The first phase of any research project is brainstorming and selecting the topic/subject you wish to design your research question around. Some things to consider when selecting your topic...
The next step is to perform a preliminary round of investigations on your topic(s). Survey the available literature related to your topic, including any relevant background information. You are looking for gaps in the literature that your own research may fill.
Your preliminary research will help you refine your research interests and develop a searchable question.
A well formulated question will help determine your inclusion and exclusion criteria, the creation of your search strategy, the collection of data, and the synthesis of your findings. A well formulated question should...
When creating a searchable question, it is useful to consider and identify the core concepts connected to your research inquiry. A clear and specific question can be used to help develop search terms during the searching process
There are a number of frameworks available that you can use to break down your question into its core concepts. Click through the different tabs to learn more.
Want to learn more? For more information about the featured frameworks, check out the following articles:
For evidence based medicine/practice
| PICO | General Description |
|---|---|
| P - Patient, Population or Problem | Who or what is the question about? What is the primary problem you are looking at? Is there a specific population you need to focus on? What are the most important characteristics of the patient, population or problem? |
| I - Intervention | What is the main intervention being considered? What do you want to do with this patient? What factors may influence the prognosis of hte patient? |
| C - Comparison | Is there a comparison intervention that is being considered? *The comparison may be with another medication, form of treatment, or no treatment at all.* |
| O - Outcome | What are the expected measures, improvements, or affects? What are you trying to do for the patient? What results will you consider to determine if, or how well, the intervention is working? |
For qualitative evidence. Great for topics related to general health
| SPICE | General Description |
|---|---|
| S - Setting | What is the context for the question? -- Where? |
| P - Perspective | Who are the users, potential users, or potential stakeholders of the service? -- For whom? |
| I - Intervention | What is being done for the users, potential users, or stakeholders? -- What? |
| C - Comparison | What are the alternative actions or outcomes? -- What else? |
| E - Evaluation | What measurement will determine the intervention's success? --What is the desired result or how well? |
For qualitative and mixed methods in the health sciences
|
SPIDER |
General Description |
|---|---|
|
S - Sample |
Sample size may very depending on whether it is a qualitative research (small) or quantitative research (large) |
|
PI - Phenomenon of Interest |
Can include behaviors, experiences, and/or interventions |
|
D - Design |
Details of the study design will help to make decisions about the robustness of the study and analysis |
|
E - Evaluation |
Refers to outcomes. May include more subjective outcomes such as views, attitudes, etc. |
|
R - Research Type |
Includes qualitative, quantitative or mixed method studies |
For addressing question related to health services information (management and policy)
|
ECLIPSE |
General Description |
|---|---|
| E - Expectations | Why does the user want the information? Improvement OR information OR innovation. |
| C - Client Group | For whom is the service intended? |
| L - Location | Where is the service located? |
| I - Impact | What is the service change being evaluated? What would be considered a success? How is this measured? |
| P - Professionals | Who provides or improves the service? |
| Se - Service | What type of service is under consideration? |
Refer to this checklist to assess the quality of your research question.
Checklist adapted from Griffin University's Systematic Literature Reviews for Education, Griffin University, Queensland, Australia.
Background and foreground questions tend to utilize specific types of information when it comes to answering them. Knowing what type of question you are asking will help determine your information needs.
These questions ask for general information regarding a a disorder, diagnostic test, treatment/intervention, basic biology, or physiology. They are used to determine the who, what, why, and how of the patient or their condition, test, or treatment. They can be answered with secondary resources: textbooks, expert opinions, or review articles.
These questions form the core of evidence based medicine. These are complex questions that often require the clinician to identify and answer the elements of PICO. There are four types of foreground questions:
Foreground questions are best answered with primary and tertiary resources.
Certain study designs are suited for answering specific question types. See the next tab for more information.
Try using PubMed Clinical Queries: Created by the National Library of Medicine, this PubMed tool allows you to search by selecting a question type to obtain relevant study types.
Below is a table depicting the different types of questions and the study designs that are best suited for answering them.
*Adapted from "Evidence-based Medicine; How to practice & teach EBM". David L. Sackett, 2000
There are many different types of literature reviews. Each vary in terms of comprehensives, purpose, time frame to complete, and types of studies used for the review. The following graphic outlines some of the most popular types of reviews.
For more information about the different types of reviews, please refer to the following articles:
Content adapted from "What is a Literature Review". Medical University of South Carolina Libraries, MUSC.
Considered to be the broadest type of review methods. An integrative review features a methodology that summarizes past empirical or theoretical evidence to provide a more complete understanding of a particular circumstance or healthcare problem. These reviews synthesize or integrate evidence from different studies such as qualitative and quantitative studies or experimental and non-experimental research. Integrative reviews are popular within the field of Nursing.
Learn more about integrative reviews:
Examples:
Papers that are meta-analyses "statistically combine the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of results" (Grant, 2009). This method is is often found within systematic reviews although not every systematic review will contain a meta-analysis. This method involves identifying similar studies and pooling their data to acquire a more accurate estimate of true effect size. For results to be considered valid, all included studies must share common characteristics such as population, intervention, and the comparison group that is being compared.
Learn more about meta-analysis:
Examples:
One of the most common form of reviews. Provides a quick overview of current studies related to a given topic.This review method "seeks to identify what has been accomplished previously, allowing for consolidation, for building on previous work, for summation for avoiding duplication and for identifying omissions or gaps (Grant, 2009). Narrative/literature reviews may be broad in scope and can examine multiple facets connected to the main topic of the paper.
Learn more about narrative/literature reviews:
Examples:
Rapid reviews adhere to "most of the principle steps of a systematic review, using systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, critically appraise and analyze data from relevant research. However, to provide timely evidence, some of the components of a systematic review process are either simplified or omitted" (Heard Project, 2018).
Learn more about rapid reviews: Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56. Published 2010 Jul 19. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
Examples:
This method provides a "preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research (usually including ongoing research" (Grant, 2009). Often confused with mapping reviews, scoping reviews are topic focused while the latter is centered around a specific question. The scoping review method is particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been exhaustedly reviewed or is not suited for a more comprehensive systematic review.
Learn more about scoping reviews: Arksey H. and O'Malley L. Scoping Studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005;8(1):19-32.
Examples:
This method is a "review of the evidence on a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant primary research, and to extract and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review" (NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001). Systematic reviews bring together all known literature or knowledge associated with a particular topic. Conducting a systematic review involve following a rigorous, pre-established list of protocols that will help reduce the presence of bias and ensure transparency. Systematic reviews are a team effort and typically take about 18 months or longer to complete.
See the Literature Review vs Systematic Review tab to learn more about the differences.
Learn more about systematic reviews:
Resources for conducting a systematic reviews:
Examples:
Please contact your Netter librarian liaison if you have questions about conducting a systematic review.
Table source: Kysh, L. (2013). What’s in a name? The difference between a systematic review and a literature review and why it matters.
Suggested Readings:
