qualitative-research-methods-types-examples/
• What is quantitative research? Definition, methods, types, and examples. Researcher.Life blog. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-quantitative-research-types-and-examples/
• Data analysis in research: Types & methods. QuestionPro website. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/data-analysis-in-research/#Data_analysis_in_qualitative_research
• Factors to consider while choosing the right research methodology. PhD Monster website. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.phdmonster.com/factors-to-consider-while-choosing-the-right-research-methodology/
• What is research methodology? Research and writing guides. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://paperpile.com/g/what-is-research-methodology/
• Ethical considerations. Business research methodology website. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/ethical-considerations/

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Dangling Modifiers and How to Avoid Them in Your Writing 
• Webinar: How to Use Generative AI Tools Ethically in Your Academic Writing
• Research Outlines: How to Write An Introduction Section in Minutes with Paperpal Copilot
• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively

Language and Grammar Rules for Academic Writing

Climatic vs. climactic: difference and examples, you may also like, how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , what is academic writing: tips for students, what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the....

The Importance Of Research Objectives

Imagine you’re a student planning a vacation in a foreign country. You’re on a tight budget and need to draw…

Imagine you’re a student planning a vacation in a foreign country. You’re on a tight budget and need to draw up a pocket-friendly plan. Where do you begin? The first step is to do your research.

Before that, you make a mental list of your objectives—finding reasonably-priced hotels, traveling safely and finding ways of communicating with someone back home. These objectives help you focus sharply during your research and be aware of the finer details of your trip.

More often than not, research is a part of our daily lives. Whether it’s to pick a restaurant for your next birthday dinner or to prepare a presentation at work, good research is the foundation of effective learning. Read on to understand the meaning, importance and examples of research objectives.

Why Do We Need Research?

What are the objectives of research, what goes into a research plan.

Research is a careful and detailed study of a particular problem or concern, using scientific methods. An in-depth analysis of information creates space for generating new questions, concepts and understandings. The main objective of research is to explore the unknown and unlock new possibilities. It’s an essential component of success.

Over the years, businesses have started emphasizing the need for research. You’ve probably noticed organizations hiring research managers and analysts. The primary purpose of business research is to determine the goals and opportunities of an organization. It’s critical in making business decisions and appropriately allocating available resources.

Here are a few benefits of research that’ll explain why it is a vital aspect of our professional lives:

Expands Your Knowledge Base

One of the greatest benefits of research is to learn and gain a deeper understanding. The deeper you dig into a topic, the more well-versed you are. Furthermore, research has the power to help you build on any personal experience you have on the subject.

Keeps You Up To Date

Research encourages you to discover the most recent information available. Updated information prevents you from falling behind and helps you present accurate information. You’re better equipped to develop ideas or talk about a topic when you’re armed with the latest inputs.

Builds Your Credibility

Research provides you with a good foundation upon which you can develop your thoughts and ideas. People take you more seriously when your suggestions are backed by research. You can speak with greater confidence because you know that the information is accurate.

Sparks Connections

Take any leading nonprofit organization, you’ll see how they have a strong research arm supported by real-life stories. Research also becomes the base upon which real-life connections and impact can be made. It even helps you communicate better with others and conveys why you’re pursuing something.

Encourages Curiosity

As we’ve already established, research is mostly about using existing information to create new ideas and opinions. In the process, it sparks curiosity as you’re encouraged to explore and gain deeper insights into a subject. Curiosity leads to higher levels of positivity and lower levels of anxiety.

Well-defined objectives of research are an essential component of successful research engagement. If you want to drive all aspects of your research methodology such as data collection, design, analysis and recommendation, you need to lay down the objectives of research methodology. In other words, the objectives of research should address the underlying purpose of investigation and analysis. It should outline the steps you’d take to achieve desirable outcomes. Research objectives help you stay focused and adjust your expectations as you progress.

The objectives of research should be closely related to the problem statement, giving way to specific and achievable goals. Here are the four types of research objectives for you to explore:

General Objective

Also known as secondary objectives, general objectives provide a detailed view of the aim of a study. In other words, you get a general overview of what you want to achieve by the end of your study. For example, if you want to study an organization’s contribution to environmental sustainability, your general objective could be: a study of sustainable practices and the use of renewable energy by the organization.

Specific Objectives

Specific objectives define the primary aim of the study. Typically, general objectives provide the foundation for identifying specific objectives. In other words, when general objectives are broken down into smaller and logically connected objectives, they’re known as specific objectives. They help define the who, what, why, when and how aspects of your project. Once you identify the main objective of research, it’s easier to develop and pursue a plan of action.

Let’s take the example of ‘a study of an organization’s contribution to environmental sustainability’ again. The specific objectives will look like this:

To determine through history how the organization has changed its practices and adopted new solutions

To assess how the new practices, technology and strategies will contribute to the overall effectiveness

Once you’ve identified the objectives of research, it’s time to organize your thoughts and streamline your research goals. Here are a few effective tips to develop a powerful research plan and improve your business performance.

Set SMART Goals

Your research objectives should be SMART—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-constrained. When you focus on utilizing available resources and setting realistic timeframes and milestones, it’s easier to prioritize objectives. Continuously track your progress and check whether you need to revise your expectations or targets. This way, you’re in greater control over the process.

Create A Plan

Create a plan that’ll help you select appropriate methods to collect accurate information. A well-structured plan allows you to use logical and creative approaches towards problem-solving. The complexity of information and your skills are bound to influence your plan, which is why you need to make room for flexibility. The availability of resources will also play a big role in influencing your decisions.

Collect And Collate

After you’ve created a plan for the research process, make a list of the data you’re going to collect and the methods you’ll use. Not only will it help make sense of your insights but also keep track of your approach. The information you collect should be:

Logical, rigorous and objective

Can be reproduced by other people working on the same subject

Free of errors and highlighting necessary details

Current and updated

Includes everything required to support your argument/suggestions

Analyze And Keep Ready

Data analysis is the most crucial part of the process and there are many ways in which the information can be utilized. Four types of data analysis are often seen in a professional environment. While they may be divided into separate categories, they’re linked to each other.

Descriptive Analysis:

The most commonly used data analysis, descriptive analysis simply summarizes past data. For example, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) use descriptive analysis. It establishes certain benchmarks after studying how someone has been performing in the past.

Diagnostic Analysis:

The next step is to identify why something happened. Diagnostic analysis uses the information gathered through descriptive analysis and helps find the underlying causes of an outcome. For example, if a marketing initiative was successful, you deep-dive into the strategies that worked.

Predictive Analysis:

It attempts to answer ‘what’s likely to happen’. Predictive analysis makes use of past data to predict future outcomes. However, the accuracy of predictions depends on the quality of the data provided. Risk assessment is an ideal example of using predictive analysis.

Prescriptive Analysis: 

The most sought-after type of data analysis, prescriptive analysis combines the insights of all of the previous analyses. It’s a huge organizational commitment as it requires plenty of effort and resources. A great example of prescriptive analysis is Artificial Intelligence (AI), which consumes large amounts of data. You need to be prepared to commit to this type of analysis.

Review And Interpret

Once you’ve collected and collated your data, it’s time to review it and draw accurate conclusions. Here are a few ways to improve the review process:

Identify the fundamental issues, opportunities and problems and make note of recurring trends if any

Make a list of your insights and check which is the most or the least common. In short, keep track of the frequency of each insight

Conduct a SWOT analysis and identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Write down your conclusions and recommendations of the research

When we think about research, we often associate it with academicians and students. but the truth is research is for everybody who is willing to learn and enhance their knowledge. If you want to master the art of strategically upgrading your knowledge, Harappa Education’s Learning Expertly course has all the answers. Not only will it help you look at things from a fresh perspective but also show you how to acquire new information with greater efficiency. The Growth Mindset framework will teach you how to believe in your abilities to grow and improve. The Learning Transfer framework will help you apply your learnings from one context to another. Begin the journey of tactful learning and self-improvement today!

Explore Harappa Diaries to learn more about topics related to the THINK Habit such as  Learning From Experience ,  Critical Thinking  & What is  Brainstorming  to think clearly and rationally.

How To Choose Your Research Methodology

Qualitative vs quantitative vs mixed methods.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Without a doubt, one of the most common questions we receive at Grad Coach is “ How do I choose the right methodology for my research? ”. It’s easy to see why – with so many options on the research design table, it’s easy to get intimidated, especially with all the complex lingo!

In this post, we’ll explain the three overarching types of research – qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods – and how you can go about choosing the best methodological approach for your research.

Overview: Choosing Your Methodology

Understanding the options – Qualitative research – Quantitative research – Mixed methods-based research

Choosing a research methodology – Nature of the research – Research area norms – Practicalities

1. Understanding the options

Before we jump into the question of how to choose a research methodology, it’s useful to take a step back to understand the three overarching types of research – qualitative , quantitative and mixed methods -based research. Each of these options takes a different methodological approach.

Qualitative research utilises data that is not numbers-based. In other words, qualitative research focuses on words , descriptions , concepts or ideas – while quantitative research makes use of numbers and statistics. Qualitative research investigates the “softer side” of things to explore and describe, while quantitative research focuses on the “hard numbers”, to measure differences between variables and the relationships between them.

Importantly, qualitative research methods are typically used to explore and gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of a situation – to draw a rich picture . In contrast to this, quantitative methods are usually used to confirm or test hypotheses . In other words, they have distinctly different purposes. The table below highlights a few of the key differences between qualitative and quantitative research – you can learn more about the differences here.

• Uses an inductive approach
• Is used to build theories
• Takes a subjective approach
• Adopts an open and flexible approach
• The researcher is close to the respondents
• Interviews and focus groups are oftentimes used to collect word-based data.
• Generally, draws on small sample sizes
• Uses qualitative data analysis techniques (e.g. content analysis , thematic analysis , etc)
• Uses a deductive approach
• Is used to test theories
• Takes an objective approach
• Adopts a closed, highly planned approach
• The research is disconnected from respondents
• Surveys or laboratory equipment are often used to collect number-based data.
• Generally, requires large sample sizes
• Uses statistical analysis techniques to make sense of the data

Mixed methods -based research, as you’d expect, attempts to bring these two types of research together, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data. Quite often, mixed methods-based studies will use qualitative research to explore a situation and develop a potential model of understanding (this is called a conceptual framework), and then go on to use quantitative methods to test that model empirically.

In other words, while qualitative and quantitative methods (and the philosophies that underpin them) are completely different, they are not at odds with each other. It’s not a competition of qualitative vs quantitative. On the contrary, they can be used together to develop a high-quality piece of research. Of course, this is easier said than done, so we usually recommend that first-time researchers stick to a single approach , unless the nature of their study truly warrants a mixed-methods approach.

The key takeaway here, and the reason we started by looking at the three options, is that it’s important to understand that each methodological approach has a different purpose – for example, to explore and understand situations (qualitative), to test and measure (quantitative) or to do both. They’re not simply alternative tools for the same job. 

Right – now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s look at how you can go about choosing the right methodology for your research.

2. How to choose a research methodology

To choose the right research methodology for your dissertation or thesis, you need to consider three important factors . Based on these three factors, you can decide on your overarching approach – qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. Once you’ve made that decision, you can flesh out the finer details of your methodology, such as the sampling , data collection methods and analysis techniques (we discuss these separately in other posts ).

The three factors you need to consider are:

• The nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions
• The methodological approaches taken in the existing literature
• Practicalities and constraints

Let’s take a look at each of these.

Factor #1: The nature of your research

As I mentioned earlier, each type of research (and therefore, research methodology), whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed, has a different purpose and helps solve a different type of question. So, it’s logical that the key deciding factor in terms of which research methodology you adopt is the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions .

But, what types of research exist?

Broadly speaking, research can fall into one of three categories:

• Exploratory – getting a better understanding of an issue and potentially developing a theory regarding it
• Confirmatory – confirming a potential theory or hypothesis by testing it empirically
• A mix of both – building a potential theory or hypothesis and then testing it

As a rule of thumb, exploratory research tends to adopt a qualitative approach , whereas confirmatory research tends to use quantitative methods . This isn’t set in stone, but it’s a very useful heuristic. Naturally then, research that combines a mix of both, or is seeking to develop a theory from the ground up and then test that theory, would utilize a mixed-methods approach.

Let’s look at an example in action.

If your research aims were to understand the perspectives of war veterans regarding certain political matters, you’d likely adopt a qualitative methodology, making use of interviews to collect data and one or more qualitative data analysis methods to make sense of the data.

If, on the other hand, your research aims involved testing a set of hypotheses regarding the link between political leaning and income levels, you’d likely adopt a quantitative methodology, using numbers-based data from a survey to measure the links between variables and/or constructs .

So, the first (and most important thing) thing you need to consider when deciding which methodological approach to use for your research project is the nature of your research aims , objectives and research questions. Specifically, you need to assess whether your research leans in an exploratory or confirmatory direction or involves a mix of both.

The importance of achieving solid alignment between these three factors and your methodology can’t be overstated. If they’re misaligned, you’re going to be forcing a square peg into a round hole. In other words, you’ll be using the wrong tool for the job, and your research will become a disjointed mess.

If your research is a mix of both exploratory and confirmatory, but you have a tight word count limit, you may need to consider trimming down the scope a little and focusing on one or the other. One methodology executed well has a far better chance of earning marks than a poorly executed mixed methods approach. So, don’t try to be a hero, unless there is a very strong underpinning logic.

Need a helping hand?

Factor #2: The disciplinary norms

Choosing the right methodology for your research also involves looking at the approaches used by other researchers in the field, and studies with similar research aims and objectives to yours. Oftentimes, within a discipline, there is a common methodological approach (or set of approaches) used in studies. While this doesn’t mean you should follow the herd “just because”, you should at least consider these approaches and evaluate their merit within your context.

A major benefit of reviewing the research methodologies used by similar studies in your field is that you can often piggyback on the data collection techniques that other (more experienced) researchers have developed. For example, if you’re undertaking a quantitative study, you can often find tried and tested survey scales with high Cronbach’s alphas. These are usually included in the appendices of journal articles, so you don’t even have to contact the original authors. By using these, you’ll save a lot of time and ensure that your study stands on the proverbial “shoulders of giants” by using high-quality measurement instruments .

Of course, when reviewing existing literature, keep point #1 front of mind. In other words, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and questions. Don’t fall into the trap of adopting the methodological “norm” of other studies just because it’s popular. Only adopt that which is relevant to your research.

Factor #3: Practicalities

When choosing a research methodology, there will always be a tension between doing what’s theoretically best (i.e., the most scientifically rigorous research design ) and doing what’s practical , given your constraints . This is the nature of doing research and there are always trade-offs, as with anything else.

But what constraints, you ask?

When you’re evaluating your methodological options, you need to consider the following constraints:

• Data access
• Equipment and software
• Your knowledge and skills

Let’s look at each of these.

Constraint #1: Data access

The first practical constraint you need to consider is your access to data . If you’re going to be undertaking primary research , you need to think critically about the sample of respondents you realistically have access to. For example, if you plan to use in-person interviews , you need to ask yourself how many people you’ll need to interview, whether they’ll be agreeable to being interviewed, where they’re located, and so on.

If you’re wanting to undertake a quantitative approach using surveys to collect data, you’ll need to consider how many responses you’ll require to achieve statistically significant results. For many statistical tests, a sample of a few hundred respondents is typically needed to develop convincing conclusions.

So, think carefully about what data you’ll need access to, how much data you’ll need and how you’ll collect it. The last thing you want is to spend a huge amount of time on your research only to find that you can’t get access to the required data.

Constraint #2: Time

The next constraint is time. If you’re undertaking research as part of a PhD, you may have a fairly open-ended time limit, but this is unlikely to be the case for undergrad and Masters-level projects. So, pay attention to your timeline, as the data collection and analysis components of different methodologies have a major impact on time requirements . Also, keep in mind that these stages of the research often take a lot longer than originally anticipated.

Another practical implication of time limits is that it will directly impact which time horizon you can use – i.e. longitudinal vs cross-sectional . For example, if you’ve got a 6-month limit for your entire research project, it’s quite unlikely that you’ll be able to adopt a longitudinal time horizon. 

Constraint #3: Money

As with so many things, money is another important constraint you’ll need to consider when deciding on your research methodology. While some research designs will cost near zero to execute, others may require a substantial budget .

Some of the costs that may arise include:

• Software costs – e.g. survey hosting services, analysis software, etc.
• Promotion costs – e.g. advertising a survey to attract respondents
• Incentive costs – e.g. providing a prize or cash payment incentive to attract respondents
• Equipment rental costs – e.g. recording equipment, lab equipment, etc.
• Travel costs
• Food & beverages

These are just a handful of costs that can creep into your research budget. Like most projects, the actual costs tend to be higher than the estimates, so be sure to err on the conservative side and expect the unexpected. It’s critically important that you’re honest with yourself about these costs, or you could end up getting stuck midway through your project because you’ve run out of money.

Constraint #4: Equipment & software

Another practical consideration is the hardware and/or software you’ll need in order to undertake your research. Of course, this variable will depend on the type of data you’re collecting and analysing. For example, you may need lab equipment to analyse substances, or you may need specific analysis software to analyse statistical data. So, be sure to think about what hardware and/or software you’ll need for each potential methodological approach, and whether you have access to these.

Constraint #5: Your knowledge and skillset

The final practical constraint is a big one. Naturally, the research process involves a lot of learning and development along the way, so you will accrue knowledge and skills as you progress. However, when considering your methodological options, you should still consider your current position on the ladder.

Some of the questions you should ask yourself are:

• Am I more of a “numbers person” or a “words person”?
• How much do I know about the analysis methods I’ll potentially use (e.g. statistical analysis)?
• How much do I know about the software and/or hardware that I’ll potentially use?
• How excited am I to learn new research skills and gain new knowledge?
• How much time do I have to learn the things I need to learn?

Answering these questions honestly will provide you with another set of criteria against which you can evaluate the research methodology options you’ve shortlisted.

So, as you can see, there is a wide range of practicalities and constraints that you need to take into account when you’re deciding on a research methodology. These practicalities create a tension between the “ideal” methodology and the methodology that you can realistically pull off. This is perfectly normal, and it’s your job to find the option that presents the best set of trade-offs.

Recap: Choosing a methodology

In this post, we’ve discussed how to go about choosing a research methodology. The three major deciding factors we looked at were:

• Exploratory
• Confirmatory
• Combination
• Research area norms
• Hardware and software
• Your knowledge and skillset

If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like a helping hand with your research methodology, check out our 1-on-1 research coaching service , or book a free consultation with a friendly Grad Coach.

Psst... there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

Very useful and informative especially for beginners

Nice article! I’m a beginner in the field of cybersecurity research. I am a Telecom and Network Engineer and Also aiming for PhD scholarship.

I find the article very informative especially for my decitation it has been helpful and an eye opener.

Hi I am Anna ,

I am a PHD candidate in the area of cyber security, maybe we can link up

The Examples shows by you, for sure they are really direct me and others to knows and practices the Research Design and prepration.

I found the post very informative and practical.

I struggle so much with designs of the research for sure!

I’m the process of constructing my research design and I want to know if the data analysis I plan to present in my thesis defense proposal possibly change especially after I gathered the data already.

Thank you so much this site is such a life saver. How I wish 1-1 coaching is available in our country but sadly it’s not.

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

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Table of Contents

Purpose of Research

Definition:

The purpose of research is to systematically investigate and gather information on a particular topic or issue, with the aim of answering questions, solving problems, or advancing knowledge.

The purpose of research can vary depending on the field of study, the research question, and the intended audience. In general, research can be used to:

• Generate new knowledge and theories
• Test existing theories or hypotheses
• Identify trends or patterns
• Gather information for decision-making
• Evaluate the effectiveness of programs, policies, or interventions
• Develop new technologies or products
• Identify new opportunities or areas for further study.

Objectives of Research

The objectives of research may vary depending on the field of study and the specific research question being investigated. However, some common objectives of research include:

• To explore and describe a phenomenon: Research can be conducted to describe and understand a phenomenon or situation in greater detail.
• To test a hypothesis or theory : Research can be used to test a specific hypothesis or theory by collecting and analyzing data.
• To identify patterns or trends: Research can be conducted to identify patterns or trends in data, which can provide insights into the behavior of a system or population.
• To evaluate a program or intervention: Research can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a program or intervention, such as a new drug or educational intervention.
• To develop new knowledge or technology : Research can be conducted to develop new knowledge or technologies that can be applied to solve practical problems.
• To inform policy decisions: Research can provide evidence to inform policy decisions and improve public policy.
• To improve existing knowledge: Research can be conducted to improve existing knowledge and fill gaps in the current understanding of a topic.

Applications of Research

Research has a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

• Medicine : Research is critical in developing new treatments and drugs for diseases. Researchers conduct clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of new medications and therapies. They also study the underlying causes of diseases to find new ways to prevent or treat them.
• Technology : Research is crucial in developing new technologies and improving existing ones. Researchers work to develop new software, hardware, and other technological innovations that can be used in various industries such as healthcare, manufacturing, and telecommunications.
• Education : Research is essential in the field of education to develop new teaching methods and strategies. Researchers conduct studies to determine the effectiveness of various educational approaches and to identify factors that influence student learning.
• Business : Research is critical in helping businesses make informed decisions. Market research can help businesses understand their target audience and identify trends in the market. Research can also help businesses improve their products and services.
• Environmental Science : Research is crucial in the field of environmental science to understand the impact of human activities on the environment. Researchers conduct studies to identify ways to reduce pollution, protect natural resources, and mitigate the effects of climate change.

Goal of Research

The ultimate goal of research is to advance our understanding of the world and to contribute to the development of new theories, ideas, and technologies that can be used to improve our lives. Some more common Goals are follows:

• Explore and discover new knowledge : Research can help uncover new information and insights that were previously unknown.
• Test hypotheses and theories : Research can be used to test and validate theories and hypotheses, allowing researchers to refine and develop their ideas.
• Solve practical problems: Research can be used to identify solutions to real-world problems and to inform policy and decision-making.
• Improve understanding : Research can help improve our understanding of complex phenomena and systems, such as the human body, the natural world, and social systems.
• Develop new technologies and innovations : Research can lead to the development of new technologies, products, and innovations that can improve our lives and society.
• Contribute to the development of academic fields : Research can help advance academic fields by expanding our knowledge and understanding of important topics and areas of inquiry.

Importance of Research

The importance of research lies in its ability to generate new knowledge and insights, to test existing theories and ideas, and to solve practical problems.

Some of the key reasons why research is important are:

• Advancing knowledge: Research is essential for advancing knowledge and understanding in various fields. It enables us to explore and discover new concepts, ideas, and phenomena that can contribute to scientific and technological progress.
• Solving problems : Research can help identify and solve practical problems and challenges in various domains, such as health care, agriculture, engineering, and social policy.
• Innovation : Research is a critical driver of innovation, as it enables the development of new products, services, and technologies that can improve people’s lives and contribute to economic growth.
• Evidence-based decision-making : Research provides evidence and data that can inform decision-making in various fields, such as policy-making, business strategy, and healthcare.
• Personal and professional development : Engaging in research can also contribute to personal and professional development, as it requires critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills.

When to use Research

Research should be used in situations where there is a need to gather new information, test existing theories, or solve problems. Some common scenarios where research is often used include:

• Scientific inquiry : Research is essential for advancing scientific knowledge and understanding, and for exploring new concepts, theories, and phenomena.
• Business and market analysis: Research is critical for businesses to gather data and insights about the market, customer preferences, and competition, to inform decision-making and strategy development.
• Social policy and public administration: Research is often used in social policy and public administration to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies, and to identify areas where improvements are needed.
• Healthcare: Research is essential in healthcare to develop new treatments, improve existing ones, and to understand the causes and mechanisms of diseases.
• Education : Research is critical in education to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching methods and programs, and to develop new approaches to learning.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Aims and Objectives of Research Methodology

Meaning of research methodology.

Research methodology simply refers to the procedure or plan of action for conducting a research. It defines techniques and tools used to collect, process and analyze data regarding the research topic.

Research methodologies tell the systematic method for acquiring data and studying it for deriving out crucial findings. This is an important process that helps in solving problems and making business decisions. It enables management for properly organizing their efforts in a right direction for generating an idea.

Methodology of research indicates and influences the overall validity and reliability of whole research to be conducted. Methodology answers mainly two questions regarding research that are how the data used for study was acquired and how it was analyzed to derive out the findings.

Research methodologies are broadly classified into two main categories: Quantitative research methods and Qualitative research methods. Quantitative research is one which is based on quantitative terms and involves collection of numerical data, analyzing it and drawing conclusions using numbers. Qualitative research on other hand, is one which is done using non-numerical and unquantifiable elements like feelings, emotion, sound etc.

Aims and Objectives of Research methodology

Develops better Insight into Topic

Research methodology provides better familiarity with the research topic by properly explaining each concept associated with it. It aims at the proper analysis of every aspect and accurately portrays all findings of the project. 

Provides Systematic Structure

Research methodology eases the process of whole research to be done. It clearly defines the tools and techniques to be used for collecting, analyzing and interpreting the data to find out the solutions.

Enhance the Research Quality

It determines the reliability and validity of the whole research work. Research methodology tells accurate sources from where data should be taken for studying purpose which thereby improves the quality of research done.

Derive Better Solutions

Research methodology helps in deriving crucial findings for solving business problems. It performs an in-depth study of various projects, develops a better understanding and detects all problems.

Aids in Decision Making

Decision making is another important role played by research methodology. It supports management in organizing their efforts in generating a new idea. Research methodology by providing direction for various activities of the project helps managers for efficient decision making.

Inculcates logical and systematic Thinking

It develops the logical thinking ability of individuals. Research methodology evaluates every element of the project and highlights them in detail. It represents every aspect in a simplified manner which improves logical thinking.

Related posts:

• Project Report: Meaning, Contents, Objectives, Characteristics, Need
• Steps in Project Planning
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Decision Making
• Characteristics of Research Methodology
• Methodology of Operation Research
• Aims and Objectives of Business Organisation

Add CommerceMates to your Homescreen!

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Physical Culture for Mental Health

Effects of physical activity on subjective well-being: the mediating role of social support and self-efficacy Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Zhaoqing University, China

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

Objective: Subjective well-being is an essential component of college students' mental health, and the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between physical activity and subjective wellbeing among college students and to examine the mediating role of social support and self-efficacy between the physical activity and subjective well-being.This study utilized a cross-sectional design with a stratified whole group sample of 989 college students (Mage = 19.65 years, SD = 1.1) from three universities in Guangdong Province, China, and used the Physical Activity Scale, Subjective Well-Being Scale, Social Support Scale, and Self-Efficacy Scale for data collection. In this study, SPSS 26.0 was used for descriptive statistical analysis and correlation analysis of the collected data. Harman's one-way method was used to test for common method bias.(1) Physical activity, subjective well-being, social support and self-efficacy were significantly correlated with each other. Among them, physical activity was significantly and positively correlated with subjective well-being (r= 0.36), physical activity directly predicted subjective well-being (β = 0.125, t = 3.992, p < 0.01). ( 2) Physical activity positively predicted social support (β = 0.386, t = 12.505, p < 0.01) and self-efficacy (β = 0.358, t = 11.793, p < 0.01), social support significantly positively predicted subjective well-being (β = 0.332, t = 11.370, p < 0.01) and self-efficacy (β = 0.254, t = 8.744, p < 0.01), self-efficacy significantly and positively predicted subjective well-being (β = 0.255, t = 8.251, p < 0.01). (3) Not only did social support and self-efficacy play an independent mediating role between physical activity and subjective well-being, but social support and self-efficacy played a chain mediating role between physical activity and subjective well-being.This study enriched the theoretical guidance for physical activity in promoting college students' subjective well-being. In the practical teaching of promoting college students' subjective well-being, in addition to paying attention to stimulating physical activity, special attention should be paid to the promotion of social support and self-efficacy.

Keywords: physical activity, social support, self-efficacy, Subjective well-being, Mediating role, crosssectional design

Received: 29 Dec 2023; Accepted: 14 May 2024.

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

* Correspondence: Mx. Huaying Fu, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing, Guangdong Province, China

People also looked at

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 13.5.2024 in Vol 8 (2024)

Practice Standards in International Medical Departments of Public Academic Hospitals in China: Cross-Sectional Study

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

• Yaxu Zhou 1 * , MPH   ; 
• Ying Zhou 2 * , MPH   ; 
• Di Xu 3 , MPH   ; 
• Jie Min 3 , MPH   ; 
• Yu Du 3 , MPH   ; 
• Qi Duan 3 , MPH   ; 
• Wen Bao 3 , MPH   ; 
• Yingying Sun 3 , MPH   ; 
• Huiqin Xi 4 , RN   ; 
• Chunming Wang 2 , Prof Dr   ; 
• Evelyne Bischof 5, 6 , Prof Dr  

1 Finance Department, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

2 Smart Hospital Development Department, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

3 International Medical Service, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

4 Nursing Department, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

5 Department of Oncology and Clinical Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncogenes and Related Genes, Shanghai Cancer Institute, Shanghai, China

6 Department of Oncology, Reni Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Chunming Wang, Prof Dr

Smart Hospital Development Department

Renji Hospital

Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine

No160 Pujian Road

Shanghai, 200127

Phone: 86 2168383408

Email: [email protected]

Background: Improving health care in cities with a diverse, international population is crucial for ensuring health equity, particularly for foreigners facing challenges due to cultural and language barriers. This situation is especially relevant in China, a major destination for expatriates and travelers, where optimizing health care services and incorporating international standards in the public sector are vital. Achieving this involves understanding the operational details, cultural and linguistic nuances, and advancing medical digitalization. A strategic approach focusing on cultural competence and awareness of health care systems is essential for effectively navigating health care for foreigners and expatriates in China.

Objective: The aim of this study was to perform an in-depth analysis of the subjective and objective experiences of local and international patients in public hospitals in China to provide a basis for enhancing the medical experience of all patients.

Methods: A structured questionnaire was provided to patients at an international outpatient service of a top-tier university hospital in China. Qualitative analysis of the survey responses was performed to methodically categorize and analyze medical treatment, focusing on patient demand and satisfaction across four main category elements (“high demand, high satisfaction”; “high demand, low satisfaction”; “low demand, high satisfaction”; and “low demand, low satisfaction”), enabling a detailed cross-sectional analysis to identify areas for improvement.

Results: Elements falling under “high demand, high satisfaction” for both Chinese and international patients were primarily in the realms of medical quality and treatment processes. In contrast, elements identified as “high demand, low satisfaction” were significantly different between the two patient groups.

Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of systematic, objective research in advancing the quality of international health care services within China’s leading academic medical centers. Key to this improvement is rigorous quality control involving both patients and providers. This study highlights the necessity of certifying such centers and emphasizes the role of digital platforms in disseminating information about medical services. This strategy is expected to cater to diverse patient needs, enhancing the overall patient experience. Furthermore, by developing comprehensive diagnosis and treatment services and highlighting the superior quality and costs associated with international health care, these efforts aim to foster a sense of belonging among international patients and increase the attractiveness of China’s medical services for this demographic.

Introduction

Improving health care processes to ensure equality in international metropoles has recently become a widely discussed challenge [ 1 ]. For foreigners living or traveling abroad, navigating the health care system presents unique challenges, especially when there are significant cultural and language differences. Given China’s substantial role as a global hub for expatriates and travelers, optimizing health care and establishing international service in the public sector are essential. This process requires a high-level understanding of operational intricacies, cultural and linguistic skills, as well as a great extent of medical digitalization [ 1 - 3 ]. These factors collectively necessitate a strategic approach to health care navigation for foreigners in China, underscoring the importance of cultural competence and systemic awareness in international medical settings [ 4 ].

Medical tourism represents a dynamic and growing sector within the global tourism and health care industries, characterized by individuals traveling across international borders to access medical treatments that may be unavailable, more costly, or have longer waiting times in their home countries [ 5 ]. In China, the medical tourism landscape is distinguished by its integration of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) with modern health care services, offering a unique proposition to medical tourists [ 6 ]. China has seen significant growth in this sector, facilitated by its advancements in medical technology, the global reputation of its health care institutions, and government support for health care development [ 7 ]. The presence of high-quality health care services at relatively lower costs compared to those available in Western countries makes China an attractive destination for medical tourists seeking both conventional treatments and TCM therapies, leading to a significant growth in the number of foreign patients in hospitals [ 7 ]. Moreover, China’s status as a host for a large expatriate population adds another dimension to its medical tourism sector. Expatriates, alongside international tourists, contribute to the demand for high-quality and culturally sensitive health care services. This necessitates the adjustment of treatment offerings and health care service quality to cater to the diverse preferences and expectations of both medical tourists and the expatriate community residing in China. Ensuring the provision of health care that aligns with international standards and cultural sensitivities is crucial for maintaining China’s competitiveness as a preferred destination for medical tourism, as well as for fostering inclusivity for the expatriates.

In China, grade-3A hospitals represent the highest level within the three-tier hospital classification system, characterized by their extensive capacity for specialist health services, medical education, and scientific research [ 7 ]. Public hospitals, as the backbone of the Chinese health care system, integrate the best global practices and advanced digital infrastructures. Shanghai’s foreigner-oriented medical service institutions can be divided into three categories: an international medical service in a public hospital, a fully independent general hospital or clinic, or a “special medical care” sector in public hospitals [ 6 , 8 ]. The high quality of treatment for international patients in public hospitals, as evidenced by their increasing numbers, emphasizes accessibility, quality, and multidisciplinary expertise. In Shanghai, 61.6% of all foreign patients were treated in public hospitals between 2016 and 2018 [ 9 , 10 ].

International medical services in Shanghai public 3A-class hospitals have become the preferred choice for both Chinese and foreign patients because of the multidisciplinary excellence in clinical, educational, and scientific resources [ 11 ].

The Shanghai Renji University Hospital (hereafter referred to as Renji Hospital), one of the top three public hospitals in Shanghai, officially opened an international outpatient service in October 2015. This is the first international outpatient service platform in China that has passed the world-renowned international certification, assessment, and risk management Det Norske Veritas (DNV) certification for 3 consecutive years. Therefore, we selected Renji Hospital as a case study for a comprehensive cross-sectional analysis of the strategies employed and the outcomes achieved to enhance Shanghai’s global health care brand and, by extension, China’s international medical services framework.

Through a commitment to providing high-quality health care services to international patients, focused on understanding and meeting their specific needs and expectations, Chinese medical services embrace the importance of cultural sensitivity and cross-cultural communication. In 2022, the “14th Five-Year Plan” for Shanghai’s Health and Health Development was officially released, aiming at transforming Shanghai into an Asian “Medical City of Health” [ 12 ]. The strategy involves improving the health care service level, building a high-quality medical system, and incorporating an integrated and intelligent medical service that will ultimately transform the national public health system. At the same time, these efforts will increase the attraction of patients from neighboring countries and regions to come to Shanghai for medical treatment and enhance its international image [ 12 ].

Research Objective

This study was designed to evaluate and assess patient demands and satisfaction across various medical service elements. The aim of the study was to identify key areas of patient demand and satisfaction, particularly focusing on the international medical outpatient services. Analysis of the survey responses can help to provide guidelines on improving the medical experience for both local and international patients. Furthermore, these guidelines will serve as a tool for enhancing Shanghai’s quality of international patent care, thereby contributing to the city’s growth as China’s medical tourism hub.

The study was conducted in the international outpatient service of Renji Hospital. Recruitment for the study occurred over a 6-week period from February to March 2020. The selection process involved a stratified random sampling technique to ensure a representative sample of the international outpatient population attending the international outpatient service. Patients were approached by trained research coordinators who were fluent in both Mandarin and English, allowing for clear communication regarding the purpose of the study and the nature of the questionnaire. Inclusion criteria stipulated that participants must be international outpatients 18 years or older who had visited the international outpatient service within the past year.

Upon agreeing to participate, individuals were provided with the questionnaire in either English or Mandarin, based on their preference. To mitigate the potential for selection bias and to ensure privacy, questionnaires were completed anonymously in a designated area within the international outpatient service waiting room, with research coordinators available to assist with any queries.

Ethical Considerations

The Ethical Committee of Renji Hospital exempted this study from the requirement of official approval since it was survey-based with voluntary participation. Patients were informed that participation was voluntary, with no incentives offered, and that their care would not be affected by their decision of whether to participate. The questionnaires were anonymous. The participants were informed about the nature of the research. This process highlighted that they could withdraw at any time without any consequences. The participants were not financially compensated for their participation.

Questionnaire Design

Questionnaires were distributed before the medical treatment. The first section asked the patients to provide basic sociodemographic and general information, including customer category (first or return visit), sex, nationality, age, education level, payment method, and residence history in Shanghai.

To measure patients’ expectations (demand) and satisfaction from the medical service, an expert consortium designed a questionnaire drawing upon validated surveys from both local and international contexts related to hospital evaluation and patient satisfaction [ 13 , 14 ], as well as studies on the medical needs and satisfaction of foreign or commercially insured patients [ 15 , 16 ]. The questionnaire focused on five critical dimensions of health care provision: medical quality, physical environment, quality service, medical treatment process, and institutional qualification. Each dimension was further broken down into a total of 30 specific medical treatment aspects (eg, safety and efficiency), labeled Y1-Y30, to ensure a thorough evaluation.

The same questionnaire was distributed to the patients twice: before and after the visit. Before the visit, patients were asked to attribute their subjective importance to each of the categories showcasing their expectations (demand). After the visit, the patients were provided the questionnaire again, asking for the extent to which their demands were met (satisfaction).

The respondents’ demand scores for the 30 medical elements were compiled using the Likert 5-level scale method. Cronbach α was used for assessment of content validity to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. The Cronbach α coefficient was 0.964, confirming good structural reliability of the questionnaire.

Response Rate

Of the 200 questionnaires distributed, 180 were retrieved, yielding a high return rate of 90%. The responses underwent a preliminary screening to validate the completeness and consistency of the data, resulting in 171 questionnaires deemed valid for analysis. This led to an effective response rate of 94.4%, indicating robust engagement and reliability of the data collected. The high response rate may be reflective of the strong patient engagement and satisfaction with the services at the international outpatient service, which is consistent with the facility’s patient-centered approach to health care delivery.

Sociodemographic and Core Characteristics of the Respondents

The basic information of the respondents is summarized in Table 1 . Among the total 171 respondents, there were 92 Chinese patients and 79 foreign patients. The respondents were mainly patients seeking a second opinion, accounting for more than 60% of the sample. The proportion of men and women was similar, with 72.6% of the respondents under the age of 50 years. Overall, 91.3% of the respondents had received undergraduate education or above. Commercial insurance direct payment was the main payment method, accounting for 68.4% of the sample, and 75.4% of the respondents had been living in Shanghai for more than 3 years.

Demand Scores of Chinese and Foreign Patients

The average score of the respondents’ demand for each element was 4.61 out of 5, with the highest score found for medical quality (4.74), followed by medical treatment process (4.66), physical environment (4.59), institutional qualification (4.58), and quality service (4.47). Through single-factor analysis at an α level of .05, the difference in the scores of demand degree of patients of different nationalities in each dimension was found to be statistically significant. The scores of each item are shown in Table 2 .

Satisfaction Scores of Chinese and Foreign Patients

The average score of respondents’ satisfaction with each element was 4.50 out of 5, with the highest scores obtained for medical treatment process (4.56), followed by medical quality (4.55), institutional qualification (4.54), physical environment (4.48), and quality service (4.34). Through single-factor analysis at an α level of .05, there were statistically significant differences in the satisfaction scores between groups. The scores of each item are shown in Table 3 .

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Patients’ Demands and Satisfaction

To visualize the relations between patients, demand, and satisfaction, scatterplot charts were plotted ( Figures 1 - 2 ), where the x-axis represents the demand score and the y-axis represents the satisfaction score. The scatter chart was divided into four quadrants by taking the average satisfaction and demand scores as the boundary (as shown in the orange lines in Figures 1 - 2 ). The quadrants are as follows: Q1, “high demand, high satisfaction”; Q2, “high demand, low satisfaction”; “Q3, low demand, high satisfaction”; and Q4, “low demand, low satisfaction.”

Demands and Satisfaction of Chinese Patients

For Chinese patients, medical treatment process and physical environment are perceived as equally important given that they were the most abundant categories in Q2 (high demand, low satisfaction). Institutional qualification scored the lowest, as Chinese patients’ high demands were not met for this category. The medical quality received outperformed Chinese patients’ demands, being the most abundant category in Q3 (low demand, high satisfaction). Regarding Q4 (low demand, low satisfaction), the quality service category was the most abundant, suggesting that Chinese patients did not expect and were not satisfied with the nonmedical services ( Table 4 ).

a See Tables 2 and 3 for a description of each element Y1-Y30.

b N/A: not applicable.

Demands and Satisfaction of Foreign Patients

For the foreign patients, the medical treatment process category performed the best as it had the most elements in Q1 (high demand, high satisfaction), suggesting that the high demands of international patients were met. However, Q1 had the most questions of all categories (13 questions), suggesting that foreign patients seek a comprehensive health care experience. Institutional qualification performed the most poorly, as it was the most abundant category in Q2 (high demand, low satisfaction), suggesting that the needs of foreign patients were not met. Quality service appears to have positively surprised foreign patients as it was the most abundant category in Q3 (low demand, high satisfaction). The question distribution in Q4 was uniform and the interpretation is inconclusive ( Table 5 ).

Comparison of “High Demand, High Satisfaction” Points Between Chinese and Foreign Patients

The Chinese and foreign patients exhibited similar preferences and satisfaction levels regarding aspects categorized under “high demand, high satisfaction.” This suggests that certain aspects of health care services that are highly sought after and meet expectations well are relatively consistent across both patient groups.

In Q1, the scores to 9 questions overlapped between Chinese and foreign patients: attention paid to patient safety, effective clinical diagnosis and treatment, convenient visit process, convenient and fast appointment, convenience payment, complete medical equipment, comfortable treatment environment, complete emergency facilities, and attaches importance to informed consent. This suggests that both groups have high expectations regarding the quality of medical procedures and care inherent to standard health care; thus, both groups ranked these demands as being met with high satisfaction.

The high score of patients’ feelings regarding the prediagnosis appointment and postdiagnosis payment is likely due to the construction of Renji’s public hospital as an internet hospital and the implementation of mobile payment [ 17 ].

In Q1, there were 4 questions unique to foreign patients: multinational language service, conform to the medical care standards, hospital specialist ranking, and postdiagnosis follow-up service. The difference in demand for a multinational language service represents a reasonable distinction between Chinese and foreign patients given that its existence is tailored to foreign patients only and therefore there was no need for this category to be among the high demands of Chinese patients.

The unique questions for Chinese patients in Q1 included attention paid to customer participation, smooth connection of referral, and convenient and fast parking.

Both groups marked “hospital specialists ranking” as a high-demand point, but only foreign patients marked it as both high demand and high satisfaction, suggesting that international patients are more satisfied with the doctors’ rankings.

Complete medical equipment/emergency facilities refer to facilities having the necessary infrastructure for high-quality medical services [ 18 , 19 ]. Hospital brand reputation/hospital specialist ranking is the externalization of high medical quality [ 20 ]. Therefore, the core medical demand of Chinese and foreign patients in international clinics is medical quality. Based on medical quality, the demand for service provider equipment and specialist reputation is extended. It is suggested that the international medical service entities in the public context must consolidate the bottom line of medical quality, improve medical facilities and equipment, highlight the brand publicity centered on medical quality, and demonstrate the image and concept of “effective and safe” to patients.

Comparison of “High Demand, Low Satisfaction” Points Between Chinese and Foreign Patients

In Q2, only two of the questions (insurance network hospital and international certification) overlapped between Chinese and foreign patients, which both belong to the institutional qualification category.

The aspects for which foreign patients had high demands and these expectations were not met included hospital infection management, attention paid to customer participation, efficient and convenient transportation, and nature of hospital organization. The high demands of Chinese patients were not met in the following aspects: guided and accompanied services, hospital brand reputation, hospital specialist ranking, and conform to the medical care standards. Interestingly, 4 out of 6 of these questions fall under the institutional qualification category.

To address areas of “high demand, low satisfaction,” it is crucial for international medical services to accelerate investment, develop strategies, and implement targeted improvements.

Comparison of “Low Demand, High Satisfaction” Points Between Chinese and Foreign Patients

In Q3, two questions (carries out health education and reasonable medical expenses) overlapped between the Chinese and foreign patients; the low demand and high satisfaction for these aspects suggest that the services outperformed the expectations for both groups. This overlap suggests that both groups were positively surprised by the extent of health education and affordable prices at Renji Hospital.

The unique items in this quadrant for Chinese patients were attention paid to customer feedback, postdiagnosis follow-up service, and organization size. The unique items for the foreign patients were convenient and fast parking and adequate information disclosure.

It can be assumed that Chinese patients did not demand for their feedback to be heard (Y5), but they were positively surprised that they were asked for it, whereas the responses to this question for the foreign patients landed in Q4 (low demand, low satisfaction). By contrast, foreign patients were positively surprised by the adequate information disclosure, whereas Chinese patients’ scores for this item landed in Q4.

Both groups were highly satisfied with the fast and convenient parking at the hospital; however, only the Chinese patients had a demand for this aspect of service.

Comparison of “Low Demand, Low Satisfaction” Points Between Chinese and Foreign Patients

In Q4, only two questions overlapped between Chinese and foreign patients: protect customer privacy and respect for religious beliefs, suggesting that both groups see the hospital setting as a public space and their feelings of privacy should be enhanced.

The unique items in Q4 for the foreign patients were attention paid to customer feedback, smooth connection of referral, guided and accompanied services, hospital brand reputation, and organization size.

Both Chinese and foreign patients had low demand for the organization size; however, only the Chinese patients marked this item with high satisfaction scores. In addition, only the Chinese group had a high demand for guided accompany services, although both groups rated this item as a low-satisfaction category. Both groups rated hospital brand reputation as a low-satisfaction item, whereas this was only indicated as a high-demand item for the Chinese patient group.

The unique items in Q4 for Chinese patients were infection management, efficient and convenient transportation, nature of hospital organization, and adequate information disclosure.

Principal Findings

This study represents the first comprehensive cross-sectional analysis of patient needs and satisfaction in an international outpatient service center at a top-tier academic hospital. Through cross-sectional analysis, 30 elements were divided into four categories: “high demand, high satisfaction”; “high demand, low satisfaction”; “low demand, low satisfaction”; and “low demand, high satisfaction.”

The analysis investigated a practical experience from the construction of the international outpatient service within a large top-tier academic Chinese public hospital. The findings provide valuable insights for the construction and enhancement of the international medical service model in Shanghai and are also applicable to the broader context of public health care in China.

Considering the limitations of public hospital resources, based on these findings, we can propose various strategies for continuous optimization and key improvement of the international outpatient experience.

Strategies for Improving the Medical Experience of International Outpatients

Rely on the advantages of public medical quality with third-party international certification to deliver a progressive patient experience.

International medical service entities in the public context should take the traditional advantages of the medical quality management of public hospitals into consideration, combine the characteristics of international medical services, benchmark the international medical care standards, take the third-party international certification as the starting point, promote reform through evaluation, continue to consolidate the quality of medical services, and improve the sense of access of international outpatients to the elements of medical quality. Through the third-party international certification, the international outpatient service of Renji Hospital has established the organizational structure, system process, evaluation method, and continuous improvement measures of foreign-related medical quality and safety that are suitable for the framework of Chinese public hospitals. Accordingly, the medical quality and safety standards of the international outpatient service can become the benchmark of the quality of foreign-related medical service in China and can be used to further improve the diversified service quality and medical experience of large public hospitals.

Digitalization and Use of International Media Platforms

Internet platforms play a crucial role in hospitals’ information disclosure efforts [ 21 , 22 ]. For international medical entities operating in the public sphere, it is vital to establish distinct foreign-related medical service information platforms tailored to patient needs. These platforms should offer multilingual or bilingual Chinese-to-English options to ensure a high-quality and informed medical experience for international patients. However, despite the bilingual online system, it is still critical for the medical personnel and doctors to communicate effectively in foreign languages, as language barriers have been highlighted as a key deterrent for foreign patients seeking medical care in Shanghai [ 12 , 23 ].

The platforms should include comprehensive content covering qualification certification, specialty strengths, treatment processes, expert profiles, facility background, additional services, and pricing details. Timely updates on medical treatment guidance, international medical care schedules, insurance partnerships, and patient feedback channels are essential [ 24 ]. Additionally, disclosing hospital social responsibility information such as patient satisfaction and safety measures will enhance transparency and build patient trust. Renji Hospital exemplifies this practice by developing a bilingual internet platform for foreign-related medical services, elevating the online and offline medical experience, and meeting diverse health needs effectively.

Build the Service Chain of the Whole Diagnosis and Treatment Cycle

Providing high-quality medical care at an affordable price is a crucial characteristic of international medical services, especially within the public health care context. To prioritize patient satisfaction, it is important for international medical entities to not only fulfill basic diagnostic and treatment needs but to also offer a quality service and improve the nonmedical efficiency to enhance patients’ overall experience. Based on the findings of this study, the following measures are recommended.

First, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive service chain that covers the entire diagnosis and treatment cycle, including prediagnosis appointments, inpatient care, and postdiagnosis follow-up [ 25 ]. To achieve this, internet hospital platforms can be used to facilitate preappointment guidance and improve the information and visual guidance systems. Accompanying and guidance services should be provided to enhance interaction and improve efficiency. Various channels can be implemented for postdiagnosis follow-up, such as telephone, email, and internet hospital, to extend the service chain and foster patient engagement.

Second, it is essential to respect patients’ right to privacy [ 26 ]. This can be achieved by ensuring that each patient has access to a private consultation room and, if spatial constraints exist in the examination area, to use curtain screens or other methods to create separation. Staff should provide reassurance and clear explanations to make patients feel respected. In addition, the training and supervision of medical personnel should be enhanced, integrating the protection of patient privacy into their daily behaviors during diagnosis, treatment, and communication.

Third, it is necessary to maintain a comfortable and tidy international medical reception and treatment area [ 27 ]. This should be done in a manner that emphasizes the harmony and unity of both the physical environment and the decor. In addition, the area should be regularly maintained and cleaned, while guiding staff members to maintain a positive and professional attitude.

Implementing these measures will contribute to creating a favorable environment for international medical services, ensuring a balance between high-quality care and affordability while enhancing the overall patient experience.

Foster Inclusivity, Integration, and Internationality

Finally, a conducive environment for foreign-related medical services is one that combines local training and foreign expertise. First, it is crucial to enhance language training for staff to overcome language barriers. Implementing a comprehensive foreign-language training and assessment plan is recommended, ensuring that staff can proficiently master English expressions and medical terminology, pronounce the words accurately, respond promptly, and communicate effectively with foreign patients [ 28 ]. Second, there is a need to cultivate exceptional general practitioners and develop a medical service model that prioritizes “general practice before specialty,” aligning with the medical preferences of foreign patients [ 29 ]. It is advisable to explore and implement training, educational, and exchange programs for high-quality general practitioners, fostering practitioners with international medical attributes [ 30 ]. In this model, general practitioners would conduct initial diagnosis and treatment, accurately referring patients requiring further diagnosis and specialized treatment to relevant specialists based on professional judgment. This approach is better suited to the medical preferences of foreign patients and enhances their sense of belonging. Third, the introduction of renowned foreign experts can significantly contribute to improving services at an international hospital. Renji Hospital has established and improved standardized systems and processes for the practice registration, diagnosis, and treatment of foreign clinicians, gradually establishing a well-regulated management system. The hospital has successfully recruited two full-time doctors from the United States and Italy, as well as five part-time doctors from the United States, Canada, Germany, and Singapore, fostering a favorable practice of receiving foreign patients.

Strengths and Limitations

The novelty of this study lies in the utilization of management tools to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of patient needs and satisfaction regarding medical treatment elements, leading to the accurate classification of 30 key elements. This approach enables practitioners and researchers involved in international medical service construction to identify crucial areas, implement targeted policies, enhance the efficiency of international medical services, and improve the overall patient experience.

However, it is important to acknowledge some limitations of this study. First, to emphasize key points, the strategies proposed may not encompass all aspects comprehensively. Second, the terms “low demand” and “low satisfaction” refer to relative values rather than absolute levels. In practical application, regular assessments of patients’ medical needs and satisfaction should be conducted, allowing for dynamic adjustments in focus areas. Third, the study was restricted to a single hospital’s international outpatient service and there is potential for response bias, as the participants who chose to respond may have different perspectives from those who did not participate. Additionally, the study period coincides with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have influenced patient expectations and satisfaction levels.

Conclusions

The findings from this study have broad implications for the improvement of international outpatient services within public hospitals. The results suggest that such entities must not only reinforce the foundation of medical quality but also enhance the visibility and accessibility of their services through better medical facilities, equipment, and brand communication. The study advocates for an increase in investment in areas of “high demand, low satisfaction,” such as language services and privacy protection, to provide targeted improvements. Emphasizing the importance of digital platforms for information dissemination and adopting a comprehensive approach to the diagnosis and treatment service chain can significantly improve patient experiences. As public hospitals continue to navigate the demands of a global patient base, these findings offer valuable insights for developing services that are not only of high quality but also culturally sensitive and patient-centered.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dominika Wilczok of Duke and Duke Kunshan University for her contributions to scientific conciseness, articulating rebuttal, and valuable input in the structural review process. This research was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 72031006) and the Chenxing Young Scholars Administrator Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

Data Availability

The data sets generated during and/or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

Ying Zhou, EB, Yaxu Zhou, CW, DX, JM, YD, QD, WB, YS, and HX contributed to conceptualization and data curation. Ying Zhou and Yaxu Zhou performed the formal analysis. Ying Zhou, EB, and Yaxu Zhou wrote the original draft of the manuscript. CW and EB reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

• Liu X, Zhu Q, Zheng F, Wang J. Accelerating medical device innovation in China: promoting collaboration between clinicians, researchers, device-makers, and regulators. NEJM Catalyst. 2019;5(2):1. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gu W, Shu L, Chen W, Wang J, Wu D, Ai Z, et al. Evaluation of Chinese healthcare organizations' innovative performance in the digital health era. Front Public Health. Jul 6, 2023;11:1141757. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang W, van Wijngaarden J, Wang H, Buljac-Samardzic M, Yuan S, van de Klundert J. Factors influencing the implementation of foreign innovations in organization and management of health service delivery in China: a systematic review. Front Health Serv. Dec 20, 2021;1:766677. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang Y, Deng C, Yang L. The healthcare needs of international clients in China: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022;16:1049-1060. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Akhavan P, Azizi N, Akhtari S, Haass O, Jan T. Understanding critical success factors for implementing medical tourism in a multi-case analysis. Knowl Manage ELearn. 2023;15(1):43-63. [ CrossRef ]
• Zhai F, Wu B, Bai J, Li L, Patwary AK. Investigating revisit intention of medical tourists in China through nutritional knowledge, perceived medical quality, and trust in the physiologist: a recommendation on health tourism policy measures. Front Public Health. 2022;10:893497. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Li L, Du T, Zeng S. The different classification of hospitals impact on medical outcomes of patients in China. Front Public Health. Jul 18, 2022;10:855323. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhang J, He LM, Yan R. Analysis of patients' cognition and demand for special medical services in Shanghai. Journal Shanghai Jiaotong University Medical Edition. 2011;12:4.
• Fei W, Fang L. Research on foreign-related medical development in Shanghai under the background of excellent global urban construction. Soft Science of Health. 2019;33(07):33-38. [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou P, Li W, Xu C, Xu M, Chen W, Shao Z, et al. Non-public medical institutions help the development of inbound medical tourism: based on the analysis of foreign inpatients in Shanghai. Chinese Health Resources. 2020;23(06):614-618. [ CrossRef ]
• Gu J, Lu Y. The proposal for the improvement of the international medical services in Shanghai. Chinese Health Resources. 2015;18(04):260-262. [ CrossRef ]
• Press release for Party Committee special-series press conference on the theme 'forging ahead in a new journey and make contributions in a new era' (Sept. 22, 2022). Shanghai Municipal People's Government. Sep 22, 2022. URL: https://www.shanghai.gov.cn/nw46716/20230208/6243e2eb8545411c836cc71a5e12953a.html [accessed 2024-04-06]
• Li CL. Connotation definition of international Hospital. Chinese Hospital Management. 2021;41(06):91-93.
• DNVGL: a rising star in certification and evaluation. Baidu. URL: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/da08c7c1fa0f76c66137ee06eff9aef8951e485e?fr=xueshu&_wkts_=1712694608478 [accessed 2024-04-09]
• Peng WQ, Yao ML, Zhang LP, Zhao AP, Zhang YL, Ni GZ, et al. Investigation and analysis on multiculturalism nursing needs of foreign patients in Pudong New District. Nurs J Chin PLA. 2009;26:16-18. [ FREE Full text ]
• Peng Y, Yu H, Zhang X, Zhang L, Yao M, Ma L, et al. Application of problem management model in cross-cultural nursing of foreign patients. J Nurs Sci. 2015;30(01):4-8.
• Liu J, Yu Z, Huang P, Chen Y, Fan SY, Chen X, et al. Analysis of hospital image components and management strategies. Journal of Chengdu Medical College. 2016;11(03):369-364.
• Mou B. Investigation on the demand and satisfaction of nursing services for foreign patients in Shaoxing. Thesis. Zhejiang University. 2013. URL: https://www.zhangqiaokeyan.com/academic-degree-domestic_mphd_thesis/020314870986.html [accessed 2024-04-09]
• Xie J, Zhong Z. Construction and implementation of the whole process quality control system for medical equipment. Chinese Medical Device Information. 2022;28(19):150-153. [ CrossRef ]
• Bi ZS. Construction and implementation of quality control management system for medical equipment in our hospital. Chinese Medical Equipment. 2020;35(04):127-130.
• Yu G, Gu S, Cui W, Zhu W, Wei M, Wang S, et al. Practice and exploration of the first children's Internet hospital in Shanghai. Chinese Health Resources. 2020;23(02):106-109. [ CrossRef ]
• Dong L, Li YJ, Zhu JJ, Wang J, Wang L. Inheriting the brand culture to help the high-quality development of the hospital. Modern Hospital. 2022;22(07):1009-1011.
• Liu X. Investigation on the demand and satisfaction of patients with special needs for medical services. Chinese Journal of Misdiagnosis. 2010;10(35):8811.
• Song L, Yang J, Zhao G, Guo R. Research on the current situation of social responsibility information disclosure in Beijing's public tertiary hospitals. Chinese Hospital. 2019;23(12):21-24. [ CrossRef ]
• The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Care Services, Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care, Balogh E, Miller BT, et al. Chapter 2. The diagnostic process. In: Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Washington, DC. National Academies Press; 2015.
• Zhang H, Zhang H, Zhang Z, Wang Y. Patient privacy and autonomy: a comparative analysis of cases of ethical dilemmas in China and the United States. BMC Med Ethics. Feb 02, 2021;22(1):8. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ai Y, Rahman MK, Newaz MS, Gazi MAI, Rahaman MA, Mamun AA, et al. Determinants of patients' satisfaction and trust toward healthcare service environment in general practice clinics. Front Psychol. Jul 29, 2022;13:856750. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Zhang Z, Wáng YXJ. English language usage pattern in China mainland doctors: AME survey-001 initial analysis results. Quant Imaging Med Surg. Feb 2015;5(1):174-181. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buja L. Medical education today: all that glitters is not gold. BMC Med Educ. Apr 16, 2019;19(1):110. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jacobs F, Stegmann K, Siebeck M. Promoting medical competencies through international exchange programs: benefits on communication and effective doctor-patient relationships. BMC Med Educ. Mar 04, 2014;14:43. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 24.10.23; peer-reviewed by M Avdagovska; comments to author 11.12.23; revised version received 07.03.24; accepted 14.03.24; published 13.05.24.

©Yaxu Zhou, Ying Zhou, Di Xu, Jie Min, Yu Du, Qi Duan, Wen Bao, Yingying Sun, Huiqin Xi, Chunming Wang, Evelyne Bischof. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 13.05.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Comparison of Soil Carbon Dynamics Between Restored Prairie and Agricultural Soils in the U.S. Midwest

Globally, soils hold more carbon than both the atmosphere and aboveground terrestrial biosphere combined. Changes in land use and land cover have the potential to alter soil carbon cycling throughout the soil profile, from the surface to meters deep, yet most studies focus only on the near surface impact ( 3 and C 4 photosynthetic pathway plant community composition. Comparative analysis of edaphic properties and soil carbon suggests that deep loess deposits in Nebraska permit enhanced water infiltration and SOC deposition to depths of ~100 cm in 60 years of prairie restoration. In Illinois, poorly drained, clay/lime rich soils on glacial till and a younger restored prairie age (15 years) restricted the influence of prairie restoration to the upper 30 cm. Comparing the δ 13 C values of SOC and SIC in each system demonstrated that SIC at each site is likely of lithogenic origin. This work indicates that the magnitude of influence of restoration management is dependent on edaphic properties inherited from geological and geomorphological controls. Future work should quantify root structures and redox properties to better understand the influence of rooting depth on soil carbon concentrations. Fast-cycling C dynamics can be assessed using continuous, in-situ CO 2 and O 2 soil gas concentration changes. The secondary objective of my thesis was to determine if manual, low temporal resolution gas sampling and analysis are a low cost and effective means of measuring soil O 2 and CO 2 , by comparing it with data from in-situ continuous (hourly) sensors. Manual analysis of soil CO 2 and O 2 from field replicates of buried gas collection cups resulted in measurement differences from the continuous sensors. Measuring CO2 concentration with manual methods often resulted in higher concentrations than hourly, continuous measurements across all sites. Additionally, O 2 concentrations measured by manual methods were higher than hourly values in the restored prairie and less in agricultural sites. A variety of spatial variability, pressure perturbations, calibration offsets, and system leakage influences on both analysis methods could cause the discrepancy.

NSF Grant 1331906

Degree type.

• Master of Science
• Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Campus location

• West Lafayette

Advisor/Supervisor/Committee Chair

Additional committee member 2, additional committee member 3, additional committee member 4, additional committee member 5, usage metrics.

• Environmental biogeochemistry
• Soil chemistry and soil carbon sequestration (excl. carbon sequestration science)

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 13.5.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Suitability of the Current Health Technology Assessment of Innovative Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices: Scoping Literature Review

Authors of this article:

There are no citations yet available for this article according to Crossref .