what are some research limitations

21 Research Limitations Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Research limitations refer to the potential weaknesses inherent in a study. All studies have limitations of some sort, meaning declaring limitations doesn’t necessarily need to be a bad thing, so long as your declaration of limitations is well thought-out and explained.

Rarely is a study perfect. Researchers have to make trade-offs when developing their studies, which are often based upon practical considerations such as time and monetary constraints, weighing the breadth of participants against the depth of insight, and choosing one methodology or another.

In research, studies can have limitations such as limited scope, researcher subjectivity, and lack of available research tools.

Acknowledging the limitations of your study should be seen as a strength. It demonstrates your willingness for transparency, humility, and submission to the scientific method and can bolster the integrity of the study. It can also inform future research direction.

Typically, scholars will explore the limitations of their study in either their methodology section, their conclusion section, or both.

Research Limitations Examples

Qualitative and quantitative research offer different perspectives and methods in exploring phenomena, each with its own strengths and limitations. So, I’ve split the limitations examples sections into qualitative and quantitative below.

Qualitative Research Limitations

Qualitative research seeks to understand phenomena in-depth and in context. It focuses on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions.

It’s often used to explore new or complex issues, and it provides rich, detailed insights into participants’ experiences, behaviors, and attitudes. However, these strengths also create certain limitations, as explained below.

1. Subjectivity

Qualitative research often requires the researcher to interpret subjective data. One researcher may examine a text and identify different themes or concepts as more dominant than others.

Close qualitative readings of texts are necessarily subjective – and while this may be a limitation, qualitative researchers argue this is the best way to deeply understand everything in context.

Suggested Solution and Response: To minimize subjectivity bias, you could consider cross-checking your own readings of themes and data against other scholars’ readings and interpretations. This may involve giving the raw data to a supervisor or colleague and asking them to code the data separately, then coming together to compare and contrast results.

2. Researcher Bias

The concept of researcher bias is related to, but slightly different from, subjectivity.

Researcher bias refers to the perspectives and opinions you bring with you when doing your research.

For example, a researcher who is explicitly of a certain philosophical or political persuasion may bring that persuasion to bear when interpreting data.

In many scholarly traditions, we will attempt to minimize researcher bias through the utilization of clear procedures that are set out in advance or through the use of statistical analysis tools.

However, in other traditions, such as in postmodern feminist research , declaration of bias is expected, and acknowledgment of bias is seen as a positive because, in those traditions, it is believed that bias cannot be eliminated from research, so instead, it is a matter of integrity to present it upfront.

Suggested Solution and Response: Acknowledge the potential for researcher bias and, depending on your theoretical framework , accept this, or identify procedures you have taken to seek a closer approximation to objectivity in your coding and analysis.

3. Generalizability

If you’re struggling to find a limitation to discuss in your own qualitative research study, then this one is for you: all qualitative research, of all persuasions and perspectives, cannot be generalized.

This is a core feature that sets qualitative data and quantitative data apart.

The point of qualitative data is to select case studies and similarly small corpora and dig deep through in-depth analysis and thick description of data.

Often, this will also mean that you have a non-randomized sample size.

While this is a positive – you’re going to get some really deep, contextualized, interesting insights – it also means that the findings may not be generalizable to a larger population that may not be representative of the small group of people in your study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that take a quantitative approach to the question.

4. The Hawthorne Effect

The Hawthorne effect refers to the phenomenon where research participants change their ‘observed behavior’ when they’re aware that they are being observed.

This effect was first identified by Elton Mayo who conducted studies of the effects of various factors ton workers’ productivity. He noticed that no matter what he did – turning up the lights, turning down the lights, etc. – there was an increase in worker outputs compared to prior to the study taking place.

Mayo realized that the mere act of observing the workers made them work harder – his observation was what was changing behavior.

So, if you’re looking for a potential limitation to name for your observational research study , highlight the possible impact of the Hawthorne effect (and how you could reduce your footprint or visibility in order to decrease its likelihood).

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight ways you have attempted to reduce your footprint while in the field, and guarantee anonymity to your research participants.

5. Replicability

Quantitative research has a great benefit in that the studies are replicable – a researcher can get a similar sample size, duplicate the variables, and re-test a study. But you can’t do that in qualitative research.

Qualitative research relies heavily on context – a specific case study or specific variables that make a certain instance worthy of analysis. As a result, it’s often difficult to re-enter the same setting with the same variables and repeat the study.

Furthermore, the individual researcher’s interpretation is more influential in qualitative research, meaning even if a new researcher enters an environment and makes observations, their observations may be different because subjectivity comes into play much more. This doesn’t make the research bad necessarily (great insights can be made in qualitative research), but it certainly does demonstrate a weakness of qualitative research.

6. Limited Scope

“Limited scope” is perhaps one of the most common limitations listed by researchers – and while this is often a catch-all way of saying, “well, I’m not studying that in this study”, it’s also a valid point.

No study can explore everything related to a topic. At some point, we have to make decisions about what’s included in the study and what is excluded from the study.

So, you could say that a limitation of your study is that it doesn’t look at an extra variable or concept that’s certainly worthy of study but will have to be explored in your next project because this project has a clearly and narrowly defined goal.

Suggested Solution and Response: Be clear about what’s in and out of the study when writing your research question.

7. Time Constraints

This is also a catch-all claim you can make about your research project: that you would have included more people in the study, looked at more variables, and so on. But you’ve got to submit this thing by the end of next semester! You’ve got time constraints.

And time constraints are a recognized reality in all research.

But this means you’ll need to explain how time has limited your decisions. As with “limited scope”, this may mean that you had to study a smaller group of subjects, limit the amount of time you spent in the field, and so forth.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will build on your current work, possibly as a PhD project.

8. Resource Intensiveness

Qualitative research can be expensive due to the cost of transcription, the involvement of trained researchers, and potential travel for interviews or observations.

So, resource intensiveness is similar to the time constraints concept. If you don’t have the funds, you have to make decisions about which tools to use, which statistical software to employ, and how many research assistants you can dedicate to the study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will gain more funding on the back of this ‘ exploratory study ‘.

9. Coding Difficulties

Data analysis in qualitative research often involves coding, which can be subjective and complex, especially when dealing with ambiguous or contradicting data.

After naming this as a limitation in your research, it’s important to explain how you’ve attempted to address this. Some ways to ‘limit the limitation’ include:

• Triangulation: Have 2 other researchers code the data as well and cross-check your results with theirs to identify outliers that may need to be re-examined, debated with the other researchers, or removed altogether.
• Procedure: Use a clear coding procedure to demonstrate reliability in your coding process. I personally use the thematic network analysis method outlined in this academic article by Attride-Stirling (2001).

Suggested Solution and Response: Triangulate your coding findings with colleagues, and follow a thematic network analysis procedure.

10. Risk of Non-Responsiveness

There is always a risk in research that research participants will be unwilling or uncomfortable sharing their genuine thoughts and feelings in the study.

This is particularly true when you’re conducting research on sensitive topics, politicized topics, or topics where the participant is expressing vulnerability .

This is similar to the Hawthorne effect (aka participant bias), where participants change their behaviors in your presence; but it goes a step further, where participants actively hide their true thoughts and feelings from you.

Suggested Solution and Response: One way to manage this is to try to include a wider group of people with the expectation that there will be non-responsiveness from some participants.

11. Risk of Attrition

Attrition refers to the process of losing research participants throughout the study.

This occurs most commonly in longitudinal studies , where a researcher must return to conduct their analysis over spaced periods of time, often over a period of years.

Things happen to people over time – they move overseas, their life experiences change, they get sick, change their minds, and even die. The more time that passes, the greater the risk of attrition.

Suggested Solution and Response: One way to manage this is to try to include a wider group of people with the expectation that there will be attrition over time.

12. Difficulty in Maintaining Confidentiality and Anonymity

Given the detailed nature of qualitative data , ensuring participant anonymity can be challenging.

If you have a sensitive topic in a specific case study, even anonymizing research participants sometimes isn’t enough. People might be able to induce who you’re talking about.

Sometimes, this will mean you have to exclude some interesting data that you collected from your final report. Confidentiality and anonymity come before your findings in research ethics – and this is a necessary limiting factor.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight the efforts you have taken to anonymize data, and accept that confidentiality and accountability place extremely important constraints on academic research.

13. Difficulty in Finding Research Participants

A study that looks at a very specific phenomenon or even a specific set of cases within a phenomenon means that the pool of potential research participants can be very low.

Compile on top of this the fact that many people you approach may choose not to participate, and you could end up with a very small corpus of subjects to explore. This may limit your ability to make complete findings, even in a quantitative sense.

You may need to therefore limit your research question and objectives to something more realistic.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight that this is going to limit the study’s generalizability significantly.

14. Ethical Limitations

Ethical limitations refer to the things you cannot do based on ethical concerns identified either by yourself or your institution’s ethics review board.

This might include threats to the physical or psychological well-being of your research subjects, the potential of releasing data that could harm a person’s reputation, and so on.

Furthermore, even if your study follows all expected standards of ethics, you still, as an ethical researcher, need to allow a research participant to pull out at any point in time, after which you cannot use their data, which demonstrates an overlap between ethical constraints and participant attrition.

Suggested Solution and Response: Highlight that these ethical limitations are inevitable but important to sustain the integrity of the research.

For more on Qualitative Research, Explore my Qualitative Research Guide

Quantitative Research Limitations

Quantitative research focuses on quantifiable data and statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. It’s often used to test hypotheses, assess relationships and causality, and generalize findings across larger populations.

Quantitative research is widely respected for its ability to provide reliable, measurable, and generalizable data (if done well!). Its structured methodology has strengths over qualitative research, such as the fact it allows for replication of the study, which underpins the validity of the research.

However, this approach is not without it limitations, explained below.

1. Over-Simplification

Quantitative research is powerful because it allows you to measure and analyze data in a systematic and standardized way. However, one of its limitations is that it can sometimes simplify complex phenomena or situations.

In other words, it might miss the subtleties or nuances of the research subject.

For example, if you’re studying why people choose a particular diet, a quantitative study might identify factors like age, income, or health status. But it might miss other aspects, such as cultural influences or personal beliefs, that can also significantly impact dietary choices.

When writing about this limitation, you can say that your quantitative approach, while providing precise measurements and comparisons, may not capture the full complexity of your subjects of study.

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest a follow-up case study using the same research participants in order to gain additional context and depth.

2. Lack of Context

Another potential issue with quantitative research is that it often focuses on numbers and statistics at the expense of context or qualitative information.

Let’s say you’re studying the effect of classroom size on student performance. You might find that students in smaller classes generally perform better. However, this doesn’t take into account other variables, like teaching style , student motivation, or family support.

When describing this limitation, you might say, “Although our research provides important insights into the relationship between class size and student performance, it does not incorporate the impact of other potentially influential variables. Future research could benefit from a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative analysis with qualitative insights.”

3. Applicability to Real-World Settings

Oftentimes, experimental research takes place in controlled environments to limit the influence of outside factors.

This control is great for isolation and understanding the specific phenomenon but can limit the applicability or “external validity” of the research to real-world settings.

For example, if you conduct a lab experiment to see how sleep deprivation impacts cognitive performance, the sterile, controlled lab environment might not reflect real-world conditions where people are dealing with multiple stressors.

Therefore, when explaining the limitations of your quantitative study in your methodology section, you could state:

“While our findings provide valuable information about [topic], the controlled conditions of the experiment may not accurately represent real-world scenarios where extraneous variables will exist. As such, the direct applicability of our results to broader contexts may be limited.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will engage in real-world observational research, such as ethnographic research.

4. Limited Flexibility

Once a quantitative study is underway, it can be challenging to make changes to it. This is because, unlike in grounded research, you’re putting in place your study in advance, and you can’t make changes part-way through.

Your study design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques need to be decided upon before you start collecting data.

For example, if you are conducting a survey on the impact of social media on teenage mental health, and halfway through, you realize that you should have included a question about their screen time, it’s generally too late to add it.

When discussing this limitation, you could write something like, “The structured nature of our quantitative approach allows for consistent data collection and analysis but also limits our flexibility to adapt and modify the research process in response to emerging insights and ideas.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use mixed-methods or qualitative research methods to gain additional depth of insight.

5. Risk of Survey Error

Surveys are a common tool in quantitative research, but they carry risks of error.

There can be measurement errors (if a question is misunderstood), coverage errors (if some groups aren’t adequately represented), non-response errors (if certain people don’t respond), and sampling errors (if your sample isn’t representative of the population).

For instance, if you’re surveying college students about their study habits , but only daytime students respond because you conduct the survey during the day, your results will be skewed.

In discussing this limitation, you might say, “Despite our best efforts to develop a comprehensive survey, there remains a risk of survey error, including measurement, coverage, non-response, and sampling errors. These could potentially impact the reliability and generalizability of our findings.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use other survey tools to compare and contrast results.

6. Limited Ability to Probe Answers

With quantitative research, you typically can’t ask follow-up questions or delve deeper into participants’ responses like you could in a qualitative interview.

For instance, imagine you are surveying 500 students about study habits in a questionnaire. A respondent might indicate that they study for two hours each night. You might want to follow up by asking them to elaborate on what those study sessions involve or how effective they feel their habits are.

However, quantitative research generally disallows this in the way a qualitative semi-structured interview could.

When discussing this limitation, you might write, “Given the structured nature of our survey, our ability to probe deeper into individual responses is limited. This means we may not fully understand the context or reasoning behind the responses, potentially limiting the depth of our findings.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that engage in mixed-method or qualitative methodologies to address the issue from another angle.

7. Reliance on Instruments for Data Collection

In quantitative research, the collection of data heavily relies on instruments like questionnaires, surveys, or machines.

The limitation here is that the data you get is only as good as the instrument you’re using. If the instrument isn’t designed or calibrated well, your data can be flawed.

For instance, if you’re using a questionnaire to study customer satisfaction and the questions are vague, confusing, or biased, the responses may not accurately reflect the customers’ true feelings.

When discussing this limitation, you could say, “Our study depends on the use of questionnaires for data collection. Although we have put significant effort into designing and testing the instrument, it’s possible that inaccuracies or misunderstandings could potentially affect the validity of the data collected.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will use different instruments but examine the same variables to triangulate results.

8. Time and Resource Constraints (Specific to Quantitative Research)

Quantitative research can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially when dealing with large samples.

It often involves systematic sampling, rigorous design, and sometimes complex statistical analysis.

If resources and time are limited, it can restrict the scale of your research, the techniques you can employ, or the extent of your data analysis.

For example, you may want to conduct a nationwide survey on public opinion about a certain policy. However, due to limited resources, you might only be able to survey people in one city.

When writing about this limitation, you could say, “Given the scope of our research and the resources available, we are limited to conducting our survey within one city, which may not fully represent the nationwide public opinion. Hence, the generalizability of the results may be limited.”

Suggested Solution and Response: Suggest future studies that will have more funding or longer timeframes.

How to Discuss Your Research Limitations

1. in your research proposal and methodology section.

In the research proposal, which will become the methodology section of your dissertation, I would recommend taking the four following steps, in order:

• Be Explicit about your Scope – If you limit the scope of your study in your research question, aims, and objectives, then you can set yourself up well later in the methodology to say that certain questions are “outside the scope of the study.” For example, you may identify the fact that the study doesn’t address a certain variable, but you can follow up by stating that the research question is specifically focused on the variable that you are examining, so this limitation would need to be looked at in future studies.
• Acknowledge the Limitation – Acknowledging the limitations of your study demonstrates reflexivity and humility and can make your research more reliable and valid. It also pre-empts questions the people grading your paper may have, so instead of them down-grading you for your limitations; they will congratulate you on explaining the limitations and how you have addressed them!
• Explain your Decisions – You may have chosen your approach (despite its limitations) for a very specific reason. This might be because your approach remains, on balance, the best one to answer your research question. Or, it might be because of time and monetary constraints that are outside of your control.
• Highlight the Strengths of your Approach – Conclude your limitations section by strongly demonstrating that, despite limitations, you’ve worked hard to minimize the effects of the limitations and that you have chosen your specific approach and methodology because it’s also got some terrific strengths. Name the strengths.

Overall, you’ll want to acknowledge your own limitations but also explain that the limitations don’t detract from the value of your study as it stands.

2. In the Conclusion Section or Chapter

In the conclusion of your study, it is generally expected that you return to a discussion of the study’s limitations. Here, I recommend the following steps:

• Acknowledge issues faced – After completing your study, you will be increasingly aware of issues you may have faced that, if you re-did the study, you may have addressed earlier in order to avoid those issues. Acknowledge these issues as limitations, and frame them as recommendations for subsequent studies.
• Suggest further research – Scholarly research aims to fill gaps in the current literature and knowledge. Having established your expertise through your study, suggest lines of inquiry for future researchers. You could state that your study had certain limitations, and “future studies” can address those limitations.
• Suggest a mixed methods approach – Qualitative and quantitative research each have pros and cons. So, note those ‘cons’ of your approach, then say the next study should approach the topic using the opposite methodology or could approach it using a mixed-methods approach that could achieve the benefits of quantitative studies with the nuanced insights of associated qualitative insights as part of an in-study case-study.

Overall, be clear about both your limitations and how those limitations can inform future studies.

In sum, each type of research method has its own strengths and limitations. Qualitative research excels in exploring depth, context, and complexity, while quantitative research excels in examining breadth, generalizability, and quantifiable measures. Despite their individual limitations, each method contributes unique and valuable insights, and researchers often use them together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research , 1 (3), 385-405. ( Source )

Atkinson, P., Delamont, S., Cernat, A., Sakshaug, J., & Williams, R. A. (2021).  SAGE research methods foundations . London: Sage Publications.

Clark, T., Foster, L., Bryman, A., & Sloan, L. (2021).  Bryman’s social research methods . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Köhler, T., Smith, A., & Bhakoo, V. (2022). Templates in qualitative research methods: Origins, limitations, and new directions.  Organizational Research Methods ,  25 (2), 183-210. ( Source )

Lenger, A. (2019). The rejection of qualitative research methods in economics.  Journal of Economic Issues ,  53 (4), 946-965. ( Source )

Taherdoost, H. (2022). What are different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research, their applications, types, and limitations.  Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research ,  5 (1), 53-63. ( Source )

Walliman, N. (2021).  Research methods: The basics . New York: Routledge.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Green Flags in a Relationship
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Signs you're Burnt Out, Not Lazy
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Toxic Things Parents Say to their Children

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Limitations in Research

Limitations in research refer to the factors that may affect the results, conclusions , and generalizability of a study. These limitations can arise from various sources, such as the design of the study, the sampling methods used, the measurement tools employed, and the limitations of the data analysis techniques.

Types of Limitations in Research

Types of Limitations in Research are as follows:

Sample Size Limitations

This refers to the size of the group of people or subjects that are being studied. If the sample size is too small, then the results may not be representative of the population being studied. This can lead to a lack of generalizability of the results.

Time Limitations

Time limitations can be a constraint on the research process . This could mean that the study is unable to be conducted for a long enough period of time to observe the long-term effects of an intervention, or to collect enough data to draw accurate conclusions.

Selection Bias

This refers to a type of bias that can occur when the selection of participants in a study is not random. This can lead to a biased sample that is not representative of the population being studied.

Confounding Variables

Confounding variables are factors that can influence the outcome of a study, but are not being measured or controlled for. These can lead to inaccurate conclusions or a lack of clarity in the results.

Measurement Error

This refers to inaccuracies in the measurement of variables, such as using a faulty instrument or scale. This can lead to inaccurate results or a lack of validity in the study.

Ethical Limitations

Ethical limitations refer to the ethical constraints placed on research studies. For example, certain studies may not be allowed to be conducted due to ethical concerns, such as studies that involve harm to participants.

Examples of Limitations in Research

Some Examples of Limitations in Research are as follows:

Research Title: “The Effectiveness of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Customer Behavior”

Limitations:

• The study only considered a limited number of machine learning algorithms and did not explore the effectiveness of other algorithms.
• The study used a specific dataset, which may not be representative of all customer behaviors or demographics.
• The study did not consider the potential ethical implications of using machine learning algorithms in predicting customer behavior.

Research Title: “The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance in Computer Science Courses”

• The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the results due to the unique circumstances of remote learning.
• The study only included students from a single university, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other institutions.
• The study did not consider the impact of individual differences, such as prior knowledge or motivation, on student performance in online learning environments.

Research Title: “The Effect of Gamification on User Engagement in Mobile Health Applications”

• The study only tested a specific gamification strategy and did not explore the effectiveness of other gamification techniques.
• The study relied on self-reported measures of user engagement, which may be subject to social desirability bias or measurement errors.
• The study only included a specific demographic group (e.g., young adults) and may not be generalizable to other populations with different preferences or needs.

How to Write Limitations in Research

When writing about the limitations of a research study, it is important to be honest and clear about the potential weaknesses of your work. Here are some tips for writing about limitations in research:

• Identify the limitations: Start by identifying the potential limitations of your research. These may include sample size, selection bias, measurement error, or other issues that could affect the validity and reliability of your findings.
• Be honest and objective: When describing the limitations of your research, be honest and objective. Do not try to minimize or downplay the limitations, but also do not exaggerate them. Be clear and concise in your description of the limitations.
• Provide context: It is important to provide context for the limitations of your research. For example, if your sample size was small, explain why this was the case and how it may have affected your results. Providing context can help readers understand the limitations in a broader context.
• Discuss implications : Discuss the implications of the limitations for your research findings. For example, if there was a selection bias in your sample, explain how this may have affected the generalizability of your findings. This can help readers understand the limitations in terms of their impact on the overall validity of your research.
• Provide suggestions for future research : Finally, provide suggestions for future research that can address the limitations of your study. This can help readers understand how your research fits into the broader field and can provide a roadmap for future studies.

Purpose of Limitations in Research

There are several purposes of limitations in research. Here are some of the most important ones:

• To acknowledge the boundaries of the study : Limitations help to define the scope of the research project and set realistic expectations for the findings. They can help to clarify what the study is not intended to address.
• To identify potential sources of bias: Limitations can help researchers identify potential sources of bias in their research design, data collection, or analysis. This can help to improve the validity and reliability of the findings.
• To provide opportunities for future research: Limitations can highlight areas for future research and suggest avenues for further exploration. This can help to advance knowledge in a particular field.
• To demonstrate transparency and accountability: By acknowledging the limitations of their research, researchers can demonstrate transparency and accountability to their readers, peers, and funders. This can help to build trust and credibility in the research community.
• To encourage critical thinking: Limitations can encourage readers to critically evaluate the study’s findings and consider alternative explanations or interpretations. This can help to promote a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the topic under investigation.

When to Write Limitations in Research

Limitations should be included in research when they help to provide a more complete understanding of the study’s results and implications. A limitation is any factor that could potentially impact the accuracy, reliability, or generalizability of the study’s findings.

It is important to identify and discuss limitations in research because doing so helps to ensure that the results are interpreted appropriately and that any conclusions drawn are supported by the available evidence. Limitations can also suggest areas for future research, highlight potential biases or confounding factors that may have affected the results, and provide context for the study’s findings.

Generally, limitations should be discussed in the conclusion section of a research paper or thesis, although they may also be mentioned in other sections, such as the introduction or methods. The specific limitations that are discussed will depend on the nature of the study, the research question being investigated, and the data that was collected.

Examples of limitations that might be discussed in research include sample size limitations, data collection methods, the validity and reliability of measures used, and potential biases or confounding factors that could have affected the results. It is important to note that limitations should not be used as a justification for poor research design or methodology, but rather as a way to enhance the understanding and interpretation of the study’s findings.

Importance of Limitations in Research

Here are some reasons why limitations are important in research:

• Enhances the credibility of research: Limitations highlight the potential weaknesses and threats to validity, which helps readers to understand the scope and boundaries of the study. This improves the credibility of research by acknowledging its limitations and providing a clear picture of what can and cannot be concluded from the study.
• Facilitates replication: By highlighting the limitations, researchers can provide detailed information about the study’s methodology, data collection, and analysis. This information helps other researchers to replicate the study and test the validity of the findings, which enhances the reliability of research.
• Guides future research : Limitations provide insights into areas for future research by identifying gaps or areas that require further investigation. This can help researchers to design more comprehensive and effective studies that build on existing knowledge.
• Provides a balanced view: Limitations help to provide a balanced view of the research by highlighting both strengths and weaknesses. This ensures that readers have a clear understanding of the study’s limitations and can make informed decisions about the generalizability and applicability of the findings.

Advantages of Limitations in Research

Here are some potential advantages of limitations in research:

• Focus : Limitations can help researchers focus their study on a specific area or population, which can make the research more relevant and useful.
• Realism : Limitations can make a study more realistic by reflecting the practical constraints and challenges of conducting research in the real world.
• Innovation : Limitations can spur researchers to be more innovative and creative in their research design and methodology, as they search for ways to work around the limitations.
• Rigor : Limitations can actually increase the rigor and credibility of a study, as researchers are forced to carefully consider the potential sources of bias and error, and address them to the best of their abilities.
• Generalizability : Limitations can actually improve the generalizability of a study by ensuring that it is not overly focused on a specific sample or situation, and that the results can be applied more broadly.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

How to Write Limitations of the Study (with examples)

This blog emphasizes the importance of recognizing and effectively writing about limitations in research. It discusses the types of limitations, their significance, and provides guidelines for writing about them, highlighting their role in advancing scholarly research.

Updated on August 24, 2023

No matter how well thought out, every research endeavor encounters challenges. There is simply no way to predict all possible variances throughout the process.

These uncharted boundaries and abrupt constraints are known as limitations in research . Identifying and acknowledging limitations is crucial for conducting rigorous studies. Limitations provide context and shed light on gaps in the prevailing inquiry and literature.

This article explores the importance of recognizing limitations and discusses how to write them effectively. By interpreting limitations in research and considering prevalent examples, we aim to reframe the perception from shameful mistakes to respectable revelations.

What are limitations in research?

In the clearest terms, research limitations are the practical or theoretical shortcomings of a study that are often outside of the researcher’s control . While these weaknesses limit the generalizability of a study’s conclusions, they also present a foundation for future research.

Sometimes limitations arise from tangible circumstances like time and funding constraints, or equipment and participant availability. Other times the rationale is more obscure and buried within the research design. Common types of limitations and their ramifications include:

• Theoretical: limits the scope, depth, or applicability of a study.
• Methodological: limits the quality, quantity, or diversity of the data.
• Empirical: limits the representativeness, validity, or reliability of the data.
• Analytical: limits the accuracy, completeness, or significance of the findings.
• Ethical: limits the access, consent, or confidentiality of the data.

Regardless of how, when, or why they arise, limitations are a natural part of the research process and should never be ignored . Like all other aspects, they are vital in their own purpose.

Why is identifying limitations important?

Whether to seek acceptance or avoid struggle, humans often instinctively hide flaws and mistakes. Merging this thought process into research by attempting to hide limitations, however, is a bad idea. It has the potential to negate the validity of outcomes and damage the reputation of scholars.

By identifying and addressing limitations throughout a project, researchers strengthen their arguments and curtail the chance of peer censure based on overlooked mistakes. Pointing out these flaws shows an understanding of variable limits and a scrupulous research process.

Showing awareness of and taking responsibility for a project’s boundaries and challenges validates the integrity and transparency of a researcher. It further demonstrates the researchers understand the applicable literature and have thoroughly evaluated their chosen research methods.

Presenting limitations also benefits the readers by providing context for research findings. It guides them to interpret the project’s conclusions only within the scope of very specific conditions. By allowing for an appropriate generalization of the findings that is accurately confined by research boundaries and is not too broad, limitations boost a study’s credibility .

Limitations are true assets to the research process. They highlight opportunities for future research. When researchers identify the limitations of their particular approach to a study question, they enable precise transferability and improve chances for reproducibility. 

Simply stating a project’s limitations is not adequate for spurring further research, though. To spark the interest of other researchers, these acknowledgements must come with thorough explanations regarding how the limitations affected the current study and how they can potentially be overcome with amended methods.

How to write limitations

Typically, the information about a study’s limitations is situated either at the beginning of the discussion section to provide context for readers or at the conclusion of the discussion section to acknowledge the need for further research. However, it varies depending upon the target journal or publication guidelines. 

Don’t hide your limitations

It is also important to not bury a limitation in the body of the paper unless it has a unique connection to a topic in that section. If so, it needs to be reiterated with the other limitations or at the conclusion of the discussion section. Wherever it is included in the manuscript, ensure that the limitations section is prominently positioned and clearly introduced.

While maintaining transparency by disclosing limitations means taking a comprehensive approach, it is not necessary to discuss everything that could have potentially gone wrong during the research study. If there is no commitment to investigation in the introduction, it is unnecessary to consider the issue a limitation to the research. Wholly consider the term ‘limitations’ and ask, “Did it significantly change or limit the possible outcomes?” Then, qualify the occurrence as either a limitation to include in the current manuscript or as an idea to note for other projects. 

Writing limitations

Once the limitations are concretely identified and it is decided where they will be included in the paper, researchers are ready for the writing task. Including only what is pertinent, keeping explanations detailed but concise, and employing the following guidelines is key for crafting valuable limitations:

1) Identify and describe the limitations : Clearly introduce the limitation by classifying its form and specifying its origin. For example:

• An unintentional bias encountered during data collection
• An intentional use of unplanned post-hoc data analysis

2) Explain the implications : Describe how the limitation potentially influences the study’s findings and how the validity and generalizability are subsequently impacted. Provide examples and evidence to support claims of the limitations’ effects without making excuses or exaggerating their impact. Overall, be transparent and objective in presenting the limitations, without undermining the significance of the research. 

3) Provide alternative approaches for future studies : Offer specific suggestions for potential improvements or avenues for further investigation. Demonstrate a proactive approach by encouraging future research that addresses the identified gaps and, therefore, expands the knowledge base.

Whether presenting limitations as an individual section within the manuscript or as a subtopic in the discussion area, authors should use clear headings and straightforward language to facilitate readability. There is no need to complicate limitations with jargon, computations, or complex datasets.

Examples of common limitations

Limitations are generally grouped into two categories , methodology and research process .

Methodology limitations

Methodology may include limitations due to:

• Sample size
• Lack of available or reliable data
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic
• Measure used to collect the data
• Self-reported data

The researcher is addressing how the large sample size requires a reassessment of the measures used to collect and analyze the data.

Research process limitations

Limitations during the research process may arise from:

• Access to information
• Longitudinal effects
• Cultural and other biases
• Language fluency
• Time constraints

The author is pointing out that the model’s estimates are based on potentially biased observational studies.

Final thoughts

Successfully proving theories and touting great achievements are only two very narrow goals of scholarly research. The true passion and greatest efforts of researchers comes more in the form of confronting assumptions and exploring the obscure.

In many ways, recognizing and sharing the limitations of a research study both allows for and encourages this type of discovery that continuously pushes research forward. By using limitations to provide a transparent account of the project's boundaries and to contextualize the findings, researchers pave the way for even more robust and impactful research in the future.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

What are the limitations in research and how to write them?

Learn about the potential limitations in research and how to appropriately address them in order to deliver honest and ethical research.

It is fairly uncommon for researchers to stumble into the term research limitations when working on their research paper. Limitations in research can arise owing to constraints on design, methods, materials, and so on, and these aspects, unfortunately, may have an influence on your subject’s findings.

In this Mind The Graph’s article, we’ll discuss some recommendations for writing limitations in research , provide examples of various common types of limitations, and suggest how to properly present this information.

What are the limitations in research?

The limitations in research are the constraints in design, methods or even researchers’ limitations that affect and influence the interpretation of your research’s ultimate findings. These are limitations on the generalization and usability of findings that emerge from the design of the research and/or the method employed to ensure validity both internally and externally. 

Researchers are usually cautious to acknowledge the limitations of their research in their publications for fear of undermining the research’s scientific validity. No research is faultless or covers every possible angle. As a result, addressing the constraints of your research exhibits honesty and integrity .

Why should include limitations of research in my paper?

Though limitations tackle potential flaws in research, commenting on them at the conclusion of your paper, by demonstrating that you are aware of these limitations and explaining how they impact the conclusions that may be taken from the research, improves your research by disclosing any issues before other researchers or reviewers do . 

Additionally, emphasizing research constraints implies that you have thoroughly investigated the ramifications of research shortcomings and have a thorough understanding of your research problem. 

Limits exist in any research; being honest about them and explaining them would impress researchers and reviewers more than disregarding them. 

Remember that acknowledging a research’s shortcomings offers a chance to provide ideas for future research, but be careful to describe how your study may help to concentrate on these outstanding problems .

Possible limitations examples

Here are some limitations connected to methodology and the research procedure that you may need to explain and discuss in connection to your findings.

Methodological limitations

Sample size.

The number of units of analysis used in your study is determined by the sort of research issue being investigated. It is important to note that if your sample is too small, finding significant connections in the data will be challenging, as statistical tests typically require a larger sample size to ensure a fair representation and this can be limiting. 

Lack of available or reliable data

A lack of data or trustworthy data will almost certainly necessitate limiting the scope of your research or the size of your sample, or it can be a substantial impediment to identifying a pattern and a relevant connection.

Lack of prior research on the subject

Citing previous research papers forms the basis of your literature review and aids in comprehending the research subject you are researching. Yet there may be little if any, past research on your issue.

The measure used to collect data

After finishing your analysis of the findings, you realize that the method you used to collect data limited your capacity to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the findings. Recognize the flaw by mentioning that future researchers should change the specific approach for data collection.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling inaccuracies arise when a probability sampling method is employed to choose a sample, but that sample does not accurately represent the overall population or the relevant group. As a result, your study suffers from “sampling bias” or “selection bias.”

Limitations of the research

When your research requires polling certain persons or a specific group, you may have encountered the issue of limited access to these interviewees. Because of the limited access, you may need to reorganize or rearrange your research. In this scenario, explain why access is restricted and ensure that your findings are still trustworthy and valid despite the constraint.

Time constraints

Practical difficulties may limit the amount of time available to explore a research issue and monitor changes as they occur. If time restrictions have any detrimental influence on your research, recognize this impact by expressing the necessity for a future investigation.

Due to their cultural origins or opinions on observed events, researchers may carry biased opinions, which can influence the credibility of a research. Furthermore, researchers may exhibit biases toward data and conclusions that only support their hypotheses or arguments.

The structure of the limitations section 

The limitations of your research are usually stated at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so that the reader is aware of and comprehends the limitations prior to actually reading the rest of your findings, or they are stated at the end of the discussion section as an acknowledgment of the need for further research.

The ideal way is to divide your limitations section into three steps: 

1. Identify the research constraints; 

2. Describe in great detail how they affect your research; 

3. Mention the opportunity for future investigations and give possibilities. 

By following this method while addressing the constraints of your research, you will be able to effectively highlight your research’s shortcomings without jeopardizing the quality and integrity of your research.

Present your research or paper in an innovative way

If you want your readers to be engaged and participate in your research, try Mind The Graph tool to add visual assets to your content. Infographics may improve comprehension and are easy to read, just as the Mind The Graph tool is simple to use and offers a variety of templates from which you can select the one that best suits your information.

Related Articles

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Sign Up for Free

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

How to present limitations in research

Last updated

30 January 2024

Reviewed by

Short on time? Get an AI generated summary of this article instead

Limitations don’t invalidate or diminish your results, but it’s best to acknowledge them. This will enable you to address any questions your study failed to answer because of them.

In this guide, learn how to recognize, present, and overcome limitations in research.

• What is a research limitation?

Research limitations are weaknesses in your research design or execution that may have impacted outcomes and conclusions. Uncovering limitations doesn’t necessarily indicate poor research design—it just means you encountered challenges you couldn’t have anticipated that limited your research efforts.

Does basic research have limitations?

Basic research aims to provide more information about your research topic . It requires the same standard research methodology and data collection efforts as any other research type, and it can also have limitations.

• Common research limitations

Researchers encounter common limitations when embarking on a study. Limitations can occur in relation to the methods you apply or the research process you design. They could also be connected to you as the researcher.

Methodology limitations

Not having access to data or reliable information can impact the methods used to facilitate your research. A lack of data or reliability may limit the parameters of your study area and the extent of your exploration.

Your sample size may also be affected because you won’t have any direction on how big or small it should be and who or what you should include. Having too few participants won’t adequately represent the population or groups of people needed to draw meaningful conclusions.

Research process limitations

The study’s design can impose constraints on the process. For example, as you’re conducting the research, issues may arise that don’t conform to the data collection methodology you developed. You may not realize until well into the process that you should have incorporated more specific questions or comprehensive experiments to generate the data you need to have confidence in your results.

Constraints on resources can also have an impact. Being limited on participants or participation incentives may limit your sample sizes. Insufficient tools, equipment, and materials to conduct a thorough study may also be a factor.

Common researcher limitations

Here are some of the common researcher limitations you may encounter:

Time: some research areas require multi-year longitudinal approaches, but you might not be able to dedicate that much time. Imagine you want to measure how much memory a person loses as they age. This may involve conducting multiple tests on a sample of participants over 20–30 years, which may be impossible.

Bias: researchers can consciously or unconsciously apply bias to their research. Biases can contribute to relying on research sources and methodologies that will only support your beliefs about the research you’re embarking on. You might also omit relevant issues or participants from the scope of your study because of your biases.

Limited access to data : you may need to pay to access specific databases or journals that would be helpful to your research process. You might also need to gain information from certain people or organizations but have limited access to them. These cases require readjusting your process and explaining why your findings are still reliable.

• Why is it important to identify limitations?

Identifying limitations adds credibility to research and provides a deeper understanding of how you arrived at your conclusions.

Constraints may have prevented you from collecting specific data or information you hoped would prove or disprove your hypothesis or provide a more comprehensive understanding of your research topic.

However, identifying the limitations contributing to your conclusions can inspire further research efforts that help gather more substantial information and data.

• Where to put limitations in a research paper

A research paper is broken up into different sections that appear in the following order:

Introduction

Methodology

The discussion portion of your paper explores your findings and puts them in the context of the overall research. Either place research limitations at the beginning of the discussion section before the analysis of your findings or at the end of the section to indicate that further research needs to be pursued.

What not to include in the limitations section

Evidence that doesn’t support your hypothesis is not a limitation, so you shouldn’t include it in the limitation section. Don’t just list limitations and their degree of severity without further explanation.

• How to present limitations

You’ll want to present the limitations of your study in a way that doesn’t diminish the validity of your research and leave the reader wondering if your results and conclusions have been compromised.

Include only the limitations that directly relate to and impact how you addressed your research questions. Following a specific format enables the reader to develop an understanding of the weaknesses within the context of your findings without doubting the quality and integrity of your research.

Identify the limitations specific to your study

You don’t have to identify every possible limitation that might have occurred during your research process. Only identify those that may have influenced the quality of your findings and your ability to answer your research question.

Explain study limitations in detail

This explanation should be the most significant portion of your limitation section.

Link each limitation with an interpretation and appraisal of their impact on the study. You’ll have to evaluate and explain whether the error, method, or validity issues influenced the study’s outcome and how.

Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives

In this section, suggest how researchers can avoid the pitfalls you experienced during your research process.

If an issue with methodology was a limitation, propose alternate methods that may help with a smoother and more conclusive research project . Discuss the pros and cons of your alternate recommendation.

Describe steps taken to minimize each limitation

You probably took steps to try to address or mitigate limitations when you noticed them throughout the course of your research project. Describe these steps in the limitation section.

• Limitation example

“Approaches like stem cell transplantation and vaccination in AD [Alzheimer’s disease] work on a cellular or molecular level in the laboratory. However, translation into clinical settings will remain a challenge for the next decade.”

The authors are saying that even though these methods showed promise in helping people with memory loss when conducted in the lab (in other words, using animal studies), more studies are needed. These may be controlled clinical trials, for example. 

However, the short life span of stem cells outside the lab and the vaccination’s severe inflammatory side effects are limitations. Researchers won’t be able to conduct clinical trials until these issues are overcome.

• How to overcome limitations in research

You’ve already started on the road to overcoming limitations in research by acknowledging that they exist. However, you need to ensure readers don’t mistake weaknesses for errors within your research design.

To do this, you’ll need to justify and explain your rationale for the methods, research design, and analysis tools you chose and how you noticed they may have presented limitations.

Your readers need to know that even when limitations presented themselves, you followed best practices and the ethical standards of your field. You didn’t violate any rules and regulations during your research process.

You’ll also want to reinforce the validity of your conclusions and results with multiple sources, methods, and perspectives. This prevents readers from assuming your findings were derived from a single or biased source.

• Learning and improving starts with limitations in research

Dealing with limitations with transparency and integrity helps identify areas for future improvements and developments. It’s a learning process, providing valuable insights into how you can improve methodologies, expand sample sizes, or explore alternate approaches to further support the validity of your findings.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 22 August 2024

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 August 2024

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. Study limitations are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results, to further describe applications to practice, and/or related to the utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study or the method used to establish internal and external validity or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Theofanidis, Dimitrios and Antigoni Fountouki. "Limitations and Delimitations in the Research Process." Perioperative Nursing 7 (September-December 2018): 155-163. .

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and have your grade lowered because you appeared to have ignored them or didn't realize they existed.

Keep in mind that acknowledgment of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgment of a study's limitations also provides you with opportunities to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Note that descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is generally less relevant in qualitative research if explained in the context of the research problem.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but provide cogent reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe a need for future research based on designing a different method for gathering data.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is little or no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design ]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to the accuracy of what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency, but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, data, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this needs to be described. Also, include an explanation why being denied or limited access did not prevent you from following through on your study.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, event, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. NOTE :   If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias. For example, if a previous study only used boys to examine how music education supports effective math skills, describe how your research expands the study to include girls.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses , for example, on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic or to speak with these students in their primary language. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods. Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology; ter Riet, Gerben et al. “All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies.” PLOS One 8 (November 2013): 1-6.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings!

After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitations of your study. Inflating the importance of your study's findings could be perceived by your readers as an attempt hide its flaws or encourage a biased interpretation of the results. A small measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated. Or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may very well be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Lewis, George H. and Jonathan F. Lewis. “The Dog in the Night-Time: Negative Evidence in Social Research.” The British Journal of Sociology 31 (December 1980): 544-558.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgment about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Boddy, Clive Roland. "Sample Size for Qualitative Research." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 19 (2016): 426-432; Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444; Blaikie, Norman. "Confounding Issues Related to Determining Sample Size in Qualitative Research." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21 (2018): 635-641; Oppong, Steward Harrison. "The Problem of Sampling in qualitative Research." Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education 2 (2013): 202-210.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Writing Limitations of Research Study — 4 Reasons Why It Is Important!

It is not unusual for researchers to come across the term limitations of research during their academic paper writing. More often this is interpreted as something terrible. However, when it comes to research study, limitations can help structure the research study better. Therefore, do not underestimate significance of limitations of research study.

Allow us to take you through the context of how to evaluate the limits of your research and conclude an impactful relevance to your results.

Table of Contents

What Are the Limitations of a Research Study?

Every research has its limit and these limitations arise due to restrictions in methodology or research design.  This could impact your entire research or the research paper you wish to publish. Unfortunately, most researchers choose not to discuss their limitations of research fearing it will affect the value of their article in the eyes of readers.

However, it is very important to discuss your study limitations and show it to your target audience (other researchers, journal editors, peer reviewers etc.). It is very important that you provide an explanation of how your research limitations may affect the conclusions and opinions drawn from your research. Moreover, when as an author you state the limitations of research, it shows that you have investigated all the weaknesses of your study and have a deep understanding of the subject. Being honest could impress your readers and mark your study as a sincere effort in research.

Why and Where Should You Include the Research Limitations?

The main goal of your research is to address your research objectives. Conduct experiments, get results and explain those results, and finally justify your research question . It is best to mention the limitations of research in the discussion paragraph of your research article.

At the very beginning of this paragraph, immediately after highlighting the strengths of the research methodology, you should write down your limitations. You can discuss specific points from your research limitations as suggestions for further research in the conclusion of your thesis.

1. Common Limitations of the Researchers

Limitations that are related to the researcher must be mentioned. This will help you gain transparency with your readers. Furthermore, you could provide suggestions on decreasing these limitations in you and your future studies.

2. Limited Access to Information

Your work may involve some institutions and individuals in research, and sometimes you may have problems accessing these institutions. Therefore, you need to redesign and rewrite your work. You must explain your readers the reason for limited access.

3. Limited Time

All researchers are bound by their deadlines when it comes to completing their studies. Sometimes, time constraints can affect your research negatively. However, the best practice is to acknowledge it and mention a requirement for future study to solve the research problem in a better way.

4. Conflict over Biased Views and Personal Issues

Biased views can affect the research. In fact, researchers end up choosing only those results and data that support their main argument, keeping aside the other loose ends of the research.

Types of Limitations of Research

Before beginning your research study, know that there are certain limitations to what you are testing or possible research results. There are different types that researchers may encounter, and they all have unique characteristics, such as:

1. Research Design Limitations

Certain restrictions on your research or available procedures may affect your final results or research outputs. You may have formulated research goals and objectives too broadly. However, this can help you understand how you can narrow down the formulation of research goals and objectives, thereby increasing the focus of your study.

2. Impact Limitations

Even if your research has excellent statistics and a strong design, it can suffer from the influence of the following factors:

• Presence of increasing findings as researched
• Being population specific
• A strong regional focus.

3. Data or statistical limitations

In some cases, it is impossible to collect sufficient data for research or very difficult to get access to the data. This could lead to incomplete conclusion to your study. Moreover, this insufficiency in data could be the outcome of your study design. The unclear, shabby research outline could produce more problems in interpreting your findings.

How to Correctly Structure Your Research Limitations?

There are strict guidelines for narrowing down research questions, wherein you could justify and explain potential weaknesses of your academic paper. You could go through these basic steps to get a well-structured clarity of research limitations:

• Declare that you wish to identify your limitations of research and explain their importance,
• Provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices.
• Write how you are suggesting that it is possible to overcome them in the future.

In this section, your readers will see that you are aware of the potential weaknesses in your business, understand them and offer effective solutions, and it will positively strengthen your article as you clarify all limitations of research to your target audience.

Know that you cannot be perfect and there is no individual without flaws. You could use the limitations of research as a great opportunity to take on a new challenge and improve the future of research. In a typical academic paper, research limitations may relate to:

1. Formulating your goals and objectives

If you formulate goals and objectives too broadly, your work will have some shortcomings. In this case, specify effective methods or ways to narrow down the formula of goals and aim to increase your level of study focus.

2. Application of your data collection methods in research

If you do not have experience in primary data collection, there is a risk that there will be flaws in the implementation of your methods. It is necessary to accept this, and learn and educate yourself to understand data collection methods.

3. Sample sizes

This depends on the nature of problem you choose. Sample size is of a greater importance in quantitative studies as opposed to qualitative ones. If your sample size is too small, statistical tests cannot identify significant relationships or connections within a given data set.

You could point out that other researchers should base the same study on a larger sample size to get more accurate results.

4. The absence of previous studies in the field you have chosen

Writing a literature review is an important step in any scientific study because it helps researchers determine the scope of current work in the chosen field. It is a major foundation for any researcher who must use them to achieve a set of specific goals or objectives.

However, if you are focused on the most current and evolving research problem or a very narrow research problem, there may be very little prior research on your topic. For example, if you chose to explore the role of Bitcoin as the currency of the future, you may not find tons of scientific papers addressing the research problem as Bitcoins are only a new phenomenon.

It is important that you learn to identify research limitations examples at each step. Whatever field you choose, feel free to add the shortcoming of your work. This is mainly because you do not have many years of experience writing scientific papers or completing complex work. Therefore, the depth and scope of your discussions may be compromised at different levels compared to academics with a lot of expertise. Include specific points from limitations of research. Use them as suggestions for the future.

Have you ever faced a challenge of writing the limitations of research study in your paper? How did you overcome it? What ways did you follow? Were they beneficial? Let us know in the comments below!

Frequently Asked Questions

Setting limitations in our study helps to clarify the outcomes drawn from our research and enhance understanding of the subject. Moreover, it shows that the author has investigated all the weaknesses in the study.

Scope is the range and limitations of a research project which are set to define the boundaries of a project. Limitations are the impacts on the overall study due to the constraints on the research design.

Limitation in research is an impact of a constraint on the research design in the overall study. They are the flaws or weaknesses in the study, which may influence the outcome of the research.

1. Limitations in research can be written as follows: Formulate your goals and objectives 2. Analyze the chosen data collection method and the sample sizes 3. Identify your limitations of research and explain their importance 4. Provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices 5. Write how you are suggesting that it is possible to overcome them in the future

Excellent article ,,,it has helped me big

This is very helpful information. It has given me an insight on how to go about my study limitations.

Good comments and helpful

the topic is well covered

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Publishing Research
• Trending Now
• Understanding Ethics

Understanding the Impact of Retractions on Research Integrity – A global study

As we reach the midway point of 2024, ‘Research Integrity’ remains one of the hot…

• Diversity and Inclusion

The Silent Struggle: Confronting gender bias in science funding

In the 1990s, Dr. Katalin Kariko’s pioneering mRNA research seemed destined for obscurity, doomed by…

• Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

Addressing Barriers in Academia: Navigating unconscious biases in the Ph.D. journey

In the journey of academia, a Ph.D. marks a transitional phase, like that of a…

• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research

Unraveling Research Population and Sample: Understanding their role in statistical inference

Research population and sample serve as the cornerstones of any scientific inquiry. They hold the…

Research Problem Statement — Find out how to write an impactful one!

How to Develop a Good Research Question? — Types & Examples

5 Effective Ways to Avoid Ghostwriting for Busy Researchers

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Career Corner
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

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

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

• The Scientist University

How to Present a Research Study’s Limitations

All studies have imperfections, but how to present them without diminishing the value of the work can be tricky..

Nathan Ni holds a PhD from Queens University. He is a science editor for The Scientist’s Creative Services Team who strives to better understand and communicate the relationships between health and disease.

View full profile.

Learn about our editorial policies.

Scientists work with many different limitations. First and foremost, they navigate informational limitations, work around knowledge gaps when designing studies, formulating hypotheses, and analyzing data. They also handle technical limitations, making the most of what their hands, equipment, and instruments can achieve. Finally, researchers must also manage logistical limitations. Scientists will often experience sample scarcity, financial issues, or simply be unable to access the technology or materials that they want.

All scientific studies have limitations, and no study is perfect. Researchers should not run from this reality, but engage it directly. It is better to directly address the specific limitations of the work in question, and doing so is actually a way to demonstrate an author’s proficiency and aptitude.

Do: Be Transparent

From a practical perspective, being transparent is the main key to directly addressing the specific limitations of a study. Was there an experiment that the researchers wanted to perform but could not, or a sample that existed that the scientists could not obtain? Was there a piece of knowledge that would explain a question raised by the data presented within the current study? If the answer is yes, the authors should mention this and elaborate upon it within the discussion section.

Asking and addressing these questions demonstrates that the authors have knowledge, understanding, and expertise of the subject area beyond what the study directly investigated. It further demonstrates a solid grasp of the existing literature—which means a solid grasp of what others are doing, what techniques they are using, and what limitations impede their own studies. This information helps the authors contextualize where their study fits within what others have discovered, thereby mitigating the perceived effect of a given limitation on the study’s legitimacy. In essence, this strategy turns limitations, often considered weaknesses, into strengths.

For example, in their 2021 Cell Reports study on macrophage polarization mechanisms, dermatologist Alexander Marneros and colleagues wrote the following. 1

A limitation of studying macrophage polarization in vitro is that this approach only partially captures the tissue microenvironment context in which many different factors affect macrophage polarization. However, it is likely that the identified signaling mechanisms that promote polarization in vitro are also critical for polarization mechanisms that occur in vivo. This is supported by our observation that trametinib and panobinostat inhibited M2-type macrophage polarization not only in vitro but also in skin wounds and laser-induced CNV lesions.

This is a very effective structure. In the first sentence ( yellow ), the authors outlined the limitation. In the next sentence ( green ), they offered a rationalization that mitigates the effect of the limitation. Finally, they provided the evidence ( blue ) for this rationalization, using not just information from the literature, but also data that they obtained in their study specifically for this purpose. 

Don't: Be Defensive

It can feel natural to avoid talking about a study’s limitations. Scientists may believe that mentioning the drawbacks still present in their study will jeopardize their chances of publication. As such, researchers will sometimes skirt around the issue. They will present “boilerplate faults”—generalized concerns about sample size/diversity and time limitations that all researchers face—rather than honestly discussing their own study. Alternatively, they will describe their limitations in a defensive manner, positioning their problems as something that “could not be helped”—as something beyond what science can currently achieve.

However, their audience can see through this, because they are largely peers who understand and have experienced how modern research works. They can tell the difference between global challenges faced by every scientific study and limitations that are specific to a single study. Avoiding these specific limitations can therefore betray a lack of confidence that the study is good enough to withstand problems stemming from legitimate limitations. As such, researchers should actively engage with the greater scientific implications of the limitations that they face. Indeed, doing this is actually a way to demonstrate an author’s proficiency and aptitude.

In an example, neurogeneticist Nancy Bonini and colleagues, in their publication in Nature , discussed a question raised by their data that they have elected not to directly investigate in this study, writing “ Among the intriguing questions raised by these data is how senescent glia promote LDs in other glia. ” To show both the legitimacy of the question and how seriously they have considered it, the authors provided a comprehensive summary of the literature in the following seven sentences, offering two hypotheses backed by a combined eight different sources. 2 Rather than shying away from a limitation, they attacked it as something to be curious about and to discuss. This is not just a very effective way of demonstrating their expertise, but it frames the limitation as something that, when overcome, will build upon the present study rather than something that negatively affects the legitimacy of their current findings.

Striking the Right Balance

Scientists have to navigate the fine line between acknowledging the limitations of their study while also not diminishing the effect and value of their own work. To be aware of legitimate limitations and properly assess and dissect them shows a profound understanding of a field, where the study fits within that field, and what the rest of the scientific community are doing and what challenges they face.

All studies are parts of a greater whole. Pretending otherwise is a disservice to the scientific community.

Looking for more information on scientific writing? Check out  The Scientist’ s  TS SciComm  section. Looking for some help putting together a manuscript, a figure, a poster, or anything else?  The Scientist ’s  Scientific Services  may have the professional help that you need.

• He L, et al. Global characterization of macrophage polarization mechanisms and identification of M2-type polarization inhibitors . Cell Rep . 2021;37(5):109955.
• Byrns CN, et al. Senescent glia link mitochondrial dysfunction and lipid accumulation . Nature . 2024.

Research Limitations & Delimitations

What they are and how they’re different (with examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | September 2022

If you’re new to the world of research, you’ve probably heard the terms “ research limitations ” and “ research delimitations ” being thrown around, often quite loosely. In this post, we’ll unpack what both of these mean, how they’re similar and how they’re different – so that you can write up these sections the right way.

Overview: Limitations vs Delimitations

• Are they the same?
• What are research limitations
• What are research delimitations
• Limitations vs delimitations

First things first…

Let’s start with the most important takeaway point of this post – research limitations and research delimitations are not the same – but they are related to each other (we’ll unpack that a little later). So, if you hear someone using these two words interchangeably, be sure to share this post with them!

Research Limitations

Research limitations are, at the simplest level, the weaknesses of the study , based on factors that are often outside of your control as the researcher. These factors could include things like time , access to funding, equipment , data or participants . For example, if you weren’t able to access a random sample of participants for your study and had to adopt a convenience sampling strategy instead, that would impact the generalizability of your findings and therefore reflect a limitation of your study.

Research limitations can also emerge from the research design itself . For example, if you were undertaking a correlational study, you wouldn’t be able to infer causality (since correlation doesn’t mean certain causation). Similarly, if you utilised online surveys to collect data from your participants, you naturally wouldn’t be able to get the same degree of rich data that you would from in-person interviews .

Simply put, research limitations reflect the shortcomings of a study , based on practical (or theoretical) constraints that the researcher faced. These shortcomings limit what you can conclude from a study, but at the same time, present a foundation for future research . Importantly, all research has limitations , so there’s no need to hide anything here – as long as you discuss how the limitations might affect your findings, it’s all good.

Research Delimitations

Alright, now that we’ve unpacked the limitations, let’s move on to the delimitations .

Research delimitations are similar to limitations in that they also “ limit ” the study, but their focus is entirely different. Specifically, the delimitations of a study refer to the scope of the research aims and research questions . In other words, delimitations reflect the choices you, as the researcher, intentionally make in terms of what you will and won’t try to achieve with your study. In other words, what your research aims and research questions will and won’t include.

As we’ve spoken about many times before, it’s important to have a tight, narrow focus for your research, so that you can dive deeply into your topic, apply your energy to one specific area and develop meaningful insights. If you have an overly broad scope or unfocused topic, your research will often pull in multiple, even opposing directions, and you’ll just land up with a muddy mess of findings .

So, the delimitations section is where you’ll clearly state what your research aims and research questions will focus on – and just as importantly, what they will exclude . For example, you might investigate a widespread phenomenon, but choose to focus your study on a specific age group, ethnicity or gender. Similarly, your study may focus exclusively on one country, city or even organization. As long as the scope is well justified (in other words, it represents a novel, valuable research topic), this is perfectly acceptable – in fact, it’s essential. Remember, focus is your friend.

Need a helping hand?

Conclusion: Limitations vs Delimitations

Ok, so let’s recap.

Research limitations and research delimitations are related in that they both refer to “limits” within a study. But, they are distinctly different. Limitations reflect the shortcomings of your study, based on practical or theoretical constraints that you faced.

Contrasted to that, delimitations reflect the choices that you made in terms of the focus and scope of your research aims and research questions. If you want to learn more about research aims and questions, you can check out this video post , where we unpack those concepts in detail.

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 ...

19 Comments

Good clarification of ideas on how a researcher ought to do during Process of choice

Thank you so much for this very simple but explicit explanation on limitation and delimitation. It has so helped me to develop my masters proposal. hope to recieve more from your site as time progresses

Thank you for this explanation – very clear.

Thanks for the explanation, really got it well.

This website is really helpful for my masters proposal

Thank you very much for helping to explain these two terms

I spent almost the whole day trying to figure out the differences

when I came across your notes everything became very clear

thanks for the clearly outlined explanation on the two terms, limitation and delimitation.

Very helpful Many thanks 🙏

Excellent it resolved my conflict .

I would like you to assist me please. If in my Research, I interviewed some participants and I submitted Questionnaires to other participants to answered to the questions, in the same organization, Is this a Qualitative methodology , a Quantitative Methodology or is it a Mixture Methodology I have used in my research? Please help me

How do I cite this article in APA format

Really so great ,finally have understood it’s difference now

Getting more clear regarding Limitations and Delimitation and concepts

I really appreciate your apt and precise explanation of the two concepts namely ; Limitations and Delimitations.

This is a good sources of research information for learners.

thank you for this, very helpful to researchers

Very good explained

Great and clear explanation, after a long confusion period on the two words, i can now explain to someone with ease.

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

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Present the Limitations of a Study in Research?

The limitations of the study convey to the reader how and under which conditions your study results will be evaluated. Scientific research involves investigating research topics, both known and unknown, which inherently includes an element of risk. The risk could arise due to human errors, barriers to data gathering, limited availability of resources, and researcher bias. Researchers are encouraged to discuss the limitations of their research to enhance the process of research, as well as to allow readers to gain an understanding of the study’s framework and value.

Limitations of the research are the constraints placed on the ability to generalize from the results and to further describe applications to practice. It is related to the utility value of the findings based on how you initially chose to design the study, the method used to establish internal and external validity, or the result of unanticipated challenges that emerged during the study. Knowing about these limitations and their impact can explain how the limitations of your study can affect the conclusions and thoughts drawn from your research. 1

Table of Contents

What are the limitations of a study

Researchers are probably cautious to acknowledge what the limitations of the research can be for fear of undermining the validity of the research findings. No research can be faultless or cover all possible conditions. These limitations of your research appear probably due to constraints on methodology or research design and influence the interpretation of your research’s ultimate findings. 2 These are limitations on the generalization and usability of findings that emerge from the design of the research and/or the method employed to ensure validity internally and externally. But such limitations of the study can impact the whole study or research paper. However, most researchers prefer not to discuss the different types of limitations in research for fear of decreasing the value of their paper amongst the reviewers or readers.

Importance of limitations of a study

Writing the limitations of the research papers is often assumed to require lots of effort. However, identifying the limitations of the study can help structure the research better. Therefore, do not underestimate the importance of research study limitations. 3

• Opportunity to make suggestions for further research. Suggestions for future research and avenues for further exploration can be developed based on the limitations of the study.
• Opportunity to demonstrate critical thinking. A key objective of the research process is to discover new knowledge while questioning existing assumptions and exploring what is new in the particular field. Describing the limitation of the research shows that you have critically thought about the research problem, reviewed relevant literature, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem.
• Demonstrate Subjective learning process. Writing limitations of the research helps to critically evaluate the impact of the said limitations, assess the strength of the research, and consider alternative explanations or interpretations. Subjective evaluation contributes to a more complex and comprehensive knowledge of the issue under study.

Why should I include limitations of research in my paper

All studies have limitations to some extent. Including limitations of the study in your paper demonstrates the researchers’ comprehensive and holistic understanding of the research process and topic. The major advantages are the following:

• Understand the study conditions and challenges encountered . It establishes a complete and potentially logical depiction of the research. The boundaries of the study can be established, and realistic expectations for the findings can be set. They can also help to clarify what the study is not intended to address.
• Improve the quality and validity of the research findings. Mentioning limitations of the research creates opportunities for the original author and other researchers to undertake future studies to improve the research outcomes.
• Transparency and accountability. Including limitations of the research helps maintain mutual integrity and promote further progress in similar studies.
• Identify potential bias sources.  Identifying the limitations of the study can help researchers identify potential sources of bias in their research design, data collection, or analysis. This can help to improve the validity and reliability of the findings.

Where do I need to add the limitations of the study in my paper

The limitations of your research can be stated at the beginning of the discussion section, which allows the reader to comprehend the limitations of the study prior to reading the rest of your findings or at the end of the discussion section as an acknowledgment of the need for further research.

Types of limitations in research

There are different types of limitations in research that researchers may encounter. These are listed below:

• Research Design Limitations : Restrictions on your research or available procedures may affect the research outputs. If the research goals and objectives are too broad, explain how they should be narrowed down to enhance the focus of your study. If there was a selection bias in your sample, explain how this may affect the generalizability of your findings. This can help readers understand the limitations of the study in terms of their impact on the overall validity of your research.
• Impact Limitations : Your study might be limited by a strong regional-, national-, or species-based impact or population- or experimental-specific impact. These inherent limitations on impact affect the extendibility and generalizability of the findings.
• Data or statistical limitations : Data or statistical limitations in research are extremely common in experimental (such as medicine, physics, and chemistry) or field-based (such as ecology and qualitative clinical research) studies. Sometimes, it is either extremely difficult to acquire sufficient data or gain access to the data. These limitations of the research might also be the result of your study’s design and might result in an incomplete conclusion to your research.

Limitations of study examples

All possible limitations of the study cannot be included in the discussion section of the research paper or dissertation. It will vary greatly depending on the type and nature of the study. These include types of research limitations that are related to methodology and the research process and that of the researcher as well that you need to describe and discuss how they possibly impacted your results.

Common methodological limitations of the study

Limitations of research due to methodological problems are addressed by identifying the potential problem and suggesting ways in which this should have been addressed. Some potential methodological limitations of the study are as follows. 1

• Sample size: The sample size 4 is dictated by the type of research problem investigated. If the sample size is too small, finding a significant relationship from the data will be difficult, as statistical tests require a large sample size to ensure a representative population distribution and generalize the study findings.
• Lack of available/reliable data: A lack of available/reliable data will limit the scope of your analysis and the size of your sample or present obstacles in finding a trend or meaningful relationship. So, when writing about the limitations of the study, give convincing reasons why you feel data is absent or untrustworthy and highlight the necessity for a future study focused on developing a new data-gathering strategy.
• Lack of prior research studies: Citing prior research studies is required to help understand the research problem being investigated. If there is little or no prior research, an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design will be required. Also, discovering the limitations of the study presents an opportunity to identify gaps in the literature and describe the need for additional study.
• Measure used to collect the data: Sometimes, the data gathered will be insufficient to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. A limitation of the study example, for instance, is identifying in retrospect that a specific question could have helped address a particular issue that emerged during data analysis. You can acknowledge the limitation of the research by stating the need to revise the specific method for gathering data in the future.
• Self-reported data: Self-reported data cannot be independently verified and can contain several potential bias sources, such as selective memory, attribution, and exaggeration. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources.

General limitations of researchers

Limitations related to the researcher can also influence the study outcomes. These should be addressed, and related remedies should be proposed.

• Limited access to data : If your study requires access to people, organizations, data, or documents whose access is denied or limited, the reasons need to be described. An additional explanation stating why this limitation of research did not prevent you from following through on your study is also needed.
• Time constraints : Researchers might also face challenges in meeting research deadlines due to a lack of timely participant availability or funds, among others. The impacts of time constraints must be acknowledged by mentioning the need for a future study addressing this research problem.
• Conflicts due to biased views and personal issues : Differences in culture or personal views can contribute to researcher bias, as they focus only on the results and data that support their main arguments. To avoid this, pay attention to the problem statement and data gathering.

Steps for structuring the limitations section

Limitations are an inherent part of any research study. Issues may vary, ranging from sampling and literature review to methodology and bias. However, there is a structure for identifying these elements, discussing them, and offering insight or alternatives on how the limitations of the study can be mitigated. This enhances the process of the research and helps readers gain a comprehensive understanding of a study’s conditions.

• Identify the research constraints : Identify those limitations having the greatest impact on the quality of the research findings and your ability to effectively answer your research questions and/or hypotheses. These include sample size, selection bias, measurement error, or other issues affecting the validity and reliability of your research.
• Describe their impact on your research : Reflect on the nature of the identified limitations and justify the choices made during the research to identify the impact of the study’s limitations on the research outcomes. Explanations can be offered if needed, but without being defensive or exaggerating them. Provide context for the limitations of your research to understand them in a broader context. Any specific limitations due to real-world considerations need to be pointed out critically rather than justifying them as done by some other author group or groups.
• Mention the opportunity for future investigations : Suggest ways to overcome the limitations of the present study through future research. This can help readers understand how the research fits into the broader context and offer a roadmap for future studies.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Should I mention all the limitations of my study in the research report?

Restrict limitations to what is pertinent to the research question under investigation. The specific limitations you include will depend on the nature of the study, the research question investigated, and the data collected.

• Can the limitations of a study affect its credibility?

Stating the limitations of the research is considered favorable by editors and peer reviewers. Connecting your study’s limitations with future possible research can help increase the focus of unanswered questions in this area. In addition, admitting limitations openly and validating that they do not affect the main findings of the study increases the credibility of your study. However, if you determine that your study is seriously flawed, explain ways to successfully overcome such flaws in a future study. For example, if your study fails to acquire critical data, consider reframing the research question as an exploratory study to lay the groundwork for more complete research in the future.

• How can I mitigate the limitations of my study?

Strategies to minimize limitations of the research should focus on convincing reviewers and readers that the limitations do not affect the conclusions of the study by showing that the methods are appropriate and that the logic is sound. Here are some steps to follow to achieve this:

• Use data that are valid.
• Use methods that are appropriate and sound logic to draw inferences.
• Use adequate statistical methods for drawing inferences from the data that studies with similar limitations have been published before.

Admit limitations openly and, at the same time, show how they do not affect the main conclusions of the study.

• Can the limitations of a study impact its publication chances?

Limitations in your research can arise owing to restrictions in methodology or research design. Although this could impact your chances of publishing your research paper, it is critical to explain your study’s limitations to your intended audience. For example, it can explain how your study constraints may impact the results and views generated from your investigation. It also shows that you have researched the flaws of your study and have a thorough understanding of the subject.

• How can limitations in research be used for future studies?

The limitations of a study give you an opportunity to offer suggestions for further research. Your study’s limitations, including problems experienced during the study and the additional study perspectives developed, are a great opportunity to take on a new challenge and help advance knowledge in a particular field.

References:

• Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations.  Journal of Management ,  39 (1), 48-75.
• Ioannidis, J. P. (2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature.  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology ,  60 (4), 324-329.
• Price, J. H., & Murnan, J. (2004). Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them.  American Journal of Health Education ,  35 (2), 66.
• Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research.  Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal ,  19 (4), 426-432.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

How Does R Discovery’s Interplatform Capability Enhance Research Accessibility 

What is Convenience Sampling: Definition, Method, and Examples 

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.8(4); 2019 Aug

Limited by our limitations

Paula t. ross.

Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA

Nikki L. Bibler Zaidi

Study limitations represent weaknesses within a research design that may influence outcomes and conclusions of the research. Researchers have an obligation to the academic community to present complete and honest limitations of a presented study. Too often, authors use generic descriptions to describe study limitations. Including redundant or irrelevant limitations is an ineffective use of the already limited word count. A meaningful presentation of study limitations should describe the potential limitation, explain the implication of the limitation, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitation. This includes placing research findings within their proper context to ensure readers do not overemphasize or minimize findings. A more complete presentation will enrich the readers’ understanding of the study’s limitations and support future investigation.

Introduction

Regardless of the format scholarship assumes, from qualitative research to clinical trials, all studies have limitations. Limitations represent weaknesses within the study that may influence outcomes and conclusions of the research. The goal of presenting limitations is to provide meaningful information to the reader; however, too often, limitations in medical education articles are overlooked or reduced to simplistic and minimally relevant themes (e.g., single institution study, use of self-reported data, or small sample size) [ 1 ]. This issue is prominent in other fields of inquiry in medicine as well. For example, despite the clinical implications, medical studies often fail to discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations [ 2 ]. Further, observational research often fails to remind readers of the fundamental limitation inherent in the study design, which is the inability to attribute causation [ 3 ]. By reporting generic limitations or omitting them altogether, researchers miss opportunities to fully communicate the relevance of their work, illustrate how their work advances a larger field under study, and suggest potential areas for further investigation.

Goals of presenting limitations

Medical education scholarship should provide empirical evidence that deepens our knowledge and understanding of education [ 4 , 5 ], informs educational practice and process, [ 6 , 7 ] and serves as a forum for educating other researchers [ 8 ]. Providing study limitations is indeed an important part of this scholarly process. Without them, research consumers are pressed to fully grasp the potential exclusion areas or other biases that may affect the results and conclusions provided [ 9 ]. Study limitations should leave the reader thinking about opportunities to engage in prospective improvements [ 9 – 11 ] by presenting gaps in the current research and extant literature, thereby cultivating other researchers’ curiosity and interest in expanding the line of scholarly inquiry [ 9 ].

Presenting study limitations is also an ethical element of scientific inquiry [ 12 ]. It ensures transparency of both the research and the researchers [ 10 , 13 , 14 ], as well as provides transferability [ 15 ] and reproducibility of methods. Presenting limitations also supports proper interpretation and validity of the findings [ 16 ]. A study’s limitations should place research findings within their proper context to ensure readers are fully able to discern the credibility of a study’s conclusion, and can generalize findings appropriately [ 16 ].

Why some authors may fail to present limitations

As Price and Murnan [ 8 ] note, there may be overriding reasons why researchers do not sufficiently report the limitations of their study. For example, authors may not fully understand the importance and implications of their study’s limitations or assume that not discussing them may increase the likelihood of publication. Word limits imposed by journals may also prevent authors from providing thorough descriptions of their study’s limitations [ 17 ]. Still another possible reason for excluding limitations is a diffusion of responsibility in which some authors may incorrectly assume that the journal editor is responsible for identifying limitations. Regardless of reason or intent, researchers have an obligation to the academic community to present complete and honest study limitations.

A guide to presenting limitations

The presentation of limitations should describe the potential limitations, explain the implication of the limitations, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitations. Too often, authors only list the potential limitations, without including these other important elements.

Describe the limitations

When describing limitations authors should identify the limitation type to clearly introduce the limitation and specify the origin of the limitation. This helps to ensure readers are able to interpret and generalize findings appropriately. Here we outline various limitation types that can occur at different stages of the research process.

Study design

Some study limitations originate from conscious choices made by the researcher (also known as delimitations) to narrow the scope of the study [ 1 , 8 , 18 ]. For example, the researcher may have designed the study for a particular age group, sex, race, ethnicity, geographically defined region, or some other attribute that would limit to whom the findings can be generalized. Such delimitations involve conscious exclusionary and inclusionary decisions made during the development of the study plan, which may represent a systematic bias intentionally introduced into the study design or instrument by the researcher [ 8 ]. The clear description and delineation of delimitations and limitations will assist editors and reviewers in understanding any methodological issues.

Data collection

Study limitations can also be introduced during data collection. An unintentional consequence of human subjects research is the potential of the researcher to influence how participants respond to their questions. Even when appropriate methods for sampling have been employed, some studies remain limited by the use of data collected only from participants who decided to enrol in the study (self-selection bias) [ 11 , 19 ]. In some cases, participants may provide biased input by responding to questions they believe are favourable to the researcher rather than their authentic response (social desirability bias) [ 20 – 22 ]. Participants may influence the data collected by changing their behaviour when they are knowingly being observed (Hawthorne effect) [ 23 ]. Researchers—in their role as an observer—may also bias the data they collect by allowing a first impression of the participant to be influenced by a single characteristic or impression of another characteristic either unfavourably (horns effect) or favourably (halo effort) [ 24 ].

Data analysis

Study limitations may arise as a consequence of the type of statistical analysis performed. Some studies may not follow the basic tenets of inferential statistical analyses when they use convenience sampling (i.e. non-probability sampling) rather than employing probability sampling from a target population [ 19 ]. Another limitation that can arise during statistical analyses occurs when studies employ unplanned post-hoc data analyses that were not specified before the initial analysis [ 25 ]. Unplanned post-hoc analysis may lead to statistical relationships that suggest associations but are no more than coincidental findings [ 23 ]. Therefore, when unplanned post-hoc analyses are conducted, this should be clearly stated to allow the reader to make proper interpretation and conclusions—especially when only a subset of the original sample is investigated [ 23 ].

Study results

The limitations of any research study will be rooted in the validity of its results—specifically threats to internal or external validity [ 8 ]. Internal validity refers to reliability or accuracy of the study results [ 26 ], while external validity pertains to the generalizability of results from the study’s sample to the larger, target population [ 8 ].

Examples of threats to internal validity include: effects of events external to the study (history), changes in participants due to time instead of the studied effect (maturation), systematic reduction in participants related to a feature of the study (attrition), changes in participant responses due to repeatedly measuring participants (testing effect), modifications to the instrument (instrumentality) and selecting participants based on extreme scores that will regress towards the mean in repeat tests (regression to the mean) [ 27 ].

Threats to external validity include factors that might inhibit generalizability of results from the study’s sample to the larger, target population [ 8 , 27 ]. External validity is challenged when results from a study cannot be generalized to its larger population or to similar populations in terms of the context, setting, participants and time [ 18 ]. Therefore, limitations should be made transparent in the results to inform research consumers of any known or potentially hidden biases that may have affected the study and prevent generalization beyond the study parameters.

Explain the implication(s) of each limitation

Authors should include the potential impact of the limitations (e.g., likelihood, magnitude) [ 13 ] as well as address specific validity implications of the results and subsequent conclusions [ 16 , 28 ]. For example, self-reported data may lead to inaccuracies (e.g. due to social desirability bias) which threatens internal validity [ 19 ]. Even a researcher’s inappropriate attribution to a characteristic or outcome (e.g., stereotyping) can overemphasize (either positively or negatively) unrelated characteristics or outcomes (halo or horns effect) and impact the internal validity [ 24 ]. Participants’ awareness that they are part of a research study can also influence outcomes (Hawthorne effect) and limit external validity of findings [ 23 ]. External validity may also be threatened should the respondents’ propensity for participation be correlated with the substantive topic of study, as data will be biased and not represent the population of interest (self-selection bias) [ 29 ]. Having this explanation helps readers interpret the results and generalize the applicability of the results for their own setting.

Provide potential alternative approaches and explanations

Often, researchers use other studies’ limitations as the first step in formulating new research questions and shaping the next phase of research. Therefore, it is important for readers to understand why potential alternative approaches (e.g. approaches taken by others exploring similar topics) were not taken. In addition to alternative approaches, authors can also present alternative explanations for their own study’s findings [ 13 ]. This information is valuable coming from the researcher because of the direct, relevant experience and insight gained as they conducted the study. The presentation of alternative approaches represents a major contribution to the scholarly community.

Describe steps taken to minimize each limitation

No research design is perfect and free from explicit and implicit biases; however various methods can be employed to minimize the impact of study limitations. Some suggested steps to mitigate or minimize the limitations mentioned above include using neutral questions, randomized response technique, force choice items, or self-administered questionnaires to reduce respondents’ discomfort when answering sensitive questions (social desirability bias) [ 21 ]; using unobtrusive data collection measures (e.g., use of secondary data) that do not require the researcher to be present (Hawthorne effect) [ 11 , 30 ]; using standardized rubrics and objective assessment forms with clearly defined scoring instructions to minimize researcher bias, or making rater adjustments to assessment scores to account for rater tendencies (halo or horns effect) [ 24 ]; or using existing data or control groups (self-selection bias) [ 11 , 30 ]. When appropriate, researchers should provide sufficient evidence that demonstrates the steps taken to mitigate limitations as part of their study design [ 13 ].

In conclusion, authors may be limiting the impact of their research by neglecting or providing abbreviated and generic limitations. We present several examples of limitations to consider; however, this should not be considered an exhaustive list nor should these examples be added to the growing list of generic and overused limitations. Instead, careful thought should go into presenting limitations after research has concluded and the major findings have been described. Limitations help focus the reader on key findings, therefore it is important to only address the most salient limitations of the study [ 17 , 28 ] related to the specific research problem, not general limitations of most studies [ 1 ]. It is important not to minimize the limitations of study design or results. Rather, results, including their limitations, must help readers draw connections between current research and the extant literature.

The quality and rigor of our research is largely defined by our limitations [ 31 ]. In fact, one of the top reasons reviewers report recommending acceptance of medical education research manuscripts involves limitations—specifically how the study’s interpretation accounts for its limitations [ 32 ]. Therefore, it is not only best for authors to acknowledge their study’s limitations rather than to have them identified by an editor or reviewer, but proper framing and presentation of limitations can actually increase the likelihood of acceptance. Perhaps, these issues could be ameliorated if academic and research organizations adopted policies and/or expectations to guide authors in proper description of limitations.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Identify Limitations in Research

4-minute read

• 7th March 2022

Whether you’re a veteran researcher with years of experience under your belt or a novice to the field that’s feeling overwhelmed with where to start, you must understand that every study has its limitations. These are restrictions that arise from the study’s design, or the methodology implemented during the testing phase. Unfortunately, research limitations will always exist due to the subjective nature of testing a hypothesis. We’ve compiled some helpful information below on how to identify and accept research limitations and use them to your advantage. Essentially, we’ll show you how to make lemonade (a brilliant piece of academic work ) from the lemons you receive (the constraints your study reveals).

Research Limitations

So, let’s dive straight in, shall we? It’s always beneficial (and good practice) to disclose your research limitations . A common thought is that divulging these shortcomings will undermine the credibility and quality of your research. However, this is certainly not the case— stating the facts upfront not only reinforces your reputation as a researcher but also lets the assessor or reader know that you’re confident and transparent about the results and relevance of your study, despite these constraints.

Additionally, it creates a gap for more research opportunities, where you can analyze these limitations and determine how to incorporate or address them in a new batch of tests or create a new hypothesis altogether. Another bonus is that it helps readers to understand the optimum conditions for how to apply the results of your testing. This is a win-win, making for a far more persuasive research paper .

Now that you know why you should clarify your research limitations, let’s focus on which ones take precedence and should be disclosed. Any given research project can be vulnerable to various hindrances, so how do you identify them and single out the most significant ones to discuss? Well, that depends entirely on the nature of your study. You’ll need to comb through your research approach, methodology, testing processes, and expected results to identify the type of limitations your study may be exposed to. It’s worth noting that this understanding can only offer a broad idea of the possible restrictions you’ll face and may potentially change throughout the study.

We’ve compiled a list of the most common types of research limitations that you may encounter so you can adequately prepare for them and remain vigilant during each stage of your study.

Sample Size:

It’s critical that you choose a sample size that accurately represents the population you wish to test your theory on. If a sample is too small, the results cannot reliably be generalized across a large population.

Methodology:

The method you choose before you commence testing might seem effective in theory, but too many stumbling blocks during the testing phase can influence the accuracy and reliability of the results.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Collection of Data:

The methods you utilize to obtain your research—surveys, emails, in-person interviews, phone calls—will directly influence the type of results your study yields.

Age of Data:

The nature of the information—and how far back it goes—affects the type of assumptions you can make. Extrapolating older data for a current hypothesis can significantly change the outcome of your testing.

Time Constraints:

Working within the deadline of when you need to submit your findings will determine the extent of your research and testing and, therefore, can heavily impact your results. Limited time frames for testing might mean not achieving the scope of results you were originally looking for.

Limited Budget:

Your study may require equipment and other resources that can become extremely costly. Budget constraints may mean you cannot acquire advanced software, programs, or travel to multiple destinations to interview participants. All of these factors can substantially influence your results.

So, now that you know how to determine your research limitations and the types you might experience, where should you document it? It’s commonly disclosed at the beginning of your discussion section , so the reader understands the shortcomings of your study before digging into the juicy bit—your findings. Alternatively, you can detail the constraints faced at the end of the discussion section to emphasize the requirements for the completion of further studies.

We hope this post will prepare you for some of the pitfalls you may encounter when conducting and documenting your research. Once you have a first draft ready, consider submitting a free sample to us for proofreading to ensure that your writing is concise and error-free and your results—despite their limitations— shine through.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Affiliate Program

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

APA Citation Generator

MLA Citation Generator

Chicago Citation Generator

Vancouver Citation Generator

• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

Limitations of the Study – How to Write & Examples

What are the limitations of a study?

The limitations of a study are the elements of methodology or study design that impact the interpretation of your research results. The limitations essentially detail any flaws or shortcomings in your study. Study limitations can exist due to constraints on research design, methodology, materials, etc., and these factors may impact the findings of your study. However, researchers are often reluctant to discuss the limitations of their study in their papers, feeling that bringing up limitations may undermine its research value in the eyes of readers and reviewers.

In spite of the impact it might have (and perhaps because of it) you should clearly acknowledge any limitations in your research paper in order to show readers—whether journal editors, other researchers, or the general public—that you are aware of these limitations and to explain how they affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the research.

In this article, we provide some guidelines for writing about research limitations, show examples of some frequently seen study limitations, and recommend techniques for presenting this information. And after you have finished drafting and have received manuscript editing for your work, you still might want to follow this up with academic editing before submitting your work to your target journal.

Why do I need to include limitations of research in my paper?

Although limitations address the potential weaknesses of a study, writing about them toward the end of your paper actually strengthens your study by identifying any problems before other researchers or reviewers find them.

Furthermore, pointing out study limitations shows that you’ve considered the impact of research weakness thoroughly and have an in-depth understanding of your research topic. Since all studies face limitations, being honest and detailing these limitations will impress researchers and reviewers more than ignoring them.

Where should I put the limitations of the study in my paper?

Some limitations might be evident to researchers before the start of the study, while others might become clear while you are conducting the research. Whether these limitations are anticipated or not, and whether they are due to research design or to methodology, they should be clearly identified and discussed in the discussion section —the final section of your paper. Most journals now require you to include a discussion of potential limitations of your work, and many journals now ask you to place this “limitations section” at the very end of your article. 

Some journals ask you to also discuss the strengths of your work in this section, and some allow you to freely choose where to include that information in your discussion section—make sure to always check the author instructions of your target journal before you finalize a manuscript and submit it for peer review .

Limitations of the Study Examples

There are several reasons why limitations of research might exist. The two main categories of limitations are those that result from the methodology and those that result from issues with the researcher(s).

Common Methodological Limitations of Studies

Limitations of research due to methodological problems can be addressed by clearly and directly identifying the potential problem and suggesting ways in which this could have been addressed—and SHOULD be addressed in future studies. The following are some major potential methodological issues that can impact the conclusions researchers can draw from the research.

Issues with research samples and selection

Sampling errors occur when a probability sampling method is used to select a sample, but that sample does not reflect the general population or appropriate population concerned. This results in limitations of your study known as “sample bias” or “selection bias.”

For example, if you conducted a survey to obtain your research results, your samples (participants) were asked to respond to the survey questions. However, you might have had limited ability to gain access to the appropriate type or geographic scope of participants. In this case, the people who responded to your survey questions may not truly be a random sample.

Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements

When conducting a study, it is important to have a sufficient sample size in order to draw valid conclusions. The larger the sample, the more precise your results will be. If your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to identify significant relationships in the data.

Normally, statistical tests require a larger sample size to ensure that the sample is considered representative of a population and that the statistical result can be generalized to a larger population. It is a good idea to understand how to choose an appropriate sample size before you conduct your research by using scientific calculation tools—in fact, many journals now require such estimation to be included in every manuscript that is sent out for review.

Lack of previous research studies on the topic

Citing and referencing prior research studies constitutes the basis of the literature review for your thesis or study, and these prior studies provide the theoretical foundations for the research question you are investigating. However, depending on the scope of your research topic, prior research studies that are relevant to your thesis might be limited.

When there is very little or no prior research on a specific topic, you may need to develop an entirely new research typology. In this case, discovering a limitation can be considered an important opportunity to identify literature gaps and to present the need for further development in the area of study.

Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data

After you complete your analysis of the research findings (in the discussion section), you might realize that the manner in which you have collected the data or the ways in which you have measured variables has limited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results.

For example, you might realize that you should have addressed your survey questions from another viable perspective, or that you were not able to include an important question in the survey. In these cases, you should acknowledge the deficiency or deficiencies by stating a need for future researchers to revise their specific methods for collecting data that includes these missing elements.

Common Limitations of the Researcher(s)

Study limitations that arise from situations relating to the researcher or researchers (whether the direct fault of the individuals or not) should also be addressed and dealt with, and remedies to decrease these limitations—both hypothetically in your study, and practically in future studies—should be proposed.

Limited access to data

If your research involved surveying certain people or organizations, you might have faced the problem of having limited access to these respondents. Due to this limited access, you might need to redesign or restructure your research in a different way. In this case, explain the reasons for limited access and be sure that your finding is still reliable and valid despite this limitation.

Time constraints

Just as students have deadlines to turn in their class papers, academic researchers might also have to meet deadlines for submitting a manuscript to a journal or face other time constraints related to their research (e.g., participants are only available during a certain period; funding runs out; collaborators move to a new institution). The time available to study a research problem and to measure change over time might be constrained by such practical issues. If time constraints negatively impacted your study in any way, acknowledge this impact by mentioning a need for a future study (e.g., a longitudinal study) to answer this research problem.

Conflicts arising from cultural bias and other personal issues

Researchers might hold biased views due to their cultural backgrounds or perspectives of certain phenomena, and this can affect a study’s legitimacy. Also, it is possible that researchers will have biases toward data and results that only support their hypotheses or arguments. In order to avoid these problems, the author(s) of a study should examine whether the way the research problem was stated and the data-gathering process was carried out appropriately.

Steps for Organizing Your Study Limitations Section

When you discuss the limitations of your study, don’t simply list and describe your limitations—explain how these limitations have influenced your research findings. There might be multiple limitations in your study, but you only need to point out and explain those that directly relate to and impact how you address your research questions.

We suggest that you divide your limitations section into three steps: (1) identify the study limitations; (2) explain how they impact your study in detail; and (3) propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives. By following this sequence when discussing your study’s limitations, you will be able to clearly demonstrate your study’s weakness without undermining the quality and integrity of your research.

Step 1. Identify the limitation(s) of the study

• This part should comprise around 10%-20% of your discussion of study limitations.

The first step is to identify the particular limitation(s) that affected your study. There are many possible limitations of research that can affect your study, but you don’t need to write a long review of all possible study limitations. A 200-500 word critique is an appropriate length for a research limitations section. In the beginning of this section, identify what limitations your study has faced and how important these limitations are.

You only need to identify limitations that had the greatest potential impact on: (1) the quality of your findings, and (2) your ability to answer your research question.

Step 2. Explain these study limitations in detail

• This part should comprise around 60-70% of your discussion of limitations.

After identifying your research limitations, it’s time to explain the nature of the limitations and how they potentially impacted your study. For example, when you conduct quantitative research, a lack of probability sampling is an important issue that you should mention. On the other hand, when you conduct qualitative research, the inability to generalize the research findings could be an issue that deserves mention.

Explain the role these limitations played on the results and implications of the research and justify the choice you made in using this “limiting” methodology or other action in your research. Also, make sure that these limitations didn’t undermine the quality of your dissertation .

Step 3. Propose a direction for future studies and present alternatives (optional)

• This part should comprise around 10-20% of your discussion of limitations.

After acknowledging the limitations of the research, you need to discuss some possible ways to overcome these limitations in future studies. One way to do this is to present alternative methodologies and ways to avoid issues with, or “fill in the gaps of” the limitations of this study you have presented.  Discuss both the pros and cons of these alternatives and clearly explain why researchers should choose these approaches.

Make sure you are current on approaches used by prior studies and the impacts they have had on their findings. Cite review articles or scientific bodies that have recommended these approaches and why. This might be evidence in support of the approach you chose, or it might be the reason you consider your choices to be included as limitations. This process can act as a justification for your approach and a defense of your decision to take it while acknowledging the feasibility of other approaches.

P hrases and Tips for Introducing Your Study Limitations in the Discussion Section

The following phrases are frequently used to introduce the limitations of the study:

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”
• “As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to limitations.”
• “There are two major limitations in this study that could be addressed in future research. First, the study focused on …. Second ….”

For more articles on research writing and the journal submissions and publication process, visit Wordvice’s Academic Resources page.

And be sure to receive professional English editing and proofreading services , including paper editing services , for your journal manuscript before submitting it to journal editors.

Wordvice Resources

Proofreading & Editing Guide

Writing the Results Section for a Research Paper

How to Write a Literature Review

Research Writing Tips: How to Draft a Powerful Discussion Section

How to Captivate Journal Readers with a Strong Introduction

Tips That Will Make Your Abstract a Success!

APA In-Text Citation Guide for Research Writing

Additional Resources

• Diving Deeper into Limitations and Delimitations (PhD student)
• Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Limitations of the Study (USC Library)
• Research Limitations (Research Methodology)
• How to Present Limitations and Alternatives (UMASS)

Article References

Pearson-Stuttard, J., Kypridemos, C., Collins, B., Mozaffarian, D., Huang, Y., Bandosz, P.,…Micha, R. (2018). Estimating the health and economic effects of the proposed US Food and Drug Administration voluntary sodium reformulation: Microsimulation cost-effectiveness analysis. PLOS. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002551

Xu, W.L, Pedersen, N.L., Keller, L., Kalpouzos, G., Wang, H.X., Graff, C,. Fratiglioni, L. (2015). HHEX_23 AA Genotype Exacerbates Effect of Diabetes on Dementia and Alzheimer Disease: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study. PLOS. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001853

Research Limitations

It is for sure that your research will have some limitations and it is normal. However, it is critically important for you to be striving to minimize the range of scope of limitations throughout the research process.  Also, you need to provide the acknowledgement of your research limitations in conclusions chapter honestly.

It is always better to identify and acknowledge shortcomings of your work, rather than to leave them pointed out to your by your dissertation assessor. While discussing your research limitations, don’t just provide the list and description of shortcomings of your work. It is also important for you to explain how these limitations have impacted your research findings.

Your research may have multiple limitations, but you need to discuss only those limitations that directly relate to your research problems. For example, if conducting a meta-analysis of the secondary data has not been stated as your research objective, no need to mention it as your research limitation.

Research limitations in a typical dissertation may relate to the following points:

1. Formulation of research aims and objectives . You might have formulated research aims and objectives too broadly. You can specify in which ways the formulation of research aims and objectives could be narrowed so that the level of focus of the study could be increased.

2. Implementation of data collection method . Because you do not have an extensive experience in primary data collection (otherwise you would not be reading this book), there is a great chance that the nature of implementation of data collection method is flawed.

3. Sample size. Sample size depends on the nature of the research problem. If sample size is too small, statistical tests would not be able to identify significant relationships within data set. You can state that basing your study in larger sample size could have generated more accurate results. The importance of sample size is greater in quantitative studies compared to qualitative studies.

4. Lack of previous studies in the research area . Literature review is an important part of any research, because it helps to identify the scope of works that have been done so far in research area. Literature review findings are used as the foundation for the researcher to be built upon to achieve her research objectives.

However, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic if you have focused on the most contemporary and evolving research problem or too narrow research problem. For example, if you have chosen to explore the role of Bitcoins as the future currency, you may not be able to find tons of scholarly paper addressing the research problem, because Bitcoins are only a recent phenomenon.

5. Scope of discussions . You can include this point as a limitation of your research regardless of the choice of the research area. Because (most likely) you don’t have many years of experience of conducing researches and producing academic papers of such a large size individually, the scope and depth of discussions in your paper is compromised in many levels compared to the works of experienced scholars.

You can discuss certain points from your research limitations as the suggestion for further research at conclusions chapter of your dissertation.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline. John Dudovskiy

Organizing Academic Research Papers: Limitations of the Study

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

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the application or interpretation of the results of your study. They are the constraints on generalizability and utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you chose to design the study and/or the method used to establish internal and external validity.

Importance of...

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and be graded down because you appear to have ignored them.

Keep in mind that acknowledgement of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgement of a study's limitations also provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate to your professor that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but also to confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitiations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the findings and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in your paper.

Here are examples of limitations you may need to describe and to discuss how they possibly impacted your findings. Descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but to offer reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe the need for future research.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, consult with a librarian! In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is a lack of prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design]. Note that this limitation can serve as an important opportunity to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need in future research to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing self-reported data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to take what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data contain several potential sources of bias that should be noted as limitations: (1) selective memory (remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past); (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or otherwise limited, the reasons for this need to be described.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single research problem, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability within a sample is constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a topic that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. It is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places and how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation. Note that if you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating bias.
• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students, for example, and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Brutus, Stéphane et al. Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations. Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods . Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as a pilot study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in later studies.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study  is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to reframe your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to  the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't ask a particular question in a survey that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in any future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to prove what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Brutus, Stéphane et al. Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations. Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed . January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Writing Tip

Don't Inflate the Importance of Your Findings! After all the hard work and long hours devoted to writing your research paper, it is easy to get carried away with attributing unwarranted importance to what you’ve done. We all want our academic work to be viewed as excellent and worthy of a good grade, but it is important that you understand and openly acknowledge the limitiations of your study. Inflating of the importance of your study's findings in an attempt hide its flaws is a big turn off to your readers. A measure of humility goes a long way!

Another Writing Tip

Negative Results are Not a Limitation!

Negative evidence refers to findings that unexpectedly challenge rather than support your hypothesis. If you didn't get the results you anticipated, it may mean your hypothesis was incorrect and needs to be reformulated, or, perhaps you have stumbled onto something unexpected that warrants further study. Moreover, the absence of an effect may be very telling in many situations, particularly in experimental research designs. In any case, your results may be of importance to others even though they did not support your hypothesis. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that results contrary to what you expected is a limitation to your study. If you carried out the research well, they are simply your results and only require additional interpretation.

Yet Another Writing Tip

A Note about Sample Size Limitations in Qualitative Research

Sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research because, as the study goes on, acquiring more data does not necessarily lead to more information. This is because one occurrence of a piece of data, or a code, is all that is necessary to ensure that it becomes part of the analysis framework. However, it remains true that sample sizes that are too small cannot adequately support claims of having achieved valid conclusions and sample sizes that are too large do not permit the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis that defines qualitative inquiry. Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will be applied and the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed. If the sample size is found to be a limitation, it may reflect your judgement about the methodological technique chosen [e.g., single life history study versus focus group interviews] rather than the number of respondents used.

Huberman, A. Michael and Matthew B. Miles. Data Management and Analysis Methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 428-444.

• << Previous: 8. The Discussion
• Next: 9. The Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

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

Using the Library

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

User Information

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

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

CPS Online Graduate Studies Research Paper (UNH Manchester Library): Limitations of the Study

• Overview of the Research Process for Capstone Projects
• Types of Research Design
• Selecting a Research Problem
• The Title of Your Research Paper
• Before You Begin Writing
• 7 Parts of the Research Paper
• Background Information
• Quanitative and Qualitative Methods
• Qualitative Methods
• Quanitative Methods
• Resources to Help You With the Literature Review
• Non-Textual Elements

Limitations of the Study

• Format of Capstone Research Projects at GSC
• Editing and Proofreading Your Paper
• Acknowledgements
• UNH Scholar's Repository

The limitations of the study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impacted or influenced the interpretation of the findings from your research. They are the constraints on generalizability, applications to practice, and/or utility of findings that are the result of the ways in which you initially chose to design the study and/or the method used to establish internal and external validity.

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67.

Always acknowledge a study's limitations. It is far better that you identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor and be graded down because you appear to have ignored them.

Keep in mind that acknowledgement of a study's limitations is an opportunity to make suggestions for further research. If you do connect your study's limitations to suggestions for further research, be sure to explain the ways in which these unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.

Acknowledgement of a study's limitations also provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate that you have thought critically about the research problem, understood the relevant literature published about it, and correctly assessed the methods chosen for studying the problem. A key objective of the research process is not only discovering new knowledge but to also confront assumptions and explore what we don't know.

Claiming limitations is a subjective process because you must evaluate the impact of those limitations . Don't just list key weaknesses and the magnitude of a study's limitations. To do so diminishes the validity of your research because it leaves the reader wondering whether, or in what ways, limitation(s) in your study may have impacted the results and conclusions. Limitations require a critical, overall appraisal and interpretation of their impact. You should answer the question: do these problems with errors, methods, validity, etc. eventually matter and, if so, to what extent?

Price, James H. and Judy Murnan. “Research Limitations and the Necessity of Reporting Them.” American Journal of Health Education 35 (2004): 66-67; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com.

Descriptions of Possible Limitations

All studies have limitations . However, it is important that you restrict your discussion to limitations related to the research problem under investigation. For example, if a meta-analysis of existing literature is not a stated purpose of your research, it should not be discussed as a limitation. Do not apologize for not addressing issues that you did not promise to investigate in the introduction of your paper.

Here are examples of limitations related to methodology and the research process you may need to describe and to discuss how they possibly impacted your results. Descriptions of limitations should be stated in the past tense because they were discovered after you completed your research.

Possible Methodological Limitations

• Sample size -- the number of the units of analysis you use in your study is dictated by the type of research problem you are investigating. Note that, if your sample size is too small, it will be difficult to find significant relationships from the data, as statistical tests normally require a larger sample size to ensure a representative distribution of the population and to be considered representative of groups of people to whom results will be generalized or transferred. Note that sample size is less relevant in qualitative research.
• Lack of available and/or reliable data -- a lack of data or of reliable data will likely require you to limit the scope of your analysis, the size of your sample, or it can be a significant obstacle in finding a trend and a meaningful relationship. You need to not only describe these limitations but to offer reasons why you believe data is missing or is unreliable. However, don’t just throw up your hands in frustration; use this as an opportunity to describe the need for future research.
• Lack of prior research studies on the topic -- citing prior research studies forms the basis of your literature review and helps lay a foundation for understanding the research problem you are investigating. Depending on the currency or scope of your research topic, there may be little, if any, prior research on your topic. Before assuming this to be true, though, consult with a librarian. In cases when a librarian has confirmed that there is no prior research, you may be required to develop an entirely new research typology [for example, using an exploratory rather than an explanatory research design]. Note again that discovering a limitation can serve as an important opportunity to identify new gaps in the literature and to describe the need for further research.
• Measure used to collect the data -- sometimes it is the case that, after completing your interpretation of the findings, you discover that the way in which you gathered data inhibited your ability to conduct a thorough analysis of the results. For example, you regret not including a specific question in a survey that, in retrospect, could have helped address a particular issue that emerged later in the study. Acknowledge the deficiency by stating a need for future researchers to revise the specific method for gathering data.
• Self-reported data -- whether you are relying on pre-existing data or you are conducting a qualitative research study and gathering the data yourself, self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified. In other words, you have to take what people say, whether in interviews, focus groups, or on questionnaires, at face value. However, self-reported data can contain several potential sources of bias that you should be alert to and note as limitations. These biases become apparent if they are incongruent with data from other sources. These are: (1) selective memory [remembering or not remembering experiences or events that occurred at some point in the past]; (2) telescoping [recalling events that occurred at one time as if they occurred at another time]; (3) attribution [the act of attributing positive events and outcomes to one's own agency but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces]; and, (4) exaggeration [the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant than is actually suggested from other data].

Possible Limitations of the Researcher

• Access -- if your study depends on having access to people, organizations, or documents and, for whatever reason, access is denied or limited in some way, the reasons for this need to be described.
• Longitudinal effects -- unlike your professor, who can literally devote years [even a lifetime] to studying a single topic, the time available to investigate a research problem and to measure change or stability over time is pretty much constrained by the due date of your assignment. Be sure to choose a research problem that does not require an excessive amount of time to complete the literature review, apply the methodology, and gather and interpret the results. If you're unsure whether you can complete your research within the confines of the assignment's due date, talk to your professor.
• Cultural and other type of bias -- we all have biases, whether we are conscience of them or not. Bias is when a person, place, or thing is viewed or shown in a consistently inaccurate way. Bias is usually negative, though one can have a positive bias as well, especially if that bias reflects your reliance on research that only support for your hypothesis. When proof-reading your paper, be especially critical in reviewing how you have stated a problem, selected the data to be studied, what may have been omitted, the manner in which you have ordered events, people, or places, how you have chosen to represent a person, place, or thing, to name a phenomenon, or to use possible words with a positive or negative connotation.

NOTE:   If you detect bias in prior research, it must be acknowledged and you should explain what measures were taken to avoid perpetuating that bias.

• Fluency in a language -- if your research focuses on measuring the perceived value of after-school tutoring among Mexican-American ESL [English as a Second Language] students, for example, and you are not fluent in Spanish, you are limited in being able to read and interpret Spanish language research studies on the topic. This deficiency should be acknowledged.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Senunyeme, Emmanuel K. Business Research Methods . Powerpoint Presentation. Regent University of Science and Technology; ter Riet, Gerben et al. “All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies.” PLOS One 8 (November 2013): 1-6.

Structure and Writing Style

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section. If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations, such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study. But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic. If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study. When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to: Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms; Explain why each limitation exists; Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible]; Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and, If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research. Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification. Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed. January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation. Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

Information about the limitations of your study are generally placed either at the beginning of the discussion section of your paper so the reader knows and understands the limitations before reading the rest of your analysis of the findings, or, the limitations are outlined at the conclusion of the discussion section as an acknowledgement of the need for further study. Statements about a study's limitations should not be buried in the body [middle] of the discussion section unless a limitation is specific to something covered in that part of the paper. If this is the case, though, the limitation should be reiterated at the conclusion of the section.

If you determine that your study is seriously flawed due to important limitations , such as, an inability to acquire critical data, consider reframing it as an exploratory study intended to lay the groundwork for a more complete research study in the future. Be sure, though, to specifically explain the ways that these flaws can be successfully overcome in a new study.

But, do not use this as an excuse for not developing a thorough research paper! Review the tab in this guide for developing a research topic . If serious limitations exist, it generally indicates a likelihood that your research problem is too narrowly defined or that the issue or event under study is too recent and, thus, very little research has been written about it. If serious limitations do emerge, consult with your professor about possible ways to overcome them or how to revise your study.

When discussing the limitations of your research, be sure to:

• Describe each limitation in detailed but concise terms;
• Explain why each limitation exists;
• Provide the reasons why each limitation could not be overcome using the method(s) chosen to acquire or gather the data [cite to other studies that had similar problems when possible];
• Assess the impact of each limitation in relation to the overall findings and conclusions of your study; and,
• If appropriate, describe how these limitations could point to the need for further research.

Remember that the method you chose may be the source of a significant limitation that has emerged during your interpretation of the results [for example, you didn't interview a group of people that you later wish you had]. If this is the case, don't panic. Acknowledge it, and explain how applying a different or more robust methodology might address the research problem more effectively in a future study. A underlying goal of scholarly research is not only to show what works, but to demonstrate what doesn't work or what needs further clarification.

Aguinis, Hermam and Jeffrey R. Edwards. “Methodological Wishes for the Next Decade and How to Make Wishes Come True.” Journal of Management Studies 51 (January 2014): 143-174; Brutus, Stéphane et al. "Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations." Journal of Management 39 (January 2013): 48-75; Ioannidis, John P.A. "Limitations are not Properly Acknowledged in the Scientific Literature." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007): 324-329; Pasek, Josh. Writing the Empirical Social Science Research Paper: A Guide for the Perplexed . January 24, 2012. Academia.edu; Structure: How to Structure the Research Limitations Section of Your Dissertation . Dissertations and Theses: An Online Textbook. Laerd.com; What Is an Academic Paper? Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.

• << Previous: The Discussion
• Next: Conclusion >>
• Last Updated: Nov 6, 2023 1:43 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.unh.edu/cpsonlinegradpaper

• Limitations In Research
• Writing guide

How to Organize Limitations of a Research Study

Table of contents

Let professional writers deal with your paper, quickly and efficiently.

When completing a study or any other important work, there are different details that you should include to present its comprehensive and clear description. Sometimes you might even need to hire a thesis writer to help you with the whole writing process. Don’t underrate the section with limitations in research. It plays a big role in the entire process. Some students find it difficult to write this part, while others are reluctant to include it in their academic papers. Don’t underestimate the significance of limitations in research to provide readers with an accurate context of your work and enough data to evaluate the impact and relevance of your results. What is the best way to go about them? Keep reading to find out more.

What are the Limitations of a Study (Research)?

Every research has its limitations. These limitations can appear due to constraints on methodology or research design. Needless to say, this may impact your whole study or research paper. Most researchers prefer to not discuss their study limitations because they think it may decrease the value of their paper in the eyes of the audience.

Remember that it’s quite important to show your study limitations to your audience (other researchers, editors of journals, and public readers). You need to notice that you know about these limitations and about the impact they may have. It’s important to give an explanation of how your research limitations can affect the conclusions and thoughts drawn from your research. 

In this guide, you can read useful tips on how to write limitations on your future research. Read great techniques on making a proper limitations section and see examples to make sure you have got an idea of writing your qualitative research limitations. You need to understand that even if limitations show the weaknesses of your future research, including them in your study can make your paper strengthen because you show all the problems before your readers will discover them by themselves. 

Apart from this, when the author points out the study limitations, it means that you have researched all the weak sides of your study and you understand the topic deeply. Needless to say, all the studies have their limitations even if you know how to make research design properly. When you’re honest with your readers, it can impress people much better than ignoring limitations at all.

Why and Where to Include Limitations in My Research Paper

Every research has certain limitations, and it’s completely normal, but you need to minimize their range of scope in the process. Provide your acknowledgment of them in the conclusion. Identify and understand potential shortcomings in your work.

When discussing limitations in research, explain how they impact your findings because creating their short list or description isn’t enough. Your research may have many limitations. Your basic goal is to discuss the ones that relate to the research questions that you choose for a specific academic assignment.

Limitations of your qualitative research can become clear to your readers even before they start to read your study. Sometimes, people can see the limitations only when they have viewed the whole document. You have to present your study limitations clearly in the discussion section of a researh paper . This is the final part of your work where it’s logical to place the limitations section. You should write the limitations at the very beginning of this paragraph, just after you have highlighted the strong sides of the research methodology. When you discuss the limitations before the findings are analyzed, it will help to see how to qualify and apply these findings in future research.

Common Limitations of the Researchers

Limitations related to the researcher must also be written and shown to readers. You have to provide suggestions on decreasing these limitations in both your and future studies.

Limited Access to Information 

Your study may involve some organizations and people in the research, and sometimes you may get problems with access to these organizations. Due to this, you need to redesign and rewrite your study. You need to explain the cause of limited access to your readers.

Time Limits

Needless to say, all the researchers have their deadlines when they need to complete their studies. Sometimes, time constraints can affect your research negatively. If this happened, you need to acknowledge it and mention a need for future research to solve the main problem. 

Conflicts on Biased Views and Personal Issues

Some researchers can have biased views because of their cultural background or personal views. Needless to say, it can affect the research. Apart from this, researchers with biased views can choose only those results and data that support their main arguments. If you want to avoid this problem, pay your attention to the problem statement and proper data gathering.

Different types

Before you start your study or work, keep in mind that there are specific limitations to what you test or possible research results. What are their types? There are different types that students may encounter and they all have unique features, including:

• Research design limitations,
• Impact limitations,
• Data or statistical limitations.

1. Research design limitations

Specific constraints on your population research or available procedures may affect the final outcomes or results that you obtain.

2. Impact limitations?

Even if your research has excellent stats and a strong design, it may suffer from the impact of such factors as:

• The field is conductive to incremental findings,
• Being too population-specific.
• A strong regional focus.

3. Data or statistical limitations

In some cases, it’s impossible to collect enough data or enrollment is very difficult, and all that under-powers your research results. They may stem from your study design. They produce more issues in interpreting your findings.

How to structure your research limitations correctly

There are strict rules to structure this section of your academic paper where you need to justify and explain its potential weaknesses. Take these basic steps to end up with a well-structured section:

• Announce to identify your research limitations and explain their importance,
• Reflect to provide the necessary depth, explain their nature, and justify your study choices,
• Look forward to suggest how it’s possible to overcome them in the future.

They walk your readers through this section. You need them to make it clear to your target audience that you recognize potential weaknesses in your work, understand them, and can point effective solutions.

How to set your research limitations?

No one is perfect. It means that your work isn’t beyond possible flaws, but you need to use them as a great opportunity to overcome new challenges and improve your knowledge. In a typical academic paper, research limitations can relate to these points:

• Formulation of your objectives and aims,
• Implementation of your data collection methods,
• Sample sizes,
• Lack of previous studies in your chosen area,
• The scope of discussions.

Learn to determine them in each one.

Formulation of your objectives and aims

Your work has certain shortcomings if you formulate objectives and aims in a very broad manner. What to do in this case? Specify effective methods or ways to narrow your formulation of objectives and aims to increase the level of your study focus.

Implementation of your data collection methods

If you don’t have a lot of experience in collecting primary data, there’s a certain risk that the implementation of your methods has flaws. It’s necessary to acknowledge that.

What are sample sizes?

They depend on the nature of your chosen problem and their significance is bigger in quantitative studies, unlike the qualitative ones. If your sample size is very small, statistical tests will fail to identify important relationships or connections within a particular data set. How to solve this problem? State that other researchers need to base the same study on a larger sample size to end up with more accurate results.

Lacking previous studies in the same field

A literature review is a key step in any scientific work because it helps students determine the scope of existing studies in the chosen area. Why should you use the literature review findings? They are a basic foundation for any researcher who must use them to achieve a set of specific objectives or aims. What if there are no previous works? You may face this challenge if you choose an evolving or current problem for your study or if it’s very narrow.

Scope of discussions

Feel free to include this point as a shortcoming of your work, no matter what your chosen area is. Why? The main reason is that you don’t have long years of experience in writing scientific papers or completing complex studies. That’s why the depth and scope of your discussions can be compromised in different levels compared to scholars with a lot of expertise. Include certain points from limitations in research. Use them as suggestions for the future.

Concluding thoughts

Any research suffers from specific limitations that range from common flaws to serious problems in design or methodology. The ability to set these shortcomings plays a huge role in writing a successful academic paper and earning good grades. What if you lack it? Turn to our professional thesis writers and get their expert consultation on thesis or research paper.

You may also like

Enjoy a completely custom, expertly-written dissertation. Choose from hundreds of writers, all of whom are career specialists in your subject.

Limitations of a Study: The Complete Guide

Research limitations make most studies imperfect. At its core, the research aims to investigate a specific question or questions about a topic. However, some things can hinder your ability to investigate the question or questions extensively. While this can make achieving your goals challenging, it enables you to point areas that require further studies.

That’s why you should demonstrate how future studies can provide answers to your unanswered questions if you encounter study limitations that affect your findings. Presenting the limitations of a study properly shows the readers that you understand your research problem.

After presenting your research findings, your assessment committee wants to see that you did your work professionally. And presenting limitations in a study shows that you carefully thought about your study problem and performed a review of the available literature while analyzing your preferred methods.

What Are Limitations in Research?

Well, limitations mean anything that might affect the generalizability or reliability of the outcomes of an experiment or a study. And this can relate to research design, like your approach or methods. It can also be something to do with how you carried out your research, like running out of resources or time before completing the study.

Either way, students should include their limitations when writing up their studies. In most cases, researchers include limitations in their analysis and discussions. But different schools can provide varying guidelines on how to include limitations in a research paper. Therefore, seek advice from your educator or check your writing style guide to know where to include the limitations of a study when writing a dissertation.

Common Study Limitations

Each study can have unique limitations. However, most students encounter common study limitations when writing academic papers. Here are some of the most common limitations you’re likely to encounter when writing your academic papers.

Sample profile or size: Most researchers encounter sampling as a limitation for their studies. That’s because they have difficulties finding the right sample with the necessary characteristics and size parameters. And this hinders the generalizability of their study results. Also, different sampling techniques are prone to bias and errors. And this can influence the study outcomes. In some cases, researchers have difficulties selecting their samples and opt to pick their participants selectively. Some researchers can even include irrelevant subjects in their general pool to hit their preferred sample size. Availability of previous research or information: Theoretical concepts or previous knowledge form the basis of studies on specific topics. And this provides a sound foundation on which a researcher can develop a research problem for their investigation and a design. However, a topic can be relatively specific or very progressive. In that case, the lack of or inadequate knowledge and previous studies can limit the analysis scope. And this can cause inaccuracies in the arguments or present a significant error margin in several methodologies and research aspects. Methodology errors: Modern research complexity can cause potential methodology limitations. In most cases, these research limitations relate to how the researchers collect and analyze data. That’s because these aspects can influence the outcomes of a study. Researchers use different techniques to gather data. While these techniques may suit a study design, they can present limitations in terms of inappropriate detail levels, distractions, and privacy. Bias: Bias is a potential limitation whose effects can influence the outcome of every study. However, a researcher can avoid this limitation by eliminating prejudiced or emotional attitudes towards their topic and conflict of interest. Researchers should also establish an oversight level by referring to peer-review procedures or an ethics committee. Bias is an inherent trait for human beings. Even the most objective people exhibit a bias to some extent. Nevertheless, a researcher should remain objective while trying to control potential inaccuracies or bias during the research process.

A researcher may not have control over the limitation of study. However, the limitation can be the condition, influence, or shortcoming that places restrictions on their conclusions or methodology. Therefore, researchers should mention all limitations that can influence their results.

Limitations of the Study Example

The purpose of most studies is to confirm or establish facts, reaffirm a previous study’s outcomes, solve current or new issues, develop a new theory, or support theorems. Research should also enable experts to develop knowledge on specific subjects. And people research different subjects, depending on their interests. However, researchers experience limitations of quantitative research and qualitative research. Here are the most common limitations in research.

Lack or inadequate interactions: Researchers might lack adequate interactions with government institutions and businesses. Consequently, they do not tap a substantial data amount. Researchers should arrange interaction programs with other establishments. That way, they can identify issues that warrant investigation and the necessary data for conducting research, as well as, the benefits of their studies. Overlapping studies can lead fritter resources away or duplicate the findings. Appropriate revision and compilation at regular intervals can solve this problem. Costly publishing: After researching a topic, a researcher should find ways to publish their findings. However, international journals cost a lot of money to publish a study. And this can discourage a researcher from publishing their work. For instance, a study involving females only or carried out in a specific town can have limitations like sample size, gender, and location. What’s more, the entire study could be limited to the researcher’s perception. Lack of or inadequate training: The research process doesn’t have a systematic methodology. Many researchers do not understand the research method when carrying out their work. Consequently, most researchers experience methodological limitations. Essentially, most researchers replicate the methodologies of similar studies. Even some research guides don’t explain the methodologies accurately. And this can limit the outcome of some studies. Lack of code of conduct: Researchers don’t have a code of conduct. And this causes inter-university and inter-departmental rivalries. Library functioning and management are not adequate in most places. Consequently, some researchers spend a lot of energy and time tracing the necessary books, reports, and journals for their studies. Such energy and time can be spent tracing relevant materials. Lack of confidence: The lack of confidence is among the most common limitations of research studies because company managers think that a researcher can misuse the data they disclose to them. Consequently, they don’t want to reveal their business information. And this can affect studies, yet data from researchers can help the same institutions. Therefore, organizations and researchers should implement confidence-building strategies to encourage companies to share data, knowing that researchers will use it productively.

Why Write the Limitations of a Study?

When writing a research paper or a thesis, some people think including study limitations is counterintuitive. That’s particularly the case for researchers that experienced something wrong. However, mentioning the limitations of your study is imperative for the following reasons.

• It tells the readers that you understand that no study lacks some limitations, and you took the time to analyze your work critically.
• It provides opportunities for further studies.
• It enables you to discuss the impacts of the limitations on your analysis and how future studies can address the challenges you encountered if granted a chance to do the study again.
• It presents your study as a transparent undertaking, making the results useful and credible for other people.

Most professors spot problems with the students’ work even if they don’t mention them. Consequently, embracing the limitations of your study and including them in your analysis is the best approach. Leaving out the limitations of research or vital aspects of a study can be detrimental to the entire study field. That’s because it can establish a potentially fallacious and incomplete depiction of the study.

In the academic world, players expect researchers to include the limitations of their works. And this includes a section that demonstrates a holistic and comprehensive understanding of a topic and research process by the author. Discussing limitations is a learning process for assessing the magnitude while critically evaluating the extenuating effect of the stated limitations.

Stating the limitations of a study also improves the validity and quality of future studies. And this includes limitations whose basis is the transparency principle in scientific research, whose purpose is to promote further progress while maintaining mutual integrity in similar studies.

How to Write Study Limitations

When writing your research limitations, do it in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the core concepts of confounding, analytical self-criticism, and bias. Highlighting every limitation might not be necessary. However, include every limitation with a direct impact on your research problem or study results.

Present your thought process as a researcher and explain the pros and cons of your decisions. Also, explain circumstances that may have led to a research limitation. Here’s how you should structure your limitations.

• Identification and description of the limitation: Use professional terminology to identify and describe the limitation. Also, include all necessary accompanying definitions. The limitation explanation should be precise and brief to ensure that the audience can easily understand the issue. Additionally, make sure that your audience can follow your thought pattern.
• Outline the possible impact or influence of the limitation: Explain to your readers how the limitation may have affected or influenced your study. And this comprises elements like the impact’s magnitude, occurrence likelihood, and the general direction the specific limitation could have driven your findings. Researchers generally accept that a limitation can have a more profound influence on a study than others. Therefore, highlight the effect or influence of a limitation to help readers decide on the issues to consider while examining your topic. And this is vital because a limitation whose value bias is null is less dangerous.
• Discuss alternative approaches to limitations: You can also discuss alternative ways to approach the limitations of your research question. However, the researcher should support the methodology or approach they selected in their study. Also, a research paper should explain why the study context warranted the methodology or approach, regardless of the limitation’s nature. Some researchers even provide persuasive evidence while discussing alternative decisions to some extent. And this shows thought transparency while reassuring readers that the researcher chose the best approach, despite the possible laminations.
• Description of the techniques for minimizing risks: Any limitation in research comes with some risks. Therefore, a researcher should describe possible techniques for minimizing the potential risk from the stated limitations. Such techniques can include a reference of previous studies and suggestions for improving data analysis and research design.

Don’t forget that acknowledging your study limitations provides a chance to suggest the direction for further studies. Therefore, connect the limitations of your study to the suggestions you make for further research. Also, explain how your study can make the unanswered questions more focused.

Also, acknowledging the limitation of the study enables you to demonstrate to the professor that you have critically thought about your research problem and understood the importance of the already-published literature. What’s more, it shows that you’ve carefully assessed the methods for studying your study problem. In research, a key objective is to discover new knowledge while confronting assumptions as you explore what others might not know.

Writing limitations should be a subjective process. That’s because you must analyze the impacts of the limitations and include them in your paper. In this section, don’t include the key weaknesses only. Instead, highlight the magnitude of the limitations of your research. And doing this requires you to demonstrate your study’s validity. Show the readers how the limitations have impacted your study outcomes and conclusions. Thus, writing the limitations section of your paper requires an overall, critical interpretation and appraisal of the impact. Essentially, this section should tell the readers why the problems with methods, errors, validity, and other limitations matter and to what extent.

Practical Tips for Writing Research Limitations

When writing a research paper, include information about your study’s limitations at the beginning of the discussion section. That way, your readers can understand your study limitations before delving into the deeper analysis. In some cases, authors bring out limitations when concluding their research discussion and highlighting the essence of further study on the subject. Here are practical tips to help you write the limitations of your study more effectively.

• Check some examples of limitations in research first: To understand the best way to include or present the limitations of your study, check how other authors do it. The internet is awash with good sample papers with a section for limitations. Checking such samples can help you write a limitations section for your academic paper.
• Include essential limitations only: Don’t come up with a list of limitations in your research paper. That’s because doing so can discredit the entire research project. Instead, highlight up to 3 limitations whose influence on your work was the highest. Also, explain how each of the limitations affected your work and research findings.
• Be brief and direct to the point: Identify the limitation, what caused it, and its impact on your research. Don’t expound on the limitation beyond this because the limitation section should be a small part of your paper.
• Be sincere: Don’t make up some lies or disguise your research limitations. That’s because doing so could prove you aren’t prepared. Therefore, be true and sincere with the audience. As you might see in good examples of study limitations, this section tells the audience what could be different or better.
• Explain what caused the limitations of your study: Your audience should have an easy time identifying the reason for the limitations. Therefore, make sure that you have explained everything correctly. Telling the readers about a limiting factor without explaining it can give them the impression that you’re outside your research project.
• Make suggestions for further studies: An ideal way for reversing points that other researchers can explore is to suggest future research paths. Your study could have failed in certain aspects. Maybe you didn’t achieve your expected results. However, it can prompt other researchers to take different directions in their future studies. Also, explain how other researchers can overcome the limitations you encountered in your study. You can even demonstrate why additional studies on the topic or subject are essential.
• Don’t confuse negative results with limitations: If your study brings out negative results, don’t confuse them for limitations. What negative outcomes mean is that you should support your hypothesis instead of opposing it. Perhaps, you can check sample limitations to understand what qualifies as a limitation. However, you can reformulate your hypothesis if you get negative results. Even when you stumble onto something you didn’t expect, don’t highlight it as a limitation.

Final Thoughts

When working on the limitations section of a research paper, be precise and clear. If writing this section becomes challenging, follow the tips shared in this article or seek assistance. That way, you can impress your educator by highlighting the limitations of your study properly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Richard Ginger is a dissertation writer and freelance columnist with a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the writing industry. He handles every project he works on with precision while keeping attention to details and ensuring that every work he does is unique.

Succeed With A Perfect Dissertation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

As Putin continues killing civilians, bombing kindergartens, and threatening WWIII, Ukraine fights for the world's peaceful future.

Ukraine Live Updates

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 23 August 2024

Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis

• Cristina Hortalà 1 ,
• Clara Selva 2 ,
• Ivan Sola 1 , 3 , 4 &
• Anna Selva 1 , 4 , 5 , 6  

BMC Public Health volume  24 , Article number:  2293 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

255 Accesses

Metrics details

Experience and satisfaction of colorectal cancer screening program participants are among the key factors that determine adherence to these programs. Understanding them is crucial to ensure future participation.

To explore and gain understanding on the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in colorectal cancer screening programs.

A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. We conducted a literature search up to April 2023 in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis. We independently selected the studies for their inclusion, assessed their methodological quality (with CASP tool) and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by consensus. We thoroughly read the selected studies, and analyzed the data following a thematic synthesis approach. We evaluated the confidence in our findings with CERQUAL.

We included six studies: four had an appropriate quality, and two had some methodological limitations. We identified five main findings across studies: (1) Variability in the concerns about the results; (2) Challenges regarding procedure logistics; (3) Care received from the healthcare professionals; (4) Being adequately informed; (5) Expectations and experience with the program. All findings had a moderate level of confidence.

Conclusions

Our qualitative review provides a picture of the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. Despite some logistical and expectation management issues, the overall satisfaction with the programs is high. More research is needed on the topic, as there are still important gaps in knowledge.

Peer Review reports

Colorectal cancer and cancer screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most diagnosed cancers worldwide. Among men it is the third most diagnosed cancer (after lung and prostate cancer), and in women it is the second most incident, after breast cancer [ 1 ]. In many regions the risk of CRC is around 5%, and the 5-year survival rate is 57% for colon cancer and 56% for rectal cancer [ 2 ].

CRC is a disease that qualifies for screening as defined by the Wilson and Jugner criteria [ 3 ]. These required characteristics are a high incidence rate [ 1 ] with a long preclinical phase, a recognizable and tractable precursor (polyp) and a correlation between tumour stage at diagnosis and mortality rate [ 4 , 5 ].

Organized screening programs have been proven to reduce incidence and mortality associated with CRC [ 6 , 7 ]. These programs are targeted to the average risk population, normally defined as individuals aged 50 or older, with no other additional risk factors such as inflammatory bowel disease or a family history of CRC or polyposis syndrome. There are different tests for CRC screening, but the most recommended and used worldwide are [ 8 , 9 ]: fecal blood test (guaiac faecal occult blood test [gFOBT] and faecal immunochemical test [FIT], both self-collection tests) [ 10 ], sigmoidoscopy [ 11 ] and colonoscopy, that is usually performed under light sedation [ 12 ]. Both fecal blood test and sigmoidoscopy, if positive, require a colonoscopy to explore the whole bowel.

Patient experience and satisfaction

Participation in CRC screening programs is vital as it determines the efficacy of the programs [ 13 ]. The European Council set the desirable participation rate for the average-risk population at 65%, but when looking at European Union citizens, in 2019 the participation ranged from 4.5 − 66.6% for gFBOT, to 22.8 − 71.3% for FIT [ 5 ]. Although FIT is more acceptable than gFOBT because it only requires one sample and does not require dietary restriction, participation rates are still low [ 14 , 15 ]. This very low percentage might be improved by increasing awareness creation, repeated messages, sensitivity to tone and style, and ensuring the quality of the process so that participants have a positive experience of their participation [ 5 , 16 ].

Experience and satisfaction of CRC screening program participants are among the key factors that determine adherence to them. In fact, studies showed that satisfaction with past stool test screening is a strong behavioural predictor of adherence to future screening rounds [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Furthermore, the fact that screening programs are aimed at asymptomatic populations that have not required or requested health care and that it is the health system itself that invites them to participate should be borne in mind. For the foregoing reasons, it is important to know what the experience and satisfaction of participants in relation to CRC screening is.

Patient experience and satisfaction are often used interchangeably despite differing slightly in meaning [ 20 , 21 ]. There is no standard definition for patient experience, but in general it refers to the interactions patients have with the healthcare system. It includes aspects such as getting timely appointments, easy access to information and good communication with healthcare providers [ 22 ]. Understanding patient experience is useful to determine whether something that should happen in a health care setting actually happened (e.g. clear communication with doctors or nurses). On the other hand, patient satisfaction measures the extent to which a patient is content with the care they received, it depends on the patient’s expectations [ 22 ] and involves some sort of rating or evaluation [ 21 ]. Two people who receive the exact care can give different satisfaction ratings depending on what expectations they had about the care that was supposed to be delivered.

Why is it important to do this review?

Several studies have measured patient experience and satisfaction with CRC screening, most using self-reported questionnaires [ 23 , 24 ] that are one of the most used methods to quantify and monitor patient satisfaction and experience. However, to delve into and understand the meaning people give to the phenomenon of interest, the qualitative approach is the most appropriate [ 25 , 26 ]. This qualitative approach also enables the detection and identification of possible issues with the screening programs, which might help to improve its quality and acceptance.

Qualitative research on patient satisfaction already exists [ 27 ], but to our knowledge, there is no previous systematic review that summarizes and critically appraises this knowledge adopting a qualitative research perspective.

Our main objective was to explore and gain understanding on the experience and satisfaction of the average-risk population participating in CRC screening programs. As secondary objectives, we aimed to explore any differences in experience and satisfaction of participants according to screening results (positive screening or negative screening) and according to the screening program nature (organized or opportunistic).

Study design

We conducted a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES), which integrates findings from multiple qualitative studies to gain understanding of a research topic, according to standardized methodology [ 28 ], and registered the protocol prospectively at PROSPERO (CRD42022339548). We reported results following the ENTREQ guidelines (Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research [ 29 ]).

Eligibility criteria

We structured our clinical question and established our eligibility criteria following the SPIDER framework [ 30 ], one of the available frameworks for qualitative questions recommended by the Cochrane Qualitative and implementation methods group [ 31 ] ( Table  1 ) : “What is the experience and satisfaction of people participating in CRC screening programs”.

We included:

Qualitative studies about participants of a CRC screening program, either organized or opportunistic, regardless of the screening test used, attending at least one screening test and which the primary focus is the experience or satisfaction of participants. Studies should use qualitative methods both for data collection and analysis.

Mixed method studies where it is possible to extract disaggregated data that was collected and analysed using qualitative methods.

Studies published in English, Spanish or French, the languages spoken by the research team.

We excluded:

Studies on programs aimed at people with inflammatory bowel, or polyposis syndromes (Lynch Syndrome), or family history of CRC.

Studies that collect data using qualitative methods but do not analyse these data using qualitative analysis methods.

Search methods

We conducted searches up to April 2023 in the following electronic databases without language or date restrictions: MEDLINE (via PubMed); Embase (via embase.com); CINAHL (via EBSCOHost); PsycINFO (via EBSCOHost).

We developed a search strategy for each database. See annex 1 for the detailed search strategies.

We tracked back from references and citations to relevant studies. We checked references lists from relevant studies and located their citations at the Web of Science and Google Scholar. We also searched for thesis and dissertations in ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global and for gray literature in OpenGrey ( www.opengrey.eu ).

Selection of studies

We (CH and CS) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of the identified records to evaluate eligibility. We then retrieved the full text of all the papers identified as potentially relevant by one or both review authors. We (CH and CS) then assessed these papers independently. We resolved disagreements by consensus or, when required, by involving a third reviewer (AS). We used the software rayyan.ai ( http://www.rayyan.ai/ ) to conduct the eligibility process, which facilitated the process by enabling efficient importation, collaborative screening, and resolution of conflicts among reviewers.

Data extraction and methodological quality assessment

We designed a data extraction template in an excel file and pilot tested it. One reviewer (CH) conducted the data extraction and a different reviewer (CS) verified that the data was correct. We extracted data on: context and participants (study setting, aims, population characteristics); study design and methods (methodological design and approach, methods for identifying the sample and for recruitment, data collection and analysis methods, any theoretical models used to interpret the findings); Study findings (themes, subthemes, findings and supporting quotations regarding patient satisfaction and experience).

We (CH and CS) independently assessed methodological limitations of included studies using the CASP tool for qualitative research [ 32 ]. We resolved disagreements by discussion or, when required, by involving a third review author [AS].

Data analysis and synthesis

We analysed the data according to a thematic synthesis approach [ 33 ], a method that consists of applying a thematic analysis to an evidence synthesis. It consists of iteratively refining themes based on initial data coding from individual studies included in the review and integrating findings to develop comprehensive and interpretative insights. The thematic synthesis approach consists in three stages which overlapped to some degree:

First, we read the results of all included studies and collected the verbatim findings. One reviewer generated codes based on the results according to its meaning and content (stage 1). We looked for similarities and differences between the codes to detect overlaps and group the codes into a hierarchical tree structure and obtain descriptive themes that constitute our review findings (stage 2).

To answer our review question and try to develop an analytical theme (stage 3), we generated integrative concepts, understandings, and hypothesis from the descriptive themes or review findings.

One author wrote a draft summary of the review findings and then commented it with other review authors to agree on a final version.

Assessing our confidence in the review findings

We (CH and CS) used the CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each review finding [ 34 ]. The CERQual has four key components: Methodological limitations of included studies, coherence of the review finding, adequacy of the data contributing to the review finding and relevance of the included studies to the review question. The final assessment was based on consensus among the review authors. All findings started as high confidence and were then graded down if there were important concerns regarding any of the GRADE-CERQual components.

Review author reflexivity

We represent diverse professional backgrounds with a range of research experiences and expertise that could have biased our input in conducting this review (e.g., one of the reviewers coordinates a population screening programme and, therefore, might have interpreted the findings from the studies from her professional perspective rather than that of a candidate for screening participation). To avoid biases or skewing of the results, we considered how our beliefs would influence our choices while scoping the review and the methods we used, the interpretation of the data and our own interpretation of our findings. That is why we kept a reflexive attitude throughout the review process.

Ethical consideration

As this is a secondary research study, and it did not involve access to individual-level data, we did not seek ethical approval for conducting this systematic review.

We retrieved 2348 references from the search, from which we excluded 806 duplicates and revised 1552 through their title and abstracts. We evaluated the full text of 62 studies. Finally, six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A chart detailing the inclusion/exclusion process can be seen in Fig.  1 . Main characteristics of the included studies are described in Table  2 .

PRISMA chart of the study selection process

The included studies were published between 2003 and 2021 and were all in English. All studies reported on organised screenings programs. The studies were from Denmark [ 36 , 38 ], Sweden [ 35 ], Spain [ 37 ], France [ 39 ] and UK [ 40 ]. Two studies explored the participant’s experience undergoing CRC screening and their screening procedure [ 35 , 36 ], two studies explored how participants experience a positive test result/ cancer diagnosis [ 38 , 40 ] and the remaining studies explored the obstacles to mass colorectal screening [ 39 ], and the factors related to the longitudinal adherence of CRC screening related to experience and satisfaction of the participants [ 37 ].

The studies obtained data from 14 focus groups, 88 semi-structured and 24 open-ended interviews of adult individuals (aged 50–80), who had undergone CRC screening. Three of the studies included the experiences of both faecal testing and colonoscopy [ 35 , 36 , 39 ], two only included the participants’ experience with faecal testing [ 37 , 38 ], and one included the participants experience with either sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy [ 40 ]. Aubin-Auger’s study [ 39 ] included interviews to both General Practitioners and participants, clearly separated the findings of both, and only those related to patients were included in this review.

As for the analysis of the data, the studies used thematic analysis [ 37 , 38 , 39 ], an inductive qualitative content analysis [ 35 ], a funnel-structured research cycle analysis [ 36 ] and a constant comparative analysis [ 40 ].

Four of the studies had an appropriate methodological quality [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 ], but the remaining had important limitations, due to the appropriateness of the analytic approaches used (authors reported opposite approaches to analyse data) [ 37 ] and the value of the research due to the time elapsed since the study was conducted [ 40 ].

The detailed methodological quality assessment can be seen in Table  3 .

Review findings

We identified five descriptive themes: concerns about the results, challenges regarding procedure logistics, care received from the healthcare professionals, being adequately informed and expectations and experience with the program.

Variability in the concerns about the results

All studies reported the participants having varying degrees of concern regarding the possible outcome of the screening tests [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Some of them went through screening without any further reflections or concerns about the outcome, as they just assumed that the result would be fine. Having an abnormal FIT result did not shock some of the participants either, as the result was somewhat expected because of previous hemorrhoids or those who had polyps detected during their previous colonoscopies [ 35 ].

Really, I didn’t think I was going to get any reply. When I had sent it away (.) it was in a way pretty much gone for me (.) then I’d done my part and didn’t think about it until I received the result [ 35 ].

Others, however, did struggle with anxious thoughts about the screening outcomes, as they were worried about further medical procedures such as a colonoscopy [ 35 , 36 ]. For some participants, receiving an abnormal FIT result was often accompanied by a dooming mindset expressed as “now it is over” [ 35 ].

In sum, the interpretation of a positive FIT result and perceived risk of CRC was shaped by symptom appraisal and experiences with previous abdominal symptoms and investigation. [ 38 ]

Fear about results was reported to be a determinant factor to explain both why individuals decided to participate, as well as why they sometimes decided to stop participating [ 37 ]. Specifically women with established screening habits (e.g., mammography, cervical smears) and individuals with familial exposure to gFOBT, were more likely to accept participation [ 39 ], as the previous experience reduced their fear, and therefore concern, of a possible positive result.

There are many people who prefer to ignore things, until there is no remedy and then you have to face the problem and say, ok because there is no choice. but if I can avoid knowing. Then there will be a percentage of people who will also do it [to participate] out of fear. I think so [ 37 ] (Female).

Challenges regarding procedure logistics

When commenting on the FIT, participants agreed that the performance of the test was simple and easy, and appreciated being able to perform the procedure at home, even though it sometimes was a bit time-consuming [ 35 , 37 ]. Some patients forgot to perform the FIT, while others lacked time or were indifferent [ 39 ]. Furthermore, when a participant received a positive FIT result, the feeling of uncertainty regarding the upcoming colonoscopy was overwhelming and worries about the discomfort of it arose [ 35 ].

When it comes to doing the [FOBT] test (.) I consider it [the FOBT test] a very comfortable thing. You do it in your house, at the moment [ 37 ] (Male).

The colonoscopy itself proved to be more challenging than FIT, as both the investigation and the bowel preparation were perceived as physically unpleasant, exhausting, and disgusting [ 35 , 36 ], regardless of the use or not of sedatives [ 35 ]. The bowel preparation was specially mentioned to be one of the worst and most troublesome aspects of the colonoscopy [ 35 , 36 ].

The main concern regarding logistics was the interference with daily life. Individuals were required to plan or reschedule other activities to undergo colonoscopy [ 36 ], and that ultimately resulted in them prioritizing their everyday tasks and activities over the actions needed to participate in the screening program [ 37 ], postponing the procedure. Colonoscopy appointments required patients to plan for transportation after the examination, often involving a family member or friend accompanying them to and from the hospital. Having to repeat the FIT test twice was also considered burdensome and time-consuming [ 35 ].

Well yes, that (the bowel preparation) was probably the worst bit/Yes/(.)/Yes, that first litre goes very well but then the next gets tough [ 35 ].

Care received from the healthcare professionals

Four of the six included studies [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 ] put an emphasis on the participants’ report of the care received. In all studies, healthcare professionals were described as trust-promoting, empathetic, friendly, easy-going, and attentive. Feeling well treated and cared for was a shared experience among the participants.

She who performed it (the colonoscopy), was a really nice woman (.) and there was nothing wrong with anyone else either, but to me, it gets so much easier when you can take it lightly, make a joke and stuff [ 35 ].

Some patients discussed the positive FIT result with a healthcare professional to talk about the upcoming colonoscopy [ 38 ], as doctors played a significant role in mitigating concern and providing reassurance.

Individuals also shared the importance of being involved during the procedure, especially when healthcare professionals explained real-time findings or removals during colonoscopies. This involvement helped increase trust in the skills of the professional performing the intervention [ 36 ]

It was such a positive experience. They told me during the whole procedure what they saw, and they blew up and removed some tiny little polyps. [ 36 ] (Female, 74).

Being adequately informed

A very commonly discussed theme was the information received by participants for the FIT and gFOBT tests, and whether it was adequate or sufficient [ 35 , 37 ]. Most agreed that there was some confusion surrounding the bureaucratic aspects of the screening process, such as what process to follow to participate, time periods between rounds, age limits for the program, and where to confirm the colonoscopy appointment [ 35 , 39 ].

We have all been relaxed about it because none of us knew that the maximum period between analysis and analysis of the colon are two years, we did not know. And then, well, they have done it and that’s it . and it is not like that [ 37 ] (Male).

The lack of information regarding CRC screening in the media contributed to the general misinformation, which prompted many individuals to consult a general practitioner after receiving the invitation to make the decision to undergo the screening process [ 37 ]. Some patients were not convinced by the explanatory letter and asked their GPs for other reasons why screening was necessary, such as epidemiological factors. [ 39 ] Some other patients preferred managing their health in different ways, such as eating healthy food or exercising, and believed screening was only useful in the case of high-risk familial CRC. [ 39 ].

I went to my GP [before making a decision] and they talked me through it [the letter] a bit [ 37 ] (Male).

Some patients showed a complete lack of knowledge about the test (gFOBT), sometimes thinking that it was a colonoscopy. [ 39 ]

When talking about colonoscopy, participants referred to being well informed both before and during the procedure, which was highly valued as it gave them the feeling of being more involved [ 36 , 37 ].

The way the results were communicated also brought up uncertainties, as participants were not sure whether they had gotten their result, as the letter they received was unclear [ 36 ]. General misinformation also affected how participants interpreted the results, with a positive result being automatically linked to cancer. [ 39 ]

In cases where the patients received a cancer diagnostic, initially they were only told that polyps had been found, interpreting this outcome as non-serious. Despite having a period in which they were essentially symptomatic, they failed to prepare themselves for the possibility that the polyps detected at screening might turn out to be malignant. [ 40 ]

Expectations and experience with the program

Individuals described their expectations not corresponding with the reality of the screening procedure both in a positive and negative way. Their experience with the FIT test was better than what they expected, and they were surprised by its cleanliness and simplicity.

Colonoscopy however, had contradicting experiences. While for some, despite being relatively painless and professional, was worse than what they expected [ 35 ], for others undergoing the colonoscopy was a better experience than anticipated, and the behaviour of healthcare professionals provided comfort, making patients feel less uncomfortable about undergoing a colonoscopy in the future. [ 37 ]

There was a sense of relief once the screening procedure was completed, as they felt pleased since it was considered “good to know” [ 35 ].

I think it is such a comfort to get screened and to be told that there is no cancer at all. I can only be content with this screening procedure. [ 36 ] (Female, 74).

There was a sense of gratitude towards screening offers, as participants appreciated and realized the health benefit that this type of service introduces, not only on an individual level but also on a populational level. Some even considered participating in these programs as a “moral obligation” [ 36 , 37 ]. Even after a cancer diagnostic, no one expressed the view that they wished they had not gone for screening [ 40 ]. Many participants thought that screening can help detect disease at the stage when things can be done, offering a chance of cure, prolonged life, and a choice about whether to go ahead with treatment or not. [ 40 ].

Screening is just something you should do. It is no fun, but you should do it for your family’s sake. This is a priority of society. Finally, when there is a screening offer for men, we should jump at the offer [ 36 ] (Male, 58).

Interpretive explanation of satisfaction with the screening programme

The actual experiences of individuals undergoing CRC screening, compared to initial expectations, significantly impact overall satisfaction, and so, how both factors are shaped will be decisive.

Regarding expectations, they might differ influenced by the participant’s past experiences. On one hand, having undergone screening successfully in the past can encourage them to participate again, but on the other hand, concerns they might have about the procedures can affect how they face the tests, and even prevent them from participating at all. Fear of a positive result can also negatively impact expectations, as people with a more dooming mindset will meet the whole screening process with far worse prospects. Expectations are also easily defined by the information participants receive from both the letter they receive at their home as from the media or their GP. This information needs to be clear and straightforward, as being adequately informed will determine what the participants will assume the whole process will look like.

As for the experiences, the review highlights a wide range of concerns regarding the screening outcome, varying from no concern to anxious thoughts and a dooming mindset among participants. Logistic issues arising from the screening process, particularly challenges with FIT and colonoscopy procedures, were commonly reported. These challenges led to disruptions in daily life, often resulting in the postponement or rescheduling of tests to prioritize participants’ everyday tasks. Notably, participants consistently praised the care provided by healthcare professionals throughout the screening program. The professionals were characterized as empathetic, attentive, and actively involved during procedures. This involvement significantly contributed to participants feeling well-informed both before and during the procedure, in contrast to the general lack of information received prior to the test. The confusion around bureaucratic aspects of the screening program led many individuals to consult GPs after receiving invitations to participate.

In essence, participant satisfaction is a complex interplay of emotional responses, logistical challenges, healthcare professional interactions, information adequacy, and the alignment of expectations with actual experiences during the screening process. Successfully managing these factors contributes to overall participant satisfaction. Therefore, to improve satisfaction with CRC screening programs, it is necessary that the experience of participants is good and that expectations are as alligned as possible with reality. An overview of the construction of the analytical theme can be found in Fig.  2 .

Despite disparities between expectations and the reality of the screening procedure, participants did not express dissatisfaction with the program. Upon finalisation, there was a shared sense of relief, and participants expressed gratitude towards the screening offers.

Confidence in our findings

We presented our confidence in review findings in a CERQual evidence profile table (Table  4 ). All findings had a moderate level of confidence due to the limited amount of data that supported the findings and due to concerns on relevance as the objectives of two included studies [ 37 , 39 ] did not align completely with our research question.

Summary of main findings

Overall, participants describe a generally satisfactory experience with the program.

The review highlights a wide range of concerns regarding the screening outcome, varying from no concern to anxious thoughts and a dooming mindset among participants. Logistic issues arising from the screening process, particularly challenges with colonoscopy procedures and forgetting to do the FIT, were commonly reported. These challenges led to disruptions in daily life, often resulting in the postponement or rescheduling of tests to prioritize participants’ everyday tasks.

Notably, participants consistently praised the care provided by healthcare professionals throughout the screening program. The professionals were characterized as empathetic, attentive, and actively involved during procedures. This involvement significantly contributed to participants feeling well-informed both before and during the procedure, in contrast to the general lack of information received prior to the test. The confusion around bureaucratic aspects of the screening program led many individuals to consult GPs after receiving invitations to participate.

Despite disparities between expectations and the reality of the screening procedure, participants did not express dissatisfaction with the program. Upon finalization, there was a shared sense of relief, and participants expressed gratitude towards the screening offers.

Strengths and limitations of the study

One of the strengths of this study is the extensive effort made to find and review all relevant primary studies by performing exhaustive bibliographic research in four different databases and searching for grey literature. Even though studies in English, Spanish and French were included, other studies relevant to this topic published in other languages might exist. Included studies were all conducted in Europe: three in Nordic countries, two in centre-European countries and one southern-European country which have health care and societal context differences. This proves to be a strength as identifying the most prevalent and convergent experiences of participants in CRC screening programs across countries further increases the confidence in our results. Finally, the originality of our work lies on the fact that, to our knowledge, the are no other qualitative evidence synthesis on this topic.

Our study has some limitations. The first one being the relatively small number of included primary studies in the review. We also could not find the complete text for three preliminarily included studies. All studies were European, which, despite them having different healthcare systems, limits the extrapolation of our results to other regions and contexts. Besides, the small amount of data and concerns about relevance limited the confidence in our findings and did not allow us to answer our secondary objectives.

Comparison to existing literature

One of the main findings of our study were the varying degrees of concern about the results of the screening test. However, after a negative FIT result, or after being cleared of a positive FIT result by a colonoscopy, people felt a huge feeling of relief. This indicates that the confirmation of a good health outcome has a value ‘per se’ [ 41 ]. Just by accepting to participate in the program, individuals accept the risk of “false alarm”, which aggravates the concern of a positive result. At the same time, it has been suggested that participation elicits a feeling of being examined for good, and therefore causing a “relaxation effect” that delays future doctor visits and might deter them from participating again in future screening rounds [ 42 ]. From our findings, we can neither support nor contradict these suggestions.

We have found that many participants feel a moral obligation to participate in screening programs, from personal, interpersonal, and societal perspectives. This finding is reinforced when looking at breast and cervical cancer screening studies, which suggest screening might constitute a moral framework of obligation and responsibility, as these programs are both a social and medical intervention [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. This might be even more relevant in countries with socialized healthcare systems, which often remind residents about the scarcity of resources, and therefore appeal to their sense of obligation to participate in the screening programs, explaining the high participation levels [ 46 ].

When discussing the tests themselves, previous research confirms that the FIT procedure is considered simple and easy [ 47 ], and participants preferred FITs that were single sample, used a probe and vial for sample collection, and had simple, large font instructions with colourful pictures [ 48 ]. Studies also validate the difficulties with colonoscopy bowel preparation [ 49 ] and suggest that offering different laxative alternatives might help relieve the stress and optimize the preparation [ 50 ].

Published quantitative studies based on surveys/questionnaires also reinforce our findings of a general positive experience with the screening, with room for improvement in the informative material and the colonoscopy preparation [ 51 , 52 ].

Implications of our results and future research

Our study has identified some issues that might negatively affect participants’ satisfaction with CRC screening programs. This knowledge can help in the design of interventions or changes to the current programs that might help alleviate these challenges, including: (1) Having a clearer presentation of the program and what timelines to follow in the letter sent home; (2) Implementing automated reminders via mobile apps or text messages, with prompts to complete the FIT test within recommended time frames (3) Provide a detailed and more realistic explanation about how the colonoscopy preparation is going to be like, so participants’ expectations are better managed.

Our study also highlighted the relevance of HCP in the screening process. Especially General Practitioners, as their support and interactions with participants play a pivotal role in their decision to participate in the programs.

We tried to bring integrated knowledge on the understanding of the experience and satisfaction of participants of CRC screening programs. However, we could only include six studies, which sheds a light into the need of performing more qualitative research on this topic. There were no studies that considered the gender perspective, and whether the satisfaction with the program varied if the participants was a man or a woman, or other demographic differences such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status. There is also a lack of studies answering any of our secondary objectives, such as: whether any differences existed in satisfaction with opportunistic or populational screening, or whether the final screening results impact the overall satisfaction with the programs.

Our qualitative evidence synthesis provided a picture of the experience and satisfaction of participants in CRC screening programs. There are varying degrees of concern about the results derived from their participation, and while the FIT test is easy and straightforward, bowel preparation for colonoscopy is a problem for participants. The screening process interrupts with daily life, which encourages individuals to postpone screening. During the procedure they feel well cared after and informed, but there is still some lack of information that contributes to the mismanagement of expectations. Despite this, the overall satisfaction with the screening programs is high.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding.

Globocan. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2020 (2020) http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx

De Angelis R, Sant M, et al. EUROCARE-5 Working Group. Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE–5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):23–33.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: WHO;; 1968. Available from: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07-050112BP.pdf.

Dekker E, Tanis PJ, et al. Colorectal cancer Lancet. 2019;354(10207):1467–80.

Google Scholar  

Senore C, Basu P, Anttila A, et al. Perform Colorectal cancer Screen Eur Union Memb States: Data Second Eur Screen Rep Gut. 2019;68:1232–44.

Hewitson P, Glasziou P et al. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult Vol. 2007, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2007.

Shaukat A, Mongin SJ et al. Long-term mortality after screening for Colorectal Cancer. N Engl J Med 2013 Sep 19, 326(12):1106–14.

Navarro M, Nicolas A, et al. Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: an update. World Journal of Gastroenterology. Volume 23. Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited;; 2017. pp. 3232–42.

Schreuders EH, Ruco A, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 2015;64(10):1633–49.

Article   Google Scholar  

Quintero E, Castells A, et al. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;326:697–706.

Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ. 2014;337:g2467.

Quintero E, Carrillo M, Gimeno-García AZ, et al. Equivalency of fecal immunochemical tests and colonoscopy in familial colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:1021–30. .e1; quiz e16-7.

European Comission. European Guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edit. Segnan N, Patnick J. von KL, editor. Luxembourg; 2010.

Vart G, Banzi R, Minozzi S. Comparing participation rates between mmunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2012;55:87–92. 15.

Moss S, Mathews C, Day TJ et al. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut 2017;66.

Colorectal screening in. Europe: saving lives and saving Money. February 2020/ Digestive Cancers Europe. https://www.digestivecancers.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/466-Document-DiCEWhitePaper2019.pdf

Osborne JM, Wilson C et al. Patterns of participation over four rounds of annual fecal immunochemical test-based screening for colorectal cancer: what predicts rescreening? BMC Public Health 2017 Aug 1, 18(1).

Duncan A, Turnbull D et al. Behavioural and demographic predictors of adherence to three consecutive faecal occult blood test screening opportunities: a population study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1).

Duncan A, Turnbull D, et al. Using the Transtheoretical Model of Behaviour Change to describe readiness to rescreen for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood testing. Heal Promot J Aust. 2012;23(2):122–8.

Beattie M, Murphy DJm Atherton I, Lauder W. Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: A systematic Review Syst Rev [Internet]. 2015 Jul 23 [cited 2021 Mar 5];4(1). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26202326/

Klose K, Kreimeier S, Tangermann U, Aumann I, Damm K. Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):1–11.

Agency for healtchcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/about-cahps/patient-experience/index.html

Kirkøen B, Berstad P, Botteri E, Dalén E, Nilsen J, Hoff G, et al. Acceptability of two colorectal cancer screening tests: pain as a key determinant in sigmoidoscopy. Endoscopy. 2017;49(11):1075–86.

Sipe BW, Fischer M, Baluyut AR, Bishop RH, Born LJ, Daugherty DF, et al. A low-residue diet improved patient satisfaction with split-dose oral sulfate solution without impairing colonic preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(6):932–6.

Berenguera A, Fernández MJ, Pons M, Pujol E, Rodríguez DSS. Escuchar, observar y comprender. Recuperando la narrativa en las Ciencias de la Salud. Aportaciones de la investigación cualitativa 1st ed. Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAP J.Gol), editor. Barcelona; 2014.

Pope CMN. Qualitative research in health care . Books B, editor. London; 2000.

Kotzur M, McCowan C, et al. Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening: a comparative qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(6):482–90.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Garside R, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Pantoja T, Thomas J. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:34–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.025 .

https:// https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181

Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A, Beyond PICO. The SPIDER Tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1434–43.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, Hannes K, Harden A, Flemming K, Garside R, Pantoja T, Thomas J, Noyes J. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

CASP. Making sense of evidence: 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative research. Public Health Resource Unit, England; 2013. http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_29c5b002d99332f788c6ac670e49f274.pdf .

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lewin S, Booth A, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. BioMed Central; 2018.

Wangmar J, et al. Two sides of every coin: individuals’ experiences of undergoing colorectal cancer screening by faecal immunochemical test and colonoscopy. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(6):1290–5.

Kirkegaard P, et al. A stitch in time saves nine: perceptions about colorectal cancer screening after a non-cancer colonoscopy result. Qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(7):1333–9.

Benito L, et al. Factors related to longitudinal adherence in colorectal cancer screening: qualitative research findings. Cancer Causes Control. 2018;29(1):103–14.

Kirkegaard P, Edwards A, et al. Waiting for diagnostic colonoscopy: a qualitative exploration of screening participants’ experiences in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018-01-01;12(0):845–52.

Aubin-Auger I, Mercier A, et al. Obstacles to colorectal screening in general practice: a qualitative study of GPs and patients. Fam Pract. 2011;28(6):670–6.

Miles A, Wardle J, et al. Receiving a screen-detected diagnosis of cancer: the experience of participants in the UK flexible sigmoidoscopy trial. Psychooncology. 2003;12(8):784–802.

Lupton D. Medicine as Culture: illness, Disease and the body. 3rd ed. University of Sydney, Australia: Sage; 2012.

Book   Google Scholar  

Petticrew M, Sowden A, et al. False-negative results in screening programs . Medical, psychological, and other implications. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(2):164–70.

Osterlie W, Solbjor M, et al. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. J Med Ethics. 2008;33:e5. (September (9)).

Griffiths F, Bendelow G. Etal. Screening for breast cancer: medicalization, visualization and the embodied experience . Health (London). 2010;14:653–68. (November (6)).

Howson A. Surveillance, knowledge and risk: the embodied experience of cervical screening. Health. 1998;2(2):195–215.

Chapple A, Ziebland S, et al. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(12):2425–34.

Aguado Loi CX, Martinez Tyson D et al. Simple and easy: ’providers’ and latinos’ perceptions of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening. Ethn Health 2018; 1–16.

Pham R, Cross S, et al. Finding the right FIT’: rural patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) characteristics. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30:632–44.

Denters MJ, Deutekom M, et al. Patient burden of colonoscopy after positive fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy. 2013;45:332–9.

Bechtold ML, Mir F, et al. Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a guide to enhance quality of visualization. Ann Gastroenterol. 2016;29:133–46.

Selva A, Mosconi G et al. Participants’ satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review Preventive medicine 2023;10776.

Kayal G, Kerrison R, Hirst Y, et al. Patients’ experience of using colonoscopy as a diagnostic test after a positive FOBT/FIT: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e071351.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Cristina Hortalà Bas is a doctoral candidate in Methodology of Biomedical Research and Public Health, at the Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Preventive Medicine and Public Health at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

This work was supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos Tercero, grant number (PI18/00460).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universitat Autònoma de Barcleona, Catalonia, Spain

Cristina Hortalà, Ivan Sola & Anna Selva

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Catalonia, Spain

Clara Selva

Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain

CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain

Ivan Sola & Anna Selva

Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari. Institut d’Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT_CERCA), Sabadell, Spain

Clinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Parc Taulí, 1, Sabadell, 08208, Spain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

C.H. wrote the main manuscript text. C.H. and C.S. performed the analysis. I.S. designed the search strategy. A.S. reviewed all analysis and provided feedback and guidance. All authors reviewed the manuscript and provided corrections.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Selva .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hortalà, C., Selva, C., Sola, I. et al. Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis. BMC Public Health 24 , 2293 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19678-1

Download citation

Received : 06 March 2024

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 23 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19678-1

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

• Colorectal neoplasms
• Cancer screening
• Qualitative research
• Systematic review

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Can rule-based educational chatbots be an acceptable alternative for students in higher education?

• Published: 26 August 2024

Cite this article

• Hakan Güldal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1566-9378 1 &
• Emrah Oğuzhan Dinçer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7938-3881 2  

The purpose of this study was to investigate student perceptions and acceptance of a rule-based educational chatbot in higher education, employing the TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) framework. The researchers developed a rule-based chatbot for this purpose and examined the students' technology acceptance using qualitative research methods. Therefore, the study was design-based research using qualitative research methods. The participants of the study comprised 22 students studying in the Science Teaching program of Trakya University Faculty of Education and enrolled in the Modern Physics Course in the 2021–2022 fall semester. The research revealed that students' technology acceptance towards rule-based chatbots was high, even though these chatbots had technological limitations when compared to machine learning or deep learning-based ones. The students found rule-based chatbots to be useful, especially in terms of response quality, information quality, and access. Additionally, some technical details and open-source codes were also presented in the study, which can be a guide for rule-based chatbots to be designed for other areas of education.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

https://github.com/hguldal/hermes

Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L. (2020). Chatbots: History, technology, and applications. Machine Learning with Applications, 2 , 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2020.100006

Article   Google Scholar  

Aguilar-Mejía, J. R., & Tejeda, S. (2020). Using virtual assistant for learning selected topics of physics. IEEE integrated STEM education conference (ISEC), 2020 , 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEC49744.2020.9397822

Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018). Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 125 , 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.008

Alneyadi, S., & Wardat, Y. (2023). ChatGPT: Revolutionizing student achievement in the electronic magnetism unit for eleventh-grade students in Emirates schools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15 (4), ep448.

Alstein, P., Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2021). Teaching and learning special relativity theory in secondary and lower undergraduate education: A literature review. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 17 , 023101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023101

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-Based Research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41 (1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813

Ashfaq, M., Yun, J., Yu, S., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2020). I, chatbot: Modeling the determinants of users’ satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service agents. Telematics and Informatics, 54 , 101473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101473

Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern information retrieval . ACM press.

Google Scholar  

Berander, P., Damm, L. O., Eriksson, J., Gorschek, T., Henningsson, K., Jönsson, P., ... & Wohlin, C. (2005). Software quality attributes and trade-offs. Blekinge Institute of Technology, 97(98), 19.

Bhullar, P. S., Joshi, M., & Chugh, R. (2024). ChatGPT in higher education - a synthesis of the literature and a future research agenda. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12723-x

Bilquise, G., Ibrahim, S., & Salhieh, S. M. (2023). Investigating student acceptance of an academic advising chatbot in higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 29 (5), 6357–6382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12076-x

Bird, S. & Loper, E. (2004). NLTK: The Natural Language Toolkit. In Proceedings of the ACL Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, pages 214–217, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep430. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176

Brachten, F., Kissmer, T., & Stieglitz, S. (2021). The acceptance of chatbots in an enterprise context – a survey study. International Journal of Information Management, 60 , 102375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102375

Cakır, R., & Solak, E. (2015). Attitude of Turkish EFL learners towards e-learning through Tam model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176 , 596–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.515

Casheekar, A., Lahiri, A., Rath, K., Prabhakar, K. S., & Srinivasan, K. (2024). A contemporary review on chatbots, AI-powered virtual conversational agents, ChatGPT: Applications, open challenges and future research directions. Computer Science Review, 52 , 100632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2024.100632

Chen, Q., Gong, Y., Lu, Y., & Tang, J. (2022). Classifying and measuring the service quality of AI chatbot in frontline service. Journal of Business Research, 145 , 552–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.088

Cho, V., Cheng, T. C. E., & Lai, W. M. J. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers & Education, 53 (2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.014

Chun Ho, C., Lee, H. L., Lo, W. K., & Lui, K. F. A. (2018). Developing a Chatbot for College Student Programme Advisement. International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), 2018 , 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET.2018.00021

Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparício, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education; Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001

Colby, K. M., Weber, S., & Hilf, F. D. (1971). Artificial paranoia. Artificial Intelligence, 2 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(71)90002-6

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319.

Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38 (3), 475–487.

Davis, F. D. (2011). Foreword in technology acceptance in education: Research and issues . Sense Publishers.

Deng, X., & Yu, Z. (2023). A meta-analysis and systematic review of the effect of chatbot technology use in sustainable education. Sustainability, 15 (4), 2940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042940

Deveci Topal, A., Dilek Eren, C., & Kolburan Geçer, A. (2021). Chatbot application in a 5th grade science course. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (5), 6241–6265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10627-8

Dibitonto, M., Leszczynska, K., Tazzi, F., & Medaglia, C. M. (2018). Chatbot in a campus environment: Design of LiSA, a virtual assistant to help students in their university life. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human-computer interaction. Interaction technologies (pp. 103–116). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91250-9_9

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Dimitriadi, K., & Halkia, K. (2012). Secondary students’ understanding of basic ideas of special relativity. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (16), 2565–2582. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.705048

Feng, W., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development . https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504682

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education . McGraw-Hill Education.

Gokcearslan, S., Tosun, C., & Erdemir, Z. G. (2024). Benefits, challenges, and methods of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 7 (1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.600

Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 , 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864

Hew, K. F., Huang, W., Du, J., & Jia, C. (2022). Using chatbots to support student goal setting and social presence in fully online activities: learner engagement and perceptions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education; Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09338-x

Hill, J., Randolph Ford, W., & Farreras, I. G. (2015). Real conversations with artificial intelligence: A comparison between human–human online conversations and human–chatbot conversations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49 , 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.02610.1007/bf02504682

Hu, Y. H. (2021). Effects and acceptance of precision education in an AI-supported smart learning environment. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10664-3

Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2023). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (7), 4099–4112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1952615

Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2023). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (1), 973–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3

Labadze, L., Grigolia, M., & Machaidze, L. (2023). Role of AI chatbots in education: Systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00426-1

Lee, D., & Yeo, S. (2022). Developing an AI-based chatbot for practicing responsive teaching in mathematics. Computers & Education, 191 , 104646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104646

Lin, C.-C., Huang, A. Y. Q., & Yang, S. J. H. (2023). A Review of AI-driven conversational chatbots implementation methodologies and challenges (1999–2022). Sustainability, 15 (5), 4012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054012 . MDPI AG.

Liu, B., & Mei, C. (2020). Lifelong Knowledge Learning in Rule-based Dialogue Systems. ArXiv, abs/2011.09811. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.09811

Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14 (1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

Marikyan, D. and Papagiannidis, S. (2023) Technology Acceptance Model: A review. In S. Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book. Available at http://open.ncl.ac.uk/

Mendoza, S., Sánchez-Adame, L. M., Urquiza-Yllescas, J. F., González-Beltrán, B. A., & Decouchant, D. (2022). A model to develop chatbots for assisting the teaching and learning process. Sensors, 22 (15), 5532. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155532

Mikic Fonte, F. A., Llamas Nistal, M., Llamas Nistal, M., & Caeiro Rodríguez, M. (2016). NLAST: A natural language assistant for students. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2016 , 709–713. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474628

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Motaghian, H., Hassanzadeh, A., & Moghadam, D. K. (2013). Factors affecting university instructors’ adoption of web-based learning systems: Case study of Iran. Computers & Education, 61 , 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.016

Na-young, K., Cha, Y. J., & Kim, H.-S. (2019). Future English Learning: Chatbots and Artificial Intelligence. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 22, 32–53. Retrieved from https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:209451313

Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2 , 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033

Ondáš, S., Pleva, M., & Hládek, D. (2019). How chatbots can be involved in the education process. 2019 17th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), 575–580. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETA48886.2019.9040095

OpenAI (2023). GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

Oppermann, R. (2002). User-interface Design. In: Adelsberger, H.H., Collis, B., Pawlowski, J.M. (eds) Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https:doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07682-8_15

Paul, S., & Ray, L. (2022). Service chatbots and international students: A systematic review. International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), 2022 , 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI58124.2022.00032

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., … Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12 , 2825–2830.

Pérez, J. Q., Daradoumis, T., & Puig, J. M. M. (2020). Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28 (6), 1549–1565. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22326

Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A. K. (2020). Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 145 , 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732

Ramesh, K., Ravishankaran, S., Joshi, A., & Chandrasekaran, K. (2017). A Survey of Design Techniques for Conversational Agents. In S. Kaushik, D. Gupta, L. Kharb, & D. Chahal (Eds.), Information, Communication and Computing Technology (pp. 336–350). Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6544-6_31

Rosli, M. S., Saleh, N. S., Md Ali, A., Abu Bakar, S., & Mohd Tahir, L. (2022). A systematic review of the technology acceptance model for the sustainability of higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic and identified research gaps. Sustainability , 14 (18), 11389. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811389

Ruan, S., Jiang, L., Xu, J., Tham, B. J. K., Qiu, Z., Zhu, Y., Murnane, E. L., Brunskill, E., & Landay, J. A. (2019). QuizBot: A Dialogue-Based Adaptive Learning System for Factual Knowledge. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300587

Sætra, H. S. (2023). Generative AI: Here to stay, but for good? Technology in Society . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102372

Santos, R. P. D. (2023). Enhancing Physics Learning with ChatGPT. Bing Chat, and Bard as Agents-to-Think-with: A Comparative Case Study. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4478305

Scherr, R. E., Shaffer, P. S., & Vokos, S. (2001). Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simultaneity and reference frames. American Journal of Physics, 69 (S1), S24–S35. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1371254

Shevat, A. (2017). Designing bots: Creating conversational experiences . O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Smutný, P., & Schreiberova, P. (2020). Chatbots for learning: A review of educational chatbots for the Facebook Messenger. Computers & Education . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103862

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Measuring the moderating effect of gender and age on e-learning acceptance in England: A structural equation modeling approach for an extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51 (2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.2.b

Thoppilan, R., De Freitas, D., Hall, J., Shazeer, N., Kulshreshtha, A., Cheng, H. T., ..., & Le, Q. (2022). Lamda: Language models for dialog applications . arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239

Turing, A. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, 59 (236), 433–460.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Vakarou, G., Stylos, G., & Kotsis, K. T. (2024). Probing students’ understanding of Einsteinian physics concepts: A study in primary and secondary Greek schools. Physics Education, 59 (2), 025004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ad1768

Valtolina, S., Barricelli, B. R., & Di Gaetano, S. (2020). Communicability of traditional interfaces VS chatbots in healthcare and smart home domains. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39 (1), 108–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1637025

Vanichvasin, P. (2021). Chatbot development as a digital learning tool to increase students’ research knowledge. International Education Studies; Canadian Center of Science and Education . https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n2p44

Wallace, R. S. (2009). The anatomy of A.L.I.C.E. In: R. Epstein, G. Roberts, G. Beber, (Eds.), Parsing the turing test . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_13

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 5–23.

Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA: A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9 (1), 36–45.

Wollny, S., Schneider, J., Di Mitri, D., Weidlich, J., Rittberger, M., & Drachsler, H. (2021). Are We There Yet? - A Systematic Literature Review on Chatbots in Education. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4 , 654924. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.654924

Wu, R., & Yu, Z. (2024). Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55 , 10–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334

Zhang, R., Zou, D., & Cheng, G. (2023). A review of chatbot-assisted learning: Pedagogical approaches, implementations, factors leading to effectiveness, theories, and future directions. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2202704

Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., Du, Y., Yang, C., Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Jiang, J., Ren, R., Li, Y., Tang, X., Liu, Z., ... Wen, J. R. (2023). A survey of large language models. Retrieved January 9, 2024, from arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.18223

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The authors confirm that they have no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Department of Computer and Instructional Technologies Edirne, Trakya University, Edirne, Türkiye

Hakan Güldal

Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education Edirne, Trakya University, Edirne, Türkiye

Emrah Oğuzhan Dinçer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Hakan Güldal: Conceptualization, Software, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing-Original draft preparation, Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Emrah Oğuzhan Dinçer: Methodology, Validation, Writing-Original draft preparation, Writing- Reviewing and Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hakan Güldal .

Ethics declarations

Ethics statement.

Approval was received from Trakya University's Ethics Committee of Social Sciences for the study (E-29563864–050.04.04–162428).

Competing interests

The authors confirm no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Güldal, H., Dinçer, E.O. Can rule-based educational chatbots be an acceptable alternative for students in higher education?. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12977-5

Download citation

Received : 19 February 2024

Accepted : 09 August 2024

Published : 26 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12977-5

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

• Rule-Based Chatbot
• Machine learning
• Artificial intelligence
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Apple researchers develop AI that can ‘see’ and understand screen context

• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More

Apple researchers have developed a new artificial intelligence system that can understand ambiguous references to on-screen entities as well as conversational and background context, enabling more natural interactions with voice assistants, according to a paper published on Friday.

The system, called ReALM (Reference Resolution As Language Modeling) , leverages large language models to convert the complex task of reference resolution — including understanding references to visual elements on a screen — into a pure language modeling problem. This allows ReALM to achieve substantial performance gains compared to existing methods.

“Being able to understand context, including references, is essential for a conversational assistant,” wrote the team of Apple researchers. “Enabling the user to issue queries about what they see on their screen is a crucial step in ensuring a true hands-free experience in voice assistants.”

Enhancing conversational assistants

To tackle screen-based references, a key innovation of ReALM is reconstructing the screen using parsed on-screen entities and their locations to generate a textual representation that captures the visual layout. The researchers demonstrated that this approach, combined with fine-tuning language models specifically for reference resolution, could outperform GPT-4 on the task.

“We demonstrate large improvements over an existing system with similar functionality across different types of references, with our smallest model obtaining absolute gains of over 5% for on-screen references,” the researchers wrote. “Our larger models substantially outperform GPT-4.”

Practical applications and limitations

The work highlights the potential for focused language models to handle tasks like reference resolution in production systems where using massive end-to-end models is infeasible due to latency or compute constraints. By publishing the research, Apple is signaling its continuing investments in making Siri and other products more conversant and context-aware.

Still, the researchers caution that relying on automated parsing of screens has limitations. Handling more complex visual references, like distinguishing between multiple images, would likely require incorporating computer vision and multi-modal techniques.

Apple races to close AI gap as rivals soar

Apple is quietly making significant strides in artificial intelligence research , even as it trails tech rivals in the race to dominate the fast-moving AI landscape.

From multimodal models that blend vision and language , to AI-powered animation tools , to techniques for building high-performing specialized AI on a budget , a steady drumbeat of breakthroughs from the company’s research labs suggest its AI ambitions are rapidly escalating.

But the famously secretive tech giant faces stiff competition from the likes of Google , Microsoft , Amazon and OpenAI , who have aggressively productized generative AI in search, office software, cloud services and more.

Apple, long a fast follower rather than a first mover, now confronts a market being transformed at breakneck speed by artificial intelligence. At its closely watched Worldwide Developers Conference in June, the company is expected to unveil a new large language model framework, an “ Apple GPT ” chatbot, and other AI-powered features across its ecosystem.

“We’re excited to share details of our ongoing work in AI later this year,” CEO Tim Cook recently hinted on an earnings call. Despite its characteristic opacity, it’s clear Apple’s AI efforts are sweeping in scope.

Yet as the battle for AI supremacy heats up, the iPhone maker’s lateness to the party has put it in an uncharacteristic position of weakness. Deep coffers, brand loyalty, elite engineering and a tightly integrated product portfolio give it a puncher’s chance — but there are no guarantees in this high stakes contest.

A new age of ubiquitous, truly intelligent computing is on the horizon. Come June, we’ll see if Apple has done enough to ensure it has a hand in shaping it.

Stay in the know! Get the latest news in your inbox daily

By subscribing, you agree to VentureBeat's Terms of Service.

Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here .

An error occured.

• Open access
• Published: 21 August 2024

The costs, health and economic impact of air pollution control strategies: a systematic review

• Siyuan Wang 1 ,
• Rong Song 2 ,
• Zhiwei Xu 3 ,
• Mingsheng Chen 4 , 5 ,
• Gian Luca Di Tanna 6 ,
• Laura Downey 1 ,
• Stephen Jan 1 &
• Lei Si 7 , 8  

Global Health Research and Policy volume  9 , Article number:  30 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

210 Accesses

Metrics details

Air pollution poses a significant threat to global public health. While broad mitigation policies exist, an understanding of the economic consequences, both in terms of health benefits and mitigation costs, remains lacking. This study systematically reviewed the existing economic implications of air pollution control strategies worldwide.

A predefined search strategy, without limitations on region or study design, was employed to search the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and CEA registry databases for studies from their inception to November 2023 using keywords such as “cost–benefit analyses”, “air pollution”, and “particulate matter”. Focus was placed on studies that specifically considered the health benefits of air pollution control strategies. The evidence was summarized by pollution control strategy and reported using principle economic evaluation measurements such as net benefits and benefit–cost ratios.

The search yielded 104 studies that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 75, 21, and 8 studies assessed the costs and benefits of outdoor, indoor, and mixed control strategies, respectively, of which 54, 15, and 3 reported that the benefits of the control strategy exceeded the mitigation costs. Source reduction (n = 42) and end-of-pipe treatments (n = 15) were the most commonly employed pollution control methodologies. The association between particulate matter (PM) and mortality was the most widely assessed exposure-effect relationship and had the largest health gains (n = 42). A total of 32 studies employed a broader benefits framework, examining the impacts of air pollution control strategies on the environment, ecology, and society. Of these, 31 studies reported partially or entirely positive economic evidence. However, despite overwhelming evidence in support of these strategies, the studies also highlighted some policy flaws concerning equity, optimization, and uncertainty characterization.

Conclusions

Nearly 70% of the reviewed studies reported that the economic benefits of implementing air pollution control strategies outweighed the relative costs. This was primarily due to the improved mortality and morbidity rates associated with lowering PM levels. In addition to health benefits, air pollution control strategies were also associated with other environmental and social benefits, strengthening the economic case for implementation. However, future air pollution control strategy designs will need to address some of the existing policy limitations.

Air pollution is a major environmental and public health problem affecting millions of people worldwide [ 1 ]. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), it is among the leading causes of mortality, with exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollution associated with approximately 6.7 million premature deaths in 2019 [ 2 ]. In addition to its health impacts, air pollution has environmental, ecological, and economic consequences [ 3 ]. For example, one economic impact relates to the substantial costs associated with treating and managing air pollution-induced illnesses [ 4 , 5 ], as well as indirect societal expenditures resulting from the loss of productivity due to reduced working days [ 6 ]. The World Bank estimated that the overall cost of air pollution on health and well-being was approximately $8.1 trillion U.S. dollars, or 6.1% of GDP, in 2019 [ 7 ].

The need to reduce the environmental and health impacts of air pollution has been recognized for several decades. Many developed countries have implemented comprehensive multi-pollutant control strategies aimed at mitigating the health effects of key pollutants, including particulate matter (PM), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide [ 8 , 9 ]. In recent years, developing countries with large populations have also begun tightening air quality standards. For example, China implemented the National Clean Air Action Plan (2013–2017) and followed it with the Three-Year Action Plan for Clean Air starting in 2018 to jointly lower emissions from various pollution sources [ 10 , 11 ]. Health assessment studies have consistently highlighted the substantial health and economic benefits associated with reducing air pollution through these measures [ 12 , 13 , 14 ].

Despite the substantial health benefits of air quality control strategies, their implementation comes at a cost. The magnitude of benefits and costs is primarily dependent on the relative nature of the control strategy, the size and setting of the intervention, the specific exposure and health endpoints considered, and the assumptions of the underlying economic evaluation [ 15 ]. Some high-income countries require a regular assessment of the relative costs and benefits of proposed environmental regulations, including air pollution regulations. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been required by law to conduct several comprehensive cost–benefit analyses of the Clean Air Act [ 16 ].

On a global scale, there is a gap in the systematic analysis of the costs and health benefits of air pollution control strategies. While the evidence base strongly supports that lowering exposure to air pollution is beneficial to health and reduces the burden on health systems, air pollution control strategies often come at significant costs. Thus, there is an imperative need to understand the relative costs and benefits of such interventions to ensure evidence-based air policies, particularly in resource limited settings. This study sought to fill this gap by systematically reviewing the economic impact of air pollution control strategies. The objective was to identify successful pollution control strategies, summarize economic evaluation methodologies, and highlight existing policy limitations. The findings are intended to inform the design of more optimal and targeted air policies, particularly in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings where there is a critical need to deliver cost-effective interventions to control pollution.

Search strategy

Six databases, including PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and the CEA registry, were searched using a predefined strategy developed by combining keywords such as “air pollution”, “particle matter”, and “cost–benefit analyses”. The searches included the period from each database's inception to November 2023, without limitations on study design or region. Detailed summaries of the strategy search strategies are shown in Online Appendix 1.

Study selection, eligibility, and exclusion criteria

The database searches identified studies that explored the public health impact of air pollution control strategies, focusing on those that specifically assessed health benefits as part of the cost–benefit evaluation. Studies were included in the analysis if they: 1) were economic evaluation studies (cost–benefit analysis) of air pollution control strategies; 2) reported health and economic benefits of air pollution control strategies; and 3) were published in English. Studies that were not peer-reviewed articles, such as government reports or conference abstracts, were excluded.

Data extraction

Two reviewers (SW and RS) independently screened the title, abstract, and full text of each study. Conflicts were resolved through consultations with a third reviewer (LS). Information from the final included studies was gathered using a data extraction sheet developed following the initial phase of the literature review. The following data elements were extracted: study identification information (authors, year of publication, and country of conduct), study design (perspective, scope, and settings), type of intervention (outdoor intervention, indoor intervention, or mixed intervention), pollution control method (source reduction methods or end-of-pipe treatments), pollution control strategy category, pollutant type targeted, study methodologies (methodologies that modeled emissions, estimated costs, and estimated benefits), cost estimates, benefit estimates, cost–benefit estimates and sensitivity analysis estimates. A full list of the extracted elements is provided in Online Appendix 2.

A narrative synthesis was used to summarize the findings. Economic evidence were summarized using standard cost–benefit measurements that define an intervention as effective if the net benefit (total benefit minus total cost) is positive or the benefit–cost ratio (total benefit divided by total cost) is > 1 [ 17 ]. We followed the general principles for evidence synthesis reviews and reported the findings using PRISMA reporting guidelines (Online Appendix 3) [ 18 ].

Quality appraisal and risk of bias assessment

The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) reporting guidance for economic evaluations was used to conduct a risk of bias assessment [ 19 ]. CHEERS 2022 includes 28 items, all of which were used to assess the quality of the included studies. We assessed the quality of evidence following the reporting guidance from the CHEERS 2022 Explanation and Elaboration report [ 20 ]. In the absence of a validated scoring system for the checklist, a qualitative assessment of the completeness of reporting for each item was conducted [ 19 ].

Characteristics of the included studies

The search strategy yielded 4966 records across the six databases, from which 4,402 unique records were identified for title, abstract, and full-text screening. A total of 104 studies were ultimately found to meet the inclusion criteria. The selection process, developed using the PRISMA flowchart, is shown in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection

Economic evaluation studies were identified that examined the cost–benefit ratio of several air pollution control strategies across various countries, with some dating back over 50 years. Overall, there was a relatively balanced distribution of studies conducted in low- and middle-income settings as well as high-income settings (n = 48 and 47, respectively), and most studies were published within the last decade (n = 74). Outdoor interventions, which sought to reduce local or ambient air pollution, were the most common type of pollution control strategy (n = 75; 72%). Meanwhile, 21 studies assessed the cost–benefit ratio of indoor interventions that aimed to lower exposure at the individual or household level. A total of eight studies evaluated control strategies that incorporated both indoor and outdoor interventions. Most pollution control strategies sought to mitigate emissions or pollutants directly from their origin (n = 42), while others employed end-of-pipe treatments to reduce pollution after its release, often through the use of filtration systems, scrubbers, or other pollution control devices (n = 15). A table of the included studies is shown in Online Appendix 4 and the study characteristics are summarized in Table  1 .

Pollution control strategies by category

Pollution control strategies involving a variety of control methods aimed at reducing both outdoor and indoor pollution were identified. Specific examples of outdoor interventions included transitions to cleaner energy and fuel sources [ 21 , 22 ], tighter vehicle emission regulations [ 23 ], and improved agriculture practices and technologies such as intercropping and low-emissions animal housing systems [ 24 , 25 ]. Another type of outdoor pollution control method was the use of end-of-pipe treatments for high-emission sources, such as retrofitting coal-fired power plants with scrubbers [ 26 ] or using particle filters and oxidation catalysts for diesel vehicles [ 27 ]. Common indoor pollution control strategies included interventions that encourage the use of cleaner and improved stoves [ 28 , 29 ], and promoting clean air ventilators in workplaces and households [ 30 ]. Air pollution control strategies grouped by intervention type and pollution control methodology are summarized in Table  2 .

Economic evaluation modeling of air pollution control strategies

The Impact Pathway Approach (IPA) [ 114 ], which connects interrelated modules for different aspects of the evaluation process, was commonly used to evaluate the effects of ambient air pollution on human health. This is a multistep approach that establishes links between emissions, exposure, and effects by estimating pollutant emissions and dispersion, then modeling exposure of the target population to assess health impacts, quantify the costs, and compare the benefits and mitigation costs. While methodologies for estimating costs and benefits varied by intervention and study context, most studies employed dose–response parameters to assess health gains from reduced pollution exposure. Subsequently, economic evaluation modeling techniques, such as the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) or Cost of Illness (COI), were employed to quantify the economic health benefits. A summary of the evaluation process, including the emissions, chemical transport, and health assessment models, as well as the cost–benefit assessment, are shown in Fig.  2 .

Analytical sequence for the economic evaluation of air pollution control strategies

The IPA also uses Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) to assess the health impacts of a broad range of policy scenarios or technological interventions. IAMs incorporate geographical, populational, and industry-specific data to estimate the emission and dispersion of primary and secondary pollutants and model populational exposure to assess health and economic impacts. The choice of modules was largely dependent on the specific setting of the study, as well as the control policy being considered. For example, the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) and the Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) model were two commonly used IAMs for estimating the impact of both air pollution and climate change-related policies on emissions. In addition, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension (CAMx) and the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model were often used to model pollutant atmospheric concentrations, while the Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BENMAP) was used to assess health impacts.

Costs associated with air pollution interventions encompass several elements. These include initial investment costs, such as research and development of cleaner technologies [ 84 ], as well as operating and maintenance expenses, such as heavy vehicle inspection and maintenance programs [ 43 ]. Finally, mitigation costs are compared against intervention benefits using standard economic evaluation metrics such as computing net benefits or benefit–cost ratios.

Health benefit assessment

Most studies used dose–response parameters to predict health outcomes from changes in exposure and then compared the money saved by health gains to the costs of mitigation. However, the choice of parameters varied depending on the nature of the exposure, the setting of the study, and the selected health endpoints. Most of the studies focused on evaluating the economic benefit of lowering particulate matter (n = 84), which is considered the most important factor affecting human health. Other hazardous gases, including NO X , SO X , and O 3 (n = 34, 32, 19, respectively), were also considered. Premature deaths, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and ischaemic heart disease) were the most widely assessed health endpoints (n = 53, 43, and 44, respectively). Some studies also considered the benefit of increased productivity from a drop in the number of restricted working days (n = 18). In studies evaluating the economic health benefit of reducing premature deaths, the VSL approach was the most common methodology used. The Willingness to Pay (WTP) and COI methods were also used to quantify disease burden, and the Human Capital (HC) approach was used to evaluate losses in productivity.

Economic impact of air pollution control strategies

There was widespread economic evidence in support of implementing air pollution controls. Table 3 summarizes the cost-benefit results by pollution control category. Of the 104 studies analyzed, 72 (69%) reported that the benefits of the control strategy outweighed the costs. Most studies evaluated outdoor interventions, with 54 of 75 finding positive evidence in favor of these interventions. Of the 21 studies assessing indoor interventions, 15 showed positive results. Eight studies examined the cost–benefit ratio of both outdoor and indoor interventions, of which three reported net positive results. The number of studies that reported benefits exceeding costs, benefits exceeding costs for parts of the intervention, and costs exceeding benefits are presented in Table  1 . Except for transport regulations, the pollution control categories showed consistently positive economic results. Of the 13 studies assessing transport regulations, only three reported positive outcomes, while six indicated mixed results and four reported negative cost–benefit outcomes. In 41 studies investigating the impact of uncertainties on cost–benefit outcomes, several key variables were consistently analyzed, including discount rates, VSL figures, cost parameters, and dose–response models. In some instances, adopting lower VSL figures and projecting higher mitigation costs helped to shift the economic assessment of the intervention from cost-beneficial to non-cost-beneficial [ 22 , 48 , 58 , 115 , 116 ].

Social, environmental, and ecological benefits

A total of 32 studies [ 14 , 25 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 42 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 60 , 61 , 73 , 84 , 87 , 92 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 ] considered the broader social, environmental, or ecological benefits of pollution control strategies. Of these, 16 studies [ 25 , 29 , 33 , 42 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 84 , 100 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 120 ] estimated the environmental benefits of reducing CO 2 emissions by employing a carbon market price or CO 2 abatement cost. Other studies (n = 18) valued the additional morbidity improvements and productivity gains from reducing the number of restricted days and increasing the number of working days. Krewitt et al. [ 117 ] used exposure–response functions from open-top chamber experiments to quantify the economic benefit of increased crop yield from reduced SO 2 emission. Partially positive or positive cost–benefit results were demonstrated in 31 of the 32 studies. In addition, nine out of 10 studies showed that environmental policies, particularly long-term policies aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, may also have short-term secondary air pollution benefits, contributing to positive economic evidence in support of the policy.

Risk of bias assessment and quality appraisal of evidence

The results of the quality assessment under the CHEERS 2022 framework are shown in Online Appendix 5. All studies reported on items 6 and 7, providing relevant contextual information regarding the setting, location, and intervention or scenario of consideration. Most studies (n = 60, 74, 85, 72, respectively) adhered to the reporting criteria for items 1, 2, 3, and 9 (title, abstract, background, and time horizon). Additionally, a total of 85, 100, 99 and 88 studies reported on the selection, measurement and valuation of outcomes and costs (items 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively). Few studies (n = 6, 2) considered the heterogeneity and distributional effects of the outcomes (items 18 and 19). No studies reported on items 8, 21, and 25 (perspective, engagement with patient, and effects of engagement with patients). Meanwhile, a total of 44 and 41 studies characterized and reported on uncertainty (items 20 and 24), and a total of 59 and 42 studies disclosed the funding source and competing interests, respectively (items 27 and 28).

Our review of the economic evidence suggests that economic assessments of air pollution control strategies face several key uncertainties at each stage of the evaluation process, including emissions projection, exposure modeling, and quantification of the benefits and costs. Cost uncertainties primarily stemmed from the cost data, the cost model, and the choice of discounting factors for operating and maintenance costs. The uncertainties relating to benefit estimation were considerably larger. Two commonly acknowledged factors across all studies were the choice of an appropriate Concentration Response Function (CRF) to estimate the health effects of exposure and the selection of a VSL figure to monetize health gains. Differences in air pollutant composition, population age structure, and the quality of public health systems contributed to varying exposure-effect relationships across different populations and regions. Thus, it is critical to select concentration–response functions that are tailored to the specific context of each study. The choice of appropriate VSL and CRF proved particularly challenging for many studies conducted in low- and middle-income settings that lack supporting epidemiologic and economic evidence. Many of these studies used the benefits transfer method to estimate an approximate figure by adjusting VSL estimates from developed countries, despite existing literature showing the limitations of this approach [ 109 ]. Other studies used concentration–response functions established from epidemiologic studies in developed countries that may not reflect the appropriate populational or environmental context. The choice of valuation methods also greatly influences the benefits estimation. For example, studies employing contingent valuation estimates may inadvertently overstate the economic benefits, while those utilizing the COI approach may not fully encompass all economic benefits [ 122 ].

We find that studies measuring both economic and health benefits were more likely to report positive economic results from the control strategies. However, the methods varied in the types and sizes of social and environmental benefits considered. For example, the environmental benefits from reduced carbon dioxide emissions and time savings associated with indoor cooking interventions generally outweighed the corresponding health benefits. This was not typically the case for outdoor interventions. In some studies [ 101 ], the standalone health benefits were insufficient to cover mitigation costs, while the addition of social benefits resulted in net positive results. These findings highlight the importance of an integrated or holistic approach in the evaluation framework.

While this study highlighted overwhelming economic evidence in support of various air pollution control strategies, it also revealed a need to address policy limitations and barriers. This includes ensuring equality among different socioeconomic and geographical populations. Air pollution is a major cause of health inequalities worldwide, particularly for women, elders, and people of low socioeconomic status [ 123 , 124 , 125 ]. Thus, future control policies and policy evaluations will need to target these priority groups. Despite the epidemiologic evidence demonstrating the disproportionate health impacts of air pollution on elders and infants, only six of the 104 studies included in this review considered the distributional effects and heterogeneity of outcomes on different subpopulations [ 124 , 126 ]. While air pollution has a similar impact on the health of men and women, particular occupational or social norms can lead to disproportionately high levels of exposure among some groups of women, such as housewives who are using inefficient stoves in low- and middle-income settings. This suggests a need for targeted interventions and evaluations in this population [ 28 ]. Despite overall net positive outcomes for society, specific cohorts, particularly rural populations, or people living in regions of low socioeconomic status, may experience net economic losses due to disproportionately high mitigation costs [ 93 ]. Clean air has substantial positive health and social benefits that spill over to society. However, without government subsidies, costs are disproportionately borne by individuals or private sectors, posing challenges to implementation [ 105 ]. Thus, economic evaluations should consider assessing the private and social cost-benefits separately.

This study had a few limitations. First, the review was limited to peer-reviewed articles, potentially omitting relevant grey literature. The lack of all available information, including government documents that evaluate environmental air interventions, may contribute to a biased or incomplete interpretation of the full economic evidence. Second, this study has potential publication bias, including funding biases from governments or organizations with vested interests and the selective reporting of studies with positive health and economic outcomes. These biases may skew the overall economic results in favor of certain policies and underrepresent alternative approaches or outcomes. Third, due to variability in outcome measurements and analytical methodologies used by the included studies, it was not feasible to conduct a meta-analysis or otherwise quantitatively synthesize the overall economic evidence.

This study systematically reviewed economic evidence on the costs and benefits of air pollution control strategies across different countries and timeframes. Nearly 70% of the studies reported data in support of the control policies, with particularly strong economic evidence identified by those using a broader benefits framework. While there was broad economic support for air pollution control in general, the findings also underscore the scarcity of economic and epidemiological evidence needed to substantiate such economic evaluations, particularly within LMICs. In addition, there is a pressing need to prioritize environmental and economic equity in the development of targeted interventions, especially among vulnerable populations in LMICs who are at higher risk for air pollution-related illness due to existing geographical, health, or socioeconomic disparities. The insights gained from this review will help to inform the design of future air pollution control policies and the economic evaluations of related interventions.

Availability of data and materials

The data used and/or analyzed during the current study are extracted from included studies and are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Environmental Protection Agency

Impact Pathway Approach

Integrated Assessment models

Global Change Assessment Model

Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension

Community Multiscale Air Quality model

Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program

Local Air Pollution

Global Climate Change

Value of Statistical Life

Concentration Response Function

Willingness to pay

Cost of Illness

Human Capital

Low- and middle-income countries

High income countries

Particle matter

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Burnett R, Chen H, Szyszkowicz M, Fann N, Hubbell B, Pope CA 3rd, et al. Global estimates of mortality associated with long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(38):9592–7.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fuller R, Landrigan PJ, Balakrishnan K, Bathan G, Bose-O’Reilly S, Brauer M, et al. Pollution and health: a progress update. Lancet Planet Health. 2022;6(6):e535–47.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Manisalidis I, Stavropoulou E, Stavropoulos A, Bezirtzoglou E. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: a review. Front Public Health. 2020;8:14.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cohen AJ, Ross Anderson H, Ostro B, Pandey KD, Krzyzanowski M, Künzli N, et al. The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2005;68(13–14):1301–7.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jaafar H, Razi NA, Azzeri A, Isahak M, Dahlui M. A systematic review of financial implications of air pollution on health in Asia. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2018;25(30):30009–20.

Pervin T, Gerdtham UG, Lyttkens CH. Societal costs of air pollution-related health hazards: a review of methods and results. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008;6:19.

Awe YA, Larsen BK, Sanchez-Triana E. The Global Health Cost of PM 2.5 Air Pollution: A Case for Action Beyond 2021. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group; 2021. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/455211643691938459/The-Global-Health-Cost-of-PM-2-5-Air-Pollution-A-Case-for-Action-Beyond-2021

Ross K, Chmiel JF, Ferkol T. The impact of the clean air act. J Pediatr. 2012;161(5):781–6.

Chen Y, Craig L, Krewski D. Air quality risk assessment and management. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008;71(1):24–39.

Chen C, Fang JL, Shi WY, Li TT, Shi XM. Clean air actions and health plans in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2020;133(13):1609–11.

The State Council PRC. Three-year action plan for cleaner air released 2018. Available from: https://english.www.gov.cn/policies/latest_releases/2018/07/03/content_281476207708632.htm .

Huang J, Pan X, Guo X, Li G. Health impact of China’s air pollution prevention and control action plan: an analysis of national air quality monitoring and mortality data. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(7):e313–23.

Chen Z, Wang F, Liu B, Zhang B. Short-term and long-term impacts of air pollution control on china’s economy. Environ Manage. 2022;70(3):536–47.

Zhang JJH, Zhang W, Ma G, Wang Y, Lu Y, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of China’s action plan for air pollution prevention and control. Front Eng Manage. 2019;6(4):524–37.

Article   Google Scholar  

Liu X, Guo C, Wu Y, Huang C, Lu K, Zhang Y, et al. Evaluating cost and benefit of air pollution control policies in China: A systematic review. J Environ Sci (China). 2022.

US Environmental Protection Agency. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 (Final Report). Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/summaryreport.pdf .

Mishan EJ, Quah E. Cost-benefit analysis. Abingdon: Routledge; 2020.

Book   Google Scholar  

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):23.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II good practices task force. Value Health. 2022;25(1):10–31.

Buonocore JJ, Lambert KF, Burtraw D, Sekar S, Driscoll CT. An analysis of costs and health co-benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0156308.

Mao X, Guo X, Chang Y, Peng Y. Improving air quality in large cities by substituting natural gas for coal in China: Changing idea and incentive policy implications. Energy Policy. 2005;33(3):307–18.

Borjesson M, Bastian A, Eliasson J. The economics of low emission zones. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2021;153:99–114.

Giannakis E, Kushta J, Bruggeman A, Lelieveld J. Costs and benefits of agricultural ammonia emission abatement options for compliance with European air quality regulations. Environ Sci Eur. 2019;31(1):1–13.

Wagner S, Angenendt E, Beletskaya O, Zeddies J. Costs and benefits of ammonia and particulate matter abatement in German agriculture including interactions with greenhouse gas emissions. Agric Syst. 2015;141:58–68.

Voorhees AS, Uchiyama I. Particulate matter air pollution control programs in Japan—an analysis of health risks in the absence of future remediation. J Risk Res. 2008;11(3):409–21.

Evans JS, Rojas-Bracho L, Hammitt JK, Dockery DW. Mortality benefits and control costs of improving air quality in Mexico city: the case of heavy duty diesel vehicles. Risk Anal. 2021;41(4):661–77.

Aunan K, Alnes LWH, Berger J, Dong Z, Ma L, Mestl HES, et al. Upgrading to cleaner household stoves and reducing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among women in rural china - a cost-benefit analysis. Energy Sustain Dev. 2013;17(5):489–96.

Hutton G, Rehfuess E, Tediosi F. Evaluation of the costs and benefits of interventions to reduce indoor air pollution. Energy Sustain Dev. 2007;11(4):34–43.

Chau CK, Hui WK, Tse MS. Valuing the health benefits of improving indoor air quality in residences. Sci Total Environ. 2008;394(1):25–38.

Wagner S, Angenendt E, Beletskaya O, Zeddies J. Assessing ammonia emission abatement measures in agriculture: Farmers’ costs and society’s benefits—a case study for Lower Saxony, Germany. Agric Syst. 2017;157:70–80.

Fung KM, Tai APK, Yong T, Liu X, Lam HM. Co-benefits of intercropping as a sustainable farming method for safeguarding both food security and air quality. Environ Res Lett. 2019;14(4):044011.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kiely L, Spracklen DV, Arnold SR, Papargyropoulou E, Conibear L, Wiedinmyer C, et al. Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):7044.

Iwata K. Cost-benefit analysis of enforcing installation of particulate matter elimination devices on diesel trucks in Japan. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 2011;13(1):1–19.

Stevens G, Wilson A, Hammitt JK. A benefit-cost analysis of retrofitting diesel vehicles with particulate filters in the Mexico City metropolitan area. Risk Anal. 2005;25(4):883–99.

Hutchinson EJ, Pearson PJ. An evaluation of the environmental and health effects of vehicle exhaust catalysts in the UK. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(2):132–41.

Beatty TK, Shimshack JP. School buses, diesel emissions, and respiratory health. J Health Econ. 2011;30(5):987–99.

Cropper ML, Guttikunda S, Jawahar P, Lazri Z, Malik K, Song X-P. Applying benefit-cost analysis to air pollution control in the indian power sector. J Benefit Cost Anal. 2019;10:185–205.

Levy JI, Biton L, Hopke PK, Zhang KM, Rector L. A cost-benefit analysis of a pellet boiler with electrostatic precipitator versus conventional biomass technology: a case study of an institutional boiler in Syracuse, New York. Environ Res. 2017;156:312–9.

Thanh BD, Lefevre T. Assessing health benefits of controlling air pollution from power generation: the case of a lignite-fired power plant in Thailand. Environ Manage. 2001;27(2):303–17.

Zhang H, Zhang B, Bi J. More efforts, more benefits: air pollutant control of coal-fired power plants in China. Energy. 2015;80:1–9.

Ballini F, Bozzo R. Air pollution from ships in ports: the socio-economic benefit of cold-ironing technology. Res Transp Bus Manag. 2015;17:92–8.

Google Scholar  

Li Y, Crawford-Brown DJ. Assessing the co-benefits of greenhouse gas reduction: Health benefits of particulate matter related inspection and maintenance programs in Bangkok, Thailand. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409(10):1774–85.

Okada A. Benefit, cost, and size of an emission control area: a simulation approach for spatial relationships. Marit Policy Manage. 2019;46(5):565–84.

Lopez NS, Soliman J, Biona JBM, Fulton L. Cost-benefit analysis of alternative vehicles in the Philippines using immediate and distant future scenarios. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2020;82:102308.

Zhou J, Wang J, Jiang H, Cheng X, Lu Y, Zhang W, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of yellow-label vehicles scrappage subsidy policy: a case study of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China. J Clean Prod. 2019;232:94–103.

Åström S, Yaramenka K, Winnes H, Fridell E, Holland M. The costs and benefits of a nitrogen emission control area in the Baltic and North Seas. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2018;59:223–36.

Lopez-Aparicio S, Grythe H, Thorne RJ, Vogt M. Costs and benefits of implementing an environmental speed limit in a Nordic city. Sci Total Environ. 2020;720:137577.

Antturi J, Hänninen O, Jalkanen JP, Johansson L, Prank M, Sofiev M, et al. Costs and benefits of low-sulphur fuel standard for Baltic Sea shipping. J Environ Manage. 2016;184:431–40.

Hsieh IL, Chossière GP, Gençer E, Chen H, Barrett S, Green WH. An Integrated assessment of emissions, air quality, and public health impacts of China’s transition to electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(11):6836–46.

Zhou J, Jiang H, Cheng X, Lu Y, Zhang W, Dong Z. Are the benefits of a high-emission vehicle driving area restriction policy greater than the costs? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):15789.

Kiziltan A, Kiziltan M, Ara Aksoy S, Aydınalp Köksal M, Tekeli ŞE, Duran N, et al. Cost–benefit analysis of road-transport policy options to combat air pollution in Turkey. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022;25(10):10765–98.

Lomas J, Schmitt L, Jones S, McGeorge M, Bates E, Holland M, et al. A pharmacoeconomic approach to assessing the costs and benefits of air quality interventions that improve health: a case study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(6):e010686.

Tang R, Zhao J, Liu Y, Huang X, Zhang Y, Zhou D, et al. Air quality and health co-benefits of China’s carbon dioxide emissions peaking before 2030. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):1008.

Kim SE, Xie Y, Dai H, Fujimori S, Hijioka Y, Honda Y, et al. Air quality co-benefits from climate mitigation for human health in South Korea. Environ Int. 2020;136:105507.

Luo Q, Copeland B, Garcia-Menendez F, Johnson JX. Diverse pathways for power sector decarbonization in texas yield health cobenefits but fail to alleviate air pollution exposure inequities. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(18):13274–83.

Sampedro J, Smith SJ, Arto I, González-Eguino M, Markandya A, Mulvaney KM, et al. Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply. Environ Int. 2020;136:105513.

Markandya A, Sampedro J, Smith SJ, Van Dingenen R, Pizarro-Irizar C, Arto I, et al. Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(3):e126–33.

Schucht S, Colette A, Rao S, Holland M, Schöpp W, Kolp P, et al. Moving towards ambitious climate policies: monetised health benefits from improved air quality could offset mitigation costs in Europe. Environ Sci Policy. 2015;50:252–69.

Shindell D, Ru M, Zhang Y, Seltzer K, Faluvegi G, Nazarenko L, et al. Temporal and spatial distribution of health, labor, and crop benefits of climate change mitigation in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118(46):e2104061118.

Vandyck T, Keramidas K, Kitous A, Spadaro JV, Van Dingenen R, Holland M, et al. Air quality co-benefits for human health and agriculture counterbalance costs to meet Paris Agreement pledges. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4939.

Bollen J, van der Zwaan B, Brink C, Eerens H. Local air pollution and global climate change: a combined cost-benefit analysis. Resour Energy Econ. 2009;31(3):161–81.

Wu R, Dai H, Geng Y, Xie Y, Masui T, Liu Z, et al. Economic impacts from PM2.5 pollution-related health effects: a case study in Shanghai. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(9):5035–42.

Guo X, Zhao L, Chen D, Jia Y, Zhao N, Liu W, et al. Air quality improvement and health benefit of PM2.5 reduction from the coal cap policy in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei (BTH) region, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25(32):32709–20.

Howard DB, The J, Soria R, Fann N, Schaeffer R, Saphores JDM. Health benefits and control costs of tightening particulate matter emissions standards for coal power plants—the case of Northeast Brazil. Environ Int. 2019;124:420–30.

Krewitt W, Holland M, Trukenmüller A, Heck T, Friedrich R. Comparing costs and environmental benefits of strategies to combat acidification and ozone in Europe. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 1999;2(4):249–66.

Lange SS, Mulholland SE, Honeycutt ME. What are the net benefits of reducing the ozone standard to 65 ppb? An alternative analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8):1586.

Larson BA. The economics of air pollution health risks in Russia: a case study of Volgograd. World Dev. 1999;27(10):1803–19.

Lavee D. Cost-benefit analysis of implementing policy measures for reducing PM and O3 concentrations: the case of Israel. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2018;25(8):682–94.

Mesbah SM, Hakami A, Schott S. Optimal ozone reduction policy design using adjoint-based NOx marginal damage information. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(23):13528–35.

Moon H, Yoo SH, Huh SY. Monetary valuation of air quality improvement with the stated preference technique: a multi-pollutant perspective. Sci Total Environ. 2021;793:148604.

Netalieva I, Wesseler J, Heijman W. Health costs caused by oil extraction air emissions and the benefits from abatement: the case of Kazakhstan. Energy Policy. 2005;33(9):1169–77.

Olsthoorn X, Amann M, Bartonova A, Clench-Aas J, Cofala J, Dorland K, et al. Cost benefit analysis of European air quality targets for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and fine and suspended particulate matter in cities. Environ Resour Econ. 1999;14(3):333–51.

Ou Y, West JJ, Smith SJ, Nolte CG, Loughlin DH. Air pollution control strategies directly limiting national health damages in the US. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):957.

Palmer K, Burtraw D, Shih JS. The benefits and costs of reducing emissions from the electricity sector. J Environ Manage. 2007;83(1):115–30.

Pandey MD, Nathwani JS. Canada Wide Standard for particulate matter and ozone: cost-benefit analysis using a life quality index. Risk Anal. 2003;23(1):55–67.

Perl LJ, Dunbar FC. Cost effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of air quality regulations. Am Econ Rev. 1982;72(2):208–13.

Raff Z, Walter JM. Evaluating the efficacy of ambient air quality standards at coal-fired power plants. J Agric Resour Econ. 2020;45(3):428–44.

Suhyoung K, Chng LK. Cost–benefit analysis of pm2.5 policy in Korea. Environ Asia. 2021;14(3):62–70.

West JJ, Fiore AM, Horowitz LW, Mauzerall DL. Global health benefits of mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(11):3988–93.

Xie Y, Zhao L, Xue J, Hu Q, Xu X, Wang H. A cooperative reduction model for regional air pollution control in China that considers adverse health effects and pollutant reduction costs. Sci Total Environ. 2016;573:458–69.

Burtraw D, Palmer K, Bharvirkar R, Paul A. Cost-effective reduction of NOx emissions from electricity generation. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2001;51(10):1476–89.

Cai W, Hui J, Wang C, Zheng Y, Zhang X, Zhang Q, et al. The Lancet Countdown on PM(2·5) pollution-related health impacts of China’s projected carbon dioxide mitigation in the electric power generation sector under the Paris Agreement: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(4):e151–61.

Chen M. Whether it is economical to use combined heat and power (CHP) system for the efficient utilization of associated petroleum gas in oil extraction sites in China: a cost-benefit analysis considering environmental benefits. Front Environ Sci. 2022;10:984872.

Li J, Guttikunda SK, Carmichael GR, Streets DG, Chang YS, Fung V. Quantifying the human health benefits of curbing air pollution in Shanghai. J Environ Manage. 2004;70(1):49–62.

Miraglia SG. Health, environmental, and economic costs from the use of a stabilized diesel/ethanol mixture in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2007;23:S559–69.

Wiser R, Millstein D. Evaluating the economic return to public wind energy research and development in the United States. Appl Energy. 2020;261:114449.

Zhang S, An K, Li J, Weng Y, Zhang S, Wang S, et al. Incorporating health co-benefits into technology pathways to achieve China’s 2060 carbon neutrality goal: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(11):E808–17.

Feng T, Du H, Coffman DM, Qu A, Dong Z. Clean heating and heating poverty: a perspective based on cost-benefit analysis. Energy Policy. 2021;152:112205.

Mardones C. Ex-post evaluation and cost-benefit analysis of a heater replacement program implemented in southern Chile. Energy. 2021;227:120484.

Zhao B, Zhao J, Zha H, Hu R, Liu Y, Liang C, et al. Health benefits and costs of clean heating renovation: an integrated assessment in a major Chinese City. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55(14):10046–55.

Nishioka Y, Levy JI, Norris GA, Bennett DH, Spengler JD. A risk-based approach to health impact assessment for input-output analysis. Part 2: Case study of insulation. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2005;10(4):255–62.

Guo X, Jia C, Xiao B. Spatial variations of PM2.5 emissions and social welfare induced by clean heating transition: a gridded cost-benefit analysis. Sci Total Environ. 2022;826:154065.

Tse MS, Chau CK, Lee WL. Assessing the benefit and cost for a voluntary indoor air quality certification scheme in Hong Kong. Sci Total Environ. 2004;320(2–3):89–107.

Fisk WJ, Chan WR. Health benefits and costs of filtration interventions that reduce indoor exposure to PM2.5 during wildfires. Indoor Air. 2017;27(1):191–204.

Liu Y, Zhou B, Wang J, Zhao B. Health benefits and cost of using air purifiers to reduce exposure to ambient fine particulate pollution in China. J Hazard Mater. 2021;414:125540.

Fisk WJ, Chan WR. Effectiveness and cost of reducing particle-related mortality with particle filtration. Indoor Air. 2017;27(5):909–20.

Aldred JR, Darling E, Morrison G, Siegel J, Corsi RL. Benefit-cost analysis of commercially available activated carbon filters for indoor ozone removal in single-family homes. Indoor Air. 2016;26(3):501–12.

Malla MB, Bruce N, Bates E, Rehfuess E. Applying global cost-benefit analysis methods to indoor air pollution mitigation interventions in Nepal, Kenya and Sudan: insights and challenges. Energy Policy. 2011;39(12):7518–29.

Barstow C, Bluffstone R, Silon K, Linden K, Thomas E. A cost-benefit analysis of livelihood, environmental and health benefits of a large scale water filter and cookstove distribution in Rwanda. Dev Eng. 2019;4:100043.

Nuhu P, Bukari D, Banye EZ. Driving improved cooking technology uptake in Ghana: an analysis of costs and benefits. Energy Sustain Dev. 2022;66:26–43.

Gupta A, Naved MM, Kumbhare H, Bherwani H, Das D, Labhsetwar N. Impact assessment of clean cookstove intervention in Gujarat, India: a potential case for corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;28(10):12740–52.

Isihak S, Akpan U, Adeleye M. Interventions for mitigating indoor-air pollution in Nigeria: a cost-benefit analysis. Int J Energy Sect Manage. 2012;6(3):417–29.

Irfan M, Cameron MP, Hassan G. Interventions to mitigate indoor air pollution: a cost-benefit analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0257543.

Jeuland M, Tan Soo J-S, Shindell D. The need for policies to reduce the costs of cleaner cooking in low income settings: implications from systematic analysis of costs and benefits. Energy Policy. 2018;121:275–85.

Mazorra J, Sanchez-Jacob E, de la Sota C, Fernandez L, Lumbreras J. A comprehensive analysis of cooking solutions co-benefits at household level: Healthy lives and well-being, gender and climate change. Sci Total Environ. 2020;707:135968.

Carnevale C, Ferrari F, Guariso G, Maffeis G, Turrini E, Volta M. Assessing the economic and environmental sustainability of a regional air quality plan. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2018;10(10):3568.

Bouscasse H, Gabet S, Kerneis G, Provent A, Rieux C, Ben Salem N, et al. Designing local air pollution policies focusing on mobility and heating to avoid a targeted number of pollution-related deaths: forward and backward approaches combining air pollution modeling, health impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis. Environ Int. 2022;159:107030.

Ćetković J, Lakić S, Žarković M, Đurović G, Vujadinović R. Application of economic analysis of air pollution reduction measures. Pol J Environ Stud. 2020;30(1):585–99.

Jin Y, Andersson H, Zhang S. China’s cap on coal and the efficiency of local interventions: a benefit-cost analysis of phasing out coal in power plants and in households in Beijing. J Benefit Cost Anal. 2017;8(2):147–86.

Miranda AI, Relvas H, Viaene P, Janssen S, Brasseur O, Carnevale C, et al. Applying integrated assessment methodologies to air quality plans: two European cases. Environ Sci Policy. 2016;65:29–38.

Rezazadeh AA, Alizadeh S, Avami A, Kianbakhsh A. Integrated analysis of energy-pollution-health nexus for sustainable energy planning. J Clean Prod. 2022;356:131824.

Zhao N, Elshareef H, Li B, Wang B, Jia Z, Zhou L, et al. The efforts of China to combat air pollution during the period of 2015–2018: a case study assessing the environmental, health and economic benefits in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei and surrounding “2 + 26” regions. Sci Total Environ. 2022;853:158437.

Pizzol M, Thomsen M, Frohn L, Andersen M. External costs of atmospheric Pb emissions: valuation of neurotoxic impacts due to inhalation. Environ Health. 2010;9:9.

Astrom S, Yaramenka K, Winnes H, Fridell E, Holland M. The costs and benefits of a nitrogen emission control area in the Baltic and North Seas. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2018;59:223–36.

Babcock LR Jr, Nagda NL. Cost effectiveness of emission control. J Air Pollut Control Assoc. 1973;23(3):173–9.

Krewitt W. Comparing costs and environmental benefits of strategies to combat acidification and Ozone in Europe. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 1999;2(4):249–66.

Voorhees AS, Araki S, Sakai R, Sato H. An ex post cost-benefit analysis of the nitrogen dioxide air pollution control program in tokyo. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2000;50(3):391–410.

Aunan K, Pátzay G, Asbjørn Aaheim H, Martin SH. Health and environmental benefits from air pollution reductions in Hungary. Sci Total Environ. 1998;212(2–3):245–68.

Miraglia SGEK. Health, environmental, and economic costs from the use of a stabilized diesel/ethanol mixture in the city of São Paulo. Brazil Cadernos de Saude Publica. 2007;23(SUPPL. 4):S559–69.

Bonilla JA, Aravena C, Morales-Betancourt R. Assessing multiple inequalities and air pollution abatement policies. Environ Resource Econ. 2023;84(3):695–727.

Jo C. Cost-of-illness studies: concepts, scopes, and methods. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014;20(4):327–37.

Hashim D, Boffetta P. Occupational and environmental exposures and cancers in developing countries. Ann Glob Health. 2014;80(5):393–411.

Simoni M, Baldacci S, Maio S, Cerrai S, Sarno G, Viegi G. Adverse effects of outdoor pollution in the elderly. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7(1):34–45.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hajat A, Hsia C, O’Neill MS. Socioeconomic disparities and air pollution exposure: a global review. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2015;2(4):440–50.

Nazarpour S, Poursani AS, Simbar M, Yarandi RB. The relationship between air pollution and infant mortality rate. Iran J Public Health. 2023;52(6):1278–88.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 71874086, 72174093). SW receives the University of New South Wales University Postgraduate Award (UPA Award).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Siyuan Wang, Laura Downey & Stephen Jan

Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China

School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

School of Health Policy and Management, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

Mingsheng Chen

Jiangsu Health Vocational College, Nanjing, China

Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland

Gian Luca Di Tanna

School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia

Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation: MC, LS, SW, methodology: GLDT, LS, SJ, ZX, SW, formal analysis: SW, RS, original writing: SW, study supervision: LS, review, editing and validation: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingsheng Chen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., additional file 3., additional file 4., additional file 5., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, S., Song, R., Xu, Z. et al. The costs, health and economic impact of air pollution control strategies: a systematic review. glob health res policy 9 , 30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-024-00373-y

Download citation

Received : 09 December 2023

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 21 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-024-00373-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Air pollution control
• Cost–benefit analyses
• Health co-benefits
• Economic evaluation

Global Health Research and Policy

ISSN: 2397-0642

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Review of wind field characteristics of downbursts and wind effects on structures under their action.

1. Introduction

2. characteristics of downburst wind fields, 2.1. field measurement studies, 2.2. wind tunnel experimental studies, 2.3. theoretical analysis and research, 2.4. numerical simulation studies, 3. effects of wind on transmission line-tower systems under downbursts, 4. effects of wind on building roofs under downbursts, 5. wind effect of tall buildings under downburst, 6. wind effect of other structures under downburst, 7. conclusions and recommendations for future work, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Fujita, T.T. Downbursts: Meteorological features and wind field characteristics. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 1990 , 36 , 75–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Holmes, J.D.; Oliver, S. An empirical model of a downburst. Eng. Struct. 2000 , 22 , 1167–1172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hjelmfelt, M.R. Structure and life cycle of microburst outflows observed in Colorado. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 1988 , 27 , 900–927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, E.C. Extreme wind characteristics over Singapore–an area in the equatorial belt. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 1999 , 83 , 61–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, E.C.C. Wind characteristics of tropical thunderstorms. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2000 , 84 , 215–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tao, T.; Deng, P.; Wang, H.; Shi, P. Intelligent Prediction of Buffeting Responses of Long-span Bridge Under the Action of Thunderstorm Winds. China J. Highw. Transp. 2023 , 36 , 87–95. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautner, C.; Ojdrovic, R.; Schafer, B.W.; Jones, N.P. An investigation of the collapse of the Dallas Cowboys Practice Facility. In Forensic Engineering: Gateway to a Safer Tomorrow ; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2012; pp. 1268–1277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J. Investigation on Tower Collapses of 500 kV Renshang 5237 Transmission Line Caused by Downburst. Power Syst. Technol. 2006 , 30 , 59–63. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, Y.; Tian, F.; Meng, Z.; Xue, M.; Yao, D.; Bai, L.; Zhou, X.; Mao, X.; Wang, M. Survey and Multi-Scale Characteristics of Wind Damage Caused by Convective Storms in the Surrounding Area of the Capsizing Accident of Cruise Ship “Dongfangzhixing”. Meteorol. Mon. 2016 , 42 , 1–13. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Peduzzi, P.; Dao, H.; Herold, C.; Mouton, F. Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: The Disaster Risk Index. J. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009 , 9 , 1149–1159. [ Google Scholar ]
• AS/NZS 1170.2-2011 ; Joint Technical Committee BD-006. Australian/New Zealand Standard Structural Design Actions. SAI Global Limited: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
• ASCE NO. 74-2009 ; American Society of Civil Engineers. Guidelines for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: Reston, VA, USA, 2009.
• ISO 4354-2009 ; International Organization for Standardization. Wind Action on Structures. ISO Copyright Office: Zurich, Switzerland, 2009.
• Fujita, T.T. Objectives, operation, and results of Project NIMROD. In Proceedings of the Preprints 11th Conf on Severe Local Storms, Kansas City, MO, USA, 2–5 October 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fujita, T.T. The Downburst: Microburst and Macroburst: Report of Projects NIMROD and JAWS ; Satellite and Mesometeorology Research Project; Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago: Chicago, IL, USA, 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, J.W.; Roberts, R.D.; Kessinger, C.; McCarthy, J. Microburst wind structure and evaluation of Doppler radar for airport wind shear detection. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 1984 , 23 , 898–915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fujita, T.T. Tornadoes and downbursts in the context of generalized planetary scales. J. Atmos. Sci. 1981 , 38 , 1511–1534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolfson, M.M. The FLOWS automatic weather station network. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 1989 , 6 , 307–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atkins, N.T.; Wakimoto, R.M. Wet microburst activity over the southeastern United States: Implications for forecasting. Weather Forecast. 1991 , 6 , 470–482. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, L.; Letchford, C.W. Numerical simulation of extreme winds from thunderstorm downbursts. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2007 , 95 , 977–990. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lombardo, F.T.; Mason, M.S.; Alab, A.Z.D. Investigation of a downburst loading event on a full-scale low-rise building. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018 , 182 , 272–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solari, G.; Repetto, M.P.; Burlando, M.; Gaetano, P.D.; Pizzo, M.; Tizzi, M.; Parodi, M. The wind forecast for safety management of port areas. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2012 , 104–106 , 266–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gaetano, P.D.; Repetto, M.P.; Repetto, T.; Solari, G. Separation and classification of extreme wind events from anemometric records. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2014 , 126 , 132–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solari, G.; Burlando, M.; Repetto, M.P. Characteristics of thunderstorms relevant to the wind loading of structures. Wind Struct. 2015 , 20 , 763–791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solari, G.; Gaetano, P.D. Dynamic response of structures to thunderstorm outflows: Response spectrum technique vs time-domain analysis. Eng. Struct. 2018 , 176 , 188–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Solari, G.; Burlando, M.; Yang, Q. Directional decomposition and properties of thunderstorm outflows. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2019 , 189 , 71–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burlando, M.; Zhang, S.; Solari, G. Monitoring, cataloguing, and weather scenarios of thunderstorm outflows in the northern Mediterranean. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018 , 18 , 2309–2330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Solari, G.; Gaetano, P.D.; Burlando, M.; Repetto, M.P. A refined analysis of thunderstorm outflow characteristics relevant to the wind loading of structures. Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 2018 , 54 , 9–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Solari, G.; Yang, Q.; Repetto, M.P. Extreme wind speed distribution in a mixed wind climate. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018 , 176 , 239–253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roncallo, L.; Solari, G. An evolutionary power spectral density model of thunderstorm outflows consistent with real-scale time-history records. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2020 , 203 , 104204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Canepa, F.; Burlando, M.; Solari, G. Vertical profile characteristics of thunderstorm outflows. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2020 , 206 , 104332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, X.; Zhang, A.; Zheng, Y.; Fang, C.; Zhu, H.; Wu, L. Doppler Radar Analysis on a Series of Downburst Events. J. Appl. Meteorol. Science 2006 , 17 , 385–393. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, H.; Ou, J. Spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of downburst in China. J. Nat. Disasters 2015 , 24 , 9–18. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang, G.; Peng, L.; Liao, H.; Li, M. Field Measurement Study on Wind Characteristics at Puli Great Bridge Site in Mountainous Area. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2016 , 29 , 349–356. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang, G.; Jiang, Y.; Peng, L.; Solari, G.; Liao, H.; Li, M. Characteristics of intense winds in mountain area based on field measurement: Focusing on thunderstorm winds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2019 , 190 , 166–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Yang, Q.; Solari, G.; Li, B.; Huang, G. Characteristics of thunderstorm outflows in Beijing urban area. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2019 , 195 , 104011. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Li, B.; Solari, G.; Zhang, X.; Xu, X. A Refined Study of Atmospheric Wind Properties in the Beijing Urban Area Based on a 325 m Meteorological Tower. Atmosphere 2021 , 12 , 786. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Yang, Q.; Xu, X. Spatial and temporal statistical characteristics of the wind field of thunderstorm outflows based on measured date in beijing urban area. Eng. Mech. 2023 , 40 , 193–203. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, M.; Hu, J.; Pan, Y.; Zhang, C.; Yu, X.; Xie, Z. wind field characteristics of dowbvurst based on field measurement. Eng. Mech. 2023 , 40 , 1–8. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, M.G.; Pan, Y.P.; Hu, J.K.; Zhang, C.; Yu, X.; Xie, Z. Field measurement study of intense thunderstorm outflows characteristics based on 356 m high meteorological tower. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2023 , 242 , 105590. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, M.; Zhang, J.; Li, J. Damage identification of steel bridge based on data augmentation and adaptive optimization neural network. Struct. Health Monit. 2024 , 14759217241255042. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bakke, P. An experimental investigation of a wall jet. J. Fluid Mech. 1957 , 2 , 467–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Poreh, M.; Tsuei, Y.; Cermak, J.E. Investigation of a turbulent radial wall jet. J. Appl. Mech. 1967 , 34 , 457–463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, W.; Orf, L.; Savory, E.; Novacco, C. Proposed large-scale modelling of the transient features of a downburst outflow. Wind Struct. 2007 , 10 , 315–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, W.; Savory, E. Physical modelling of a downdraft outflow with a slot jet. Wind Struct. 2010 , 13 , 385–412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhong, Y.; Yan, Z.; You, Y.; Zhao, S. Numerical Simulation of Mean Wind Pressure Distribution on Building Surface under Plane Wall Jet Wind Field. J. Hunan Univ. Nat. Sci. 2019 , 46 , 47–54. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhong, Y.; Yan, Z.; Wang, Z.; Fang, Z. A study of translational incremental effect of downburst and wall jet method with co-flow. J. Build. Struct. 2021 , 42 , 15–24. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Holmes, J. Physical modelling of thunderstorm downdrafts by wind tunnel jet. In Proceedings of the 2nd AWES Workshop, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 20–21 February 1992; Monash University: Clayton, VIC, Australia, 1992; pp. 21–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassar, R. Simulation of a thunderstorm downdraft by a wind tunnel jet. Summer Vacat. Rep. DBCE 1992 , 92 , 22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood, G.S.; Kwok, K.C.S.; Motteram, N.A.; Fletcher, D.F. Physical and numerical modelling of thunderstorm downbursts. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2001 , 89 , 535–552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Z.; Hangan, H. Scale, boundary and inlet condition effects on impinging jets. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2008 , 96 , 2383–2402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, T.; Chen, Y.; Peng, Z.; Lou, W.; Sun, B. Wind tunnel design and steady flow field measurement for thunderstorm downburst experiment. J. Exp. Mech. 2009 , 24 , 505–512. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, B.; Li, R.; Tian, Y.; Li, P.; Yang, Q. Downburst outflow under different angles of jet tilt based on physical simulation. J. Vib. Shock 2023 , 42 , 215–222. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Duan, M.; Xie, Z.; Shi, B. Experimental study on simulation of downburst in atmospheric boundary layer wind tunnel. J. Build. Struct. 2012 , 33 , 126–131. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Richter, A.; Ruck, B.; Mohr, S.; Kunz, M. Interaction of severe convective gusts with a street canyon. Urban Clim. 2018 , 23 , 71–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Junayed, C.; Jubayer, C.; Parvu, D.; Romanic, D.; Hangan, H. Flow field dynamics of large-scale experimentally produced downburst flows. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2019 , 188 , 61–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, Y.; Cao, S.; Tamura, Y.; Duan, Z.; Ozono, S. Study on the Simulation of Downburst and Its Loads by Wind Tunnel Test. J. Vib. Shock 2009 , 28 , 1–3. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuan, Y.; Yan, B.; Zhou, X.; Li, X.; Yang, Q.; Zhou, X.; Shu, Z. An active-controlled multi-blade facility to generate 2-D downburst-like outflows in the boundary layer wind tunnel. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2024 , 248 , 105713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chay, M.; Letchford, C. Pressure distributions on a cube in a simulated thunderstorm downburst—Part A: Stationary downburst observations. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2002 , 90 , 711–732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Letchford, C.; Chay, M. Pressure distributions on a cube in a simulated thunderstorm downburst. Part B: Moving downburst observations. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2002 , 90 , 733–753. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.; Liu, G.; Xu, T.; Yu, S. Time Histories of Horizontal Wind Velocity of Moving Thunderstorms and Pheno menological Model. J. Tongji Univ. Nat. Sci. 2012 , 40 , 0022–0026. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, Z.; Wu, Y.; Fang, Z. Downburst wind field characteristics under moving effect. J. Vib. Shock 2019 , 38 , 32–38. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, S.; Zhong, H.; Zhang, A.; Tian, Y.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, X. Wind load characteristics of the long-span light steel structure plant under moving downburst. J. Build. Struct. 2024 , 45 , 191–200. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Oseguera, R.M.; Bowles, R.L. A Simple, Analytic 3-Dimensional Downburst Model Based on Boundary Layer Stagnation Flow. NASA Technical Memorandum No. NASA-TM-100632 ; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1988.
• Vicroy, D.D. A Simple, Analytical, Axisymmetric Microburst Model for Downdraft Estimation ; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center: Hampton, VA, USA, 1991.
• Wood, G.; Kwok, K. An empirically derived estimate for the mean velocity profile of a thunderstorm downburst. In Proceedings of the 7th Australian Wind Engineering Society Workshop, Auckland, New Zealand, 28–29 September 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qu, W.; Ji, B.; Wang, J. Numerical simulation of downburst wind loads based on modified OBV model. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Dyn. 2009 , 29 , 146–152. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Selvam, R.P.; Holmes, J. Numerical simulation of thunderstorm downdrafts. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 1992 , 44 , 2817–2825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sengupta, A.; Sarkar, P.P. Experimental measurement and numerical simulation of an impinging jet with application to thunderstorm microburst winds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2007 , 96 , 345–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chay, M.T.; Albermani, F.; Wilson, R. Numerical and analytical simulation of downburst wind loads. Eng. Struct. 2005 , 28 , 240–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abd, E.S.; Mills, J.E.; Ma, X. A coupled parametric-CFD study for determining ages of downbursts through investigation of different field parameters. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2013 , 123 , 30–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aboshosha, H.; Bitsuamlak, G.; Damatty, A.E. Turbulence characterization of downbursts using LES. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2015 , 136 , 44–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, B.; Qu, W.; Wang, Y.; Wang, L. Study on time varying characteristics of downburst vertical wind profile. J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. 2013 , 35 , 86–91. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou, W.; Wang, J.; Yang, L.; Chen, Y. Simulation of three-dimensional fluctuating wind velocity field upon thunderstorm downburst. J. Zhejiang Univ. Eng. Sci. 2014 , 48 , 1162–1169. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Orf, L.; Kantor, E.; Savory, E. Simulation of a downburst-producing thunderstorm using a very high-resolution three-dimensional cloud model. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2012 , 104–106 , 547–557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mason, M.S.; Fleftcher, D.F.; Wood, G.S. Numerical simulation of idealised three-dimensional downburst wind fields. Eng. Struct. 2010 , 32 , 3558–3570. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sengupta, A.; Haan, F.L.; Sarkar, P.P.; Balaramudu, V. Transient loads on buildings in microburst and tornado winds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2008 , 96 , 2173–2187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, J.; Wu, C.; Chen, S. Simulation of non-stationary fluctuating wind velocity in downburst. J. Vib. Shock 2014 , 33 , 54–60. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Fang, Z.; Li, Z.; Wang, Z. Study on effect of storm movement on wind field characteristics of downburst. J. Build. Struct. 2019 , 40 , 166–174. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Mengistu, M.T.; Orlando, A.; Repetto, M.P. Wind and structural response monitoring of a lighting pole for the study of downburst effects on structures. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2023 , 240 , 105447. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Savory, E.; Parke, G.A.R.; Zeinoddini, M.; Toy, N.; Disney, P. Modelling of tornado and microburst-induced wind loading and failure of a lattice transmission tower. Eng. Struct. 2001 , 23 , 365–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shehata, A.Y.; Damatty, A.A.E.; Savory, E. Finite element modeling of transmission line under downburst wind loading. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2005 , 42 , 71–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shehata, A.Y.; Nassef, A.O.; Damatty, A.A.E. A coupled finite element-optimization technique to determine critical microburst parameters for transmission towers. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2008 , 45 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aboshosha, H.; Damatty, A.E. Effective technique to analyze transmission line conductors under high intensity winds. Wind Struct. 2014 , 18 , 235–252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aboshosha, H.; Elawady, A.; Ansary, A.E.; Damatty, A.E. Review on dynamic and quasi-static buffeting response of transmission lines under synoptic and non-synoptic winds. Eng. Struct. 2016 , 112 , 23–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elawady, A.; Damatty, A.E. Longitudinal force on transmission towers due to non-symmetric downburst conductor loads. Eng. Struct. 2016 , 127 , 206–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, F.; Zhang, H. Two case studies on structural analysis of transmission towers under downburst. Wind Struct. 2016 , 22 , 685–701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darwish, M.M.; Damatty, A.A.E.; Hangan, H. Dynamic characteristics of transmission line conductors and behaviour under turbulent downburst loading. Wind Struct. 2010 , 13 , 327–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darwish, M.M. Characteristics and Design of Downburst Loaded Transmission Lines. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aboshosha, H.; Damatty, A.E. Dynamic response of transmission line conductors under downburst and synoptic winds. Wind Struct. 2015 , 21 , 241–272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elawany, A.; Aboshosha, H.; Damatty, A.E.; Bitsuamlak, G.; Hangan, H.; Elatar, A. Aero-elastic testing of multi-spanned transmission line subjected to downbursts. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2017 , 169 , 194–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Z.; Iida, Y.; Uematsu, Y. The flow fields generated by stationary and travelling downbursts and resultant wind load effects on transmission line structural system. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2021 , 210 , 104521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Lou, W.; Li, H.; Chen, Y. Wind-induced dynamic response of high-rise transmission tower under downburst wind load. J. Zhejiang Univ. Eng. Sci. 2009 , 43 , 1520–1525. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, F.; Xu, Y.; Qu, W. Multi-scale failure analysis of transmission towers under downburst loading. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2018 , 18 , 1850029. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, C.; Li, J.; Yu, Z. Wind-resistant design theories and future directions of transmission tower-line systems. J. Vib. Shock 2009 , 28 , 15–25. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Qu, W.; Liang, Z.; Wang, L.; Ji, B. Downburst’s characteristics and its effect on wind-induced collapse of transmission tower. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Dyn. 2010 , 30 , 120–126. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, M.; Huang, L.; Zou, Y. Experimental investigation on dynamic response of transmission tower under downburst winds. J. Exp. Mech. 2018 , 33 , 869–876. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Wei, W.; Zhou, X.; Deng, C.; Ji, B. Research on Failure and Collapse of Transmission Tower Line System Under Downburst Action Based on Energy Method. J. Archit. Civ. Eng. 2020 , 37 , 73–80. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Bi, W.; Tian, L. Study on the collapse failure of transmission tower-line system under downburst. Eng. Mech. 2022 , 39 (Suppl. S1), 78–83. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao, Y.; Sun, Q.; Song, Z.; Wang, D.; Wang, X. A dynamic responses and evaluation method of the downburst wind loads effect on a transmission tower. J. Vib. Shock 2021 , 40 , 179–188. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, D.; Wang, G.; Wang, X.; Sun, Q.; Yang, Q.; Huang, G.; Yang, J. Frequency domain method for dynamic responses of transmission tower under downburst. Eng. Mech. 2023 , 40 , 152–163. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Q.; Wang, D.; Xiang, Y.; Sun, Q.; Yang, Q.; Huang, G.; Yang, J. Study on critical load cases for transmission lines under downburst. J. Disaster Prev. Mitig. Eng. 2024 , 44 , 90–98. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Haines, M.; Taylor, I. Numerical investigation of the flow field around low rise buildings due to a downburst event using large eddy simulation. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018 , 172 , 12–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jubayer, C.; Elatar, A.; Hangan, H. Pressure distributions on a low-rise building in a laboratory simulated downburst. In Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Applications, Boston, MA, USA, 7–11 June 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Y.; Liu, G.G.; Sun, B.N. Dynamic Response of Flat Roofs Subjected to Non-Stationary Moving Microbursts. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2013 , 7 , 519–532. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, B.; Jia, L.; Tian, C. CFD numerical simulation of downburst wind effect on flat roofs. J. Beijing Jiaotong Univ. 2013 , 37 , 140–144. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Asano, K.; Iida, Y.; Uematsu, Y. Laboratory study of wind loads on a low-rise building in a downburst using a moving pulsed jet simulator and their comparison with other types of simulators. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2019 , 184 , 313–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Hu, H.; Sarkar, P.P. Comparison of microburst-wind loads on low-rise structures of various geometric shapes. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2014 , 133 , 181–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jesson, M.; Sterling, M.; Letchford, C.; Baker, C. Aerodynamic forces on the roofs of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings subject to transient winds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2015 , 143 , 42–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Fang, Z.; Deng, J. Experimental study on wind load characteristics of low-rise buildings under downburst. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2019 , 47 , 120–126. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, Z.; Deng, J.; Fang, Z.; Chen, Y. Large eddy simulation of wind load on low-rise buildings subjected to downburst. J. ZheJiang Univ. Eng. Sci. 2020 , 54 , 512–520. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Ji, B.; Qiu, P.; Liu, G.; Qu, W. Study on Wind Pressure Characteristics of Low-rise Gable-roof Buildings Under Downburst. J. Basic Sci. Eng. 2023 , 31 , 865–875. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie, Z.; Ni, Z.; Shi, B. Experimental Investigation on Characteristics of Wind Load on Large Span Roof. J. Build. Struct. 2001 , 22 , 23–28. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Pan, F.; Sun, B.; Lou, W.; Chen, Y. Random wind-induced dynamic response of long-span roof to thunderstorm downbursts in the time domain. Acta Aerodyn. Sin. 2008 , 26 , 119–125. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, Z.; Xiang, M.; Jiang, S.; Tang, Y. Extreme wind pressure analysis for large-span flat roof under downburst. J. Vib. Shock 2022 , 41 , 83–89. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Y.; Cui, B.; Yu, S.; Lou, W.; Sun, B. Experimental investigation of spherical roof subjected to thunderstorm downbursts. J. Build. Struct. 2011 , 32 , 26–33. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Y.; Cui, B.; Yu, S.; Guan, S.; Lou, W. Experimental study on the pressure distribution over arch-roof subjected to stationary downburst. Eng. Mech. 2013 , 30 , 91–99. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Yao, Y.; Su, L.; Li, M.; Chu, Y.; Huang, H. Wind load characteristics of double-sided spherical shell roof under downburst. J. Jilin Univ. Eng. Technol. Ed. 2022 , 52 , 615–625. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu, Y.; Sun, X.; Li, M.; Yao, Y.; Huang, H. Wind pressures on a circular hyperbolic-paraboloid roof subjected to a simulated downburst. J. Jilin Univ. Eng. Technol. Ed. 2022 , 52 , 1826–1833. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu, Y.; Sun, X.; Li, M.; Yao, Y.; Huang, H. Wind pressures on a large-span hyperbolic-paraboloid roof subjected to a simulated downburst. Eng. Mech. 2022 , 39 , 182–192. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, L.; Letchford, C.W. Parametric study on the along-wind response of the CAARC building to downbursts in the time domain. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2004 , 92 , 703–724. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, J. Downburst induced dynamic responses of tall building. In Proceedings of the 10th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 31 May–4 June 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim, J.; Hangan, H.; Eric, H.T. Downburst versus boundary layer induced wind loads for tall buildings. Wind Struct. 2007 , 10 , 481–494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, T.H.; Caracoglia, L.J.E.S. Wavelet-Galerkin analysis to study the coupled dynamic response of a tall building against transient wind loads. Eng. Struct. 2015 , 100 , 763–778. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le, T.H.; Caracoglia, L.J.C. Structures. Computer-based model for the transient dynamics of a tall building during digitally simulated Andrews AFB thunderstorm. Comput. Struct. 2017 , 193 , 44–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ji, B.; Qu, W. Mean wind pressure distribution characteristics on tall building under downburst. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2012 , 40 , 89–94. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou, X.; Wang, Z.; Li, Z. Experimental study on the wind load characteristics of high-rise building in stationary downbursts. J. Hunan Univ. Nat. Sci. 2016 , 43 , 29–36. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, Z.; Zou, Q.; Tang, W.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z. Wind load characteristics for high-rise building on flat terrain and slope under steady-state impinging jet. J. Build. Struct. 2017 , 38 , 103–110. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, Y.; Huang, G.; Cheng, X.; Zhao, L. The numerical simulation of moving downburst and their induced wind load on high-rise buildings. Eng. Mech. 2020 , 37 , 176–187. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Fang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Li, Z. Study on wind pressure amplitude characteristics of high-rise buildings under thunderstorm downburst. J. Build. Struct. 2019 , 40 , 19–26. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Miguel, L.F.F.; Riera, J.D.; Miguel, L.F.F. Assessment of downburst wind loading on tall structures. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018 , 174 , 252–259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, D.; Huang, G.; Chang, G.; Peng, L. Response analysis of lattice tower based on a modified hybrid model of thunderstorm downburst. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Engineering ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 10, pp. 100–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, W.; Ke, S.; Han, G.; Yang, J.; Ren, H. Research on Collapse Mechanism and Failure Criterion of Superlarge Cooling Tower under Downburst Effect. J. Struct. Eng. 2022 , 148 , 04022160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, G.; Ke, S.; Yang, J.; Li, W.; Ren, H. Wind field driving mechanism and extreme wind load model of a super-large cooling tower under downburst. J. Vib. Shock 2022 , 41 , 23–32. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, M.; Hu, J.; Yu, X.; Zhang, C.; Xie, Z.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Y. Observational study of wind characteristics of thunderstorm and dynamic effects on high-rise masts. J. Build. Struct. 2023 , 44 , 157–166. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, B.; Chen, W.; Yang, Q.; Tian, Y.; Li, R. Evaluatine the safety of high-speed trains at the action of downburst. Eng. Mech. 2021 , 38 , 248–256. (In Chinese) [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Zhang, S.; Guo, K.; Yang, Q.; Xu, X. Review of Wind Field Characteristics of Downbursts and Wind Effects on Structures under Their Action. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092653

Zhang S, Guo K, Yang Q, Xu X. Review of Wind Field Characteristics of Downbursts and Wind Effects on Structures under Their Action. Buildings . 2024; 14(9):2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092653

Zhang, Shi, Kexin Guo, Qingshan Yang, and Xiaoda Xu. 2024. "Review of Wind Field Characteristics of Downbursts and Wind Effects on Structures under Their Action" Buildings 14, no. 9: 2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092653

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals