research study importance

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Science, health, and public trust.

September 8, 2021

Explaining How Research Works

We’ve heard “follow the science” a lot during the pandemic. But it seems science has taken us on a long and winding road filled with twists and turns, even changing directions at times. That’s led some people to feel they can’t trust science. But when what we know changes, it often means science is working.

Explaining the scientific process may be one way that science communicators can help maintain public trust in science. Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle.

Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels. For example, scientists can look at the different atoms in a molecule, cells in a tissue, or how different tissues or systems affect each other. Researchers often must choose one or a finite number of ways to investigate a question. It can take many different studies using different approaches to start piecing the whole picture together.

Sometimes it might seem like research results contradict each other. But often, studies are just looking at different aspects of the same problem. Researchers can also investigate a question using different techniques or timeframes. That may lead them to arrive at different conclusions from the same data.

Using the data available at the time of their study, scientists develop different explanations, or models. New information may mean that a novel model needs to be developed to account for it. The models that prevail are those that can withstand the test of time and incorporate new information. Science is a constantly evolving and self-correcting process.

Scientists gain more confidence about a model through the scientific process. They replicate each other’s work. They present at conferences. And papers undergo peer review, in which experts in the field review the work before it can be published in scientific journals. This helps ensure that the study is up to current scientific standards and maintains a level of integrity. Peer reviewers may find problems with the experiments or think different experiments are needed to justify the conclusions. They might even offer new ways to interpret the data.

It’s important for science communicators to consider which stage a study is at in the scientific process when deciding whether to cover it. Some studies are posted on preprint servers for other scientists to start weighing in on and haven’t yet been fully vetted. Results that haven't yet been subjected to scientific scrutiny should be reported on with care and context to avoid confusion or frustration from readers.

We’ve developed a one-page guide, "How Research Works: Understanding the Process of Science" to help communicators put the process of science into perspective. We hope it can serve as a useful resource to help explain why science changes—and why it’s important to expect that change. Please take a look and share your thoughts with us by sending an email to  [email protected].

Below are some additional resources:

• Discoveries in Basic Science: A Perfectly Imperfect Process
• When Clinical Research Is in the News
• What is Basic Science and Why is it Important?
• ​ What is a Research Organism?
• What Are Clinical Trials and Studies?
• Basic Research – Digital Media Kit
• Decoding Science: How Does Science Know What It Knows? (NAS)
• Can Science Help People Make Decisions ? (NAS)

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

2.1 Why Is Research Important?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
• Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
• Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure 2.2 ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the explosion in our use of technology has led researchers to question whether this ultimately helps or hinders us. The use and implementation of technology in educational settings has become widespread over the last few decades. Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores (Shaw & Tan, 2015). Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills (Massimini & Peterson, 2009). Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student's acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health.

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on “scientific evidence” when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children's development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life (Blann, 2005). While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective (Neil & Christensen, 2009; Peters-Scheffer, Didden, Korzilius, & Sturmey, 2011). While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants (Barnett, 2011). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund.

Link to Learning

Watch this video about early childhood program effectiveness to learn how scientists evaluate effectiveness and how best to invest money into programs that are most effective.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine that your sister, Maria, expresses concern about her two-year-old child, Umberto. Umberto does not speak as much or as clearly as the other children in his daycare or others in the family. Umberto's pediatrician undertakes some screening and recommends an evaluation by a speech pathologist, but does not refer Maria to any other specialists. Maria is concerned that Umberto's speech delays are signs of a developmental disorder, but Umberto's pediatrician does not; she sees indications of differences in Umberto's jaw and facial muscles. Hearing this, you do some internet searches, but you are overwhelmed by the breadth of information and the wide array of sources. You see blog posts, top-ten lists, advertisements from healthcare providers, and recommendations from several advocacy organizations. Why are there so many sites? Which are based in research, and which are not?

In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

NOTABLE RESEARCHERS

Psychological research has a long history involving important figures from diverse backgrounds. While the introductory chapter discussed several researchers who made significant contributions to the discipline, there are many more individuals who deserve attention in considering how psychology has advanced as a science through their work ( Figure 2.3 ). For instance, Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939) was the first woman to earn a PhD in psychology. Her research focused on animal behavior and cognition (Margaret Floy Washburn, PhD, n.d.). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930) was a preeminent first-generation American psychologist who opposed the behaviorist movement, conducted significant research into memory, and established one of the earliest experimental psychology labs in the United States (Mary Whiton Calkins, n.d.).

Francis Sumner (1895–1954) was the first African American to receive a PhD in psychology in 1920. His dissertation focused on issues related to psychoanalysis. Sumner also had research interests in racial bias and educational justice. Sumner was one of the founders of Howard University’s department of psychology, and because of his accomplishments, he is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Black Psychology.” Thirteen years later, Inez Beverly Prosser (1895–1934) became the first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology. Prosser’s research highlighted issues related to education in segregated versus integrated schools, and ultimately, her work was very influential in the hallmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional (Ethnicity and Health in America Series: Featured Psychologists, n.d.).

Although the establishment of psychology’s scientific roots occurred first in Europe and the United States, it did not take much time until researchers from around the world began to establish their own laboratories and research programs. For example, some of the first experimental psychology laboratories in South America were founded by Horatio Piñero (1869–1919) at two institutions in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Godoy & Brussino, 2010). In India, Gunamudian David Boaz (1908–1965) and Narendra Nath Sen Gupta (1889–1944) established the first independent departments of psychology at the University of Madras and the University of Calcutta, respectively. These developments provided an opportunity for Indian researchers to make important contributions to the field (Gunamudian David Boaz, n.d.; Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, n.d.).

When the American Psychological Association (APA) was first founded in 1892, all of the members were White males (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.). However, by 1905, Mary Whiton Calkins was elected as the first female president of the APA, and by 1946, nearly one-quarter of American psychologists were female. Psychology became a popular degree option for students enrolled in the nation’s historically Black higher education institutions, increasing the number of Black Americans who went on to become psychologists. Given demographic shifts occurring in the United States and increased access to higher educational opportunities among historically underrepresented populations, there is reason to hope that the diversity of the field will increasingly match the larger population, and that the research contributions made by the psychologists of the future will better serve people of all backgrounds (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.).

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas ( Figure 2.4 ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns (new ideas) in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests Figure 2.5 .

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later chapter, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure 2.6 ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Scientific research’s dependence on falsifiability allows for great confidence in the information that it produces. Typically, by the time information is accepted by the scientific community, it has been tested repeatedly.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-1-why-is-research-important

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

What Is the Importance of Research? 5 Reasons Why Research is Critical

by Logan Bessant | Nov 16, 2021 | Science

Most of us appreciate that research is a crucial part of medical advancement. But what exactly is the importance of research? In short, it is critical in the development of new medicines as well as ensuring that existing treatments are used to their full potential. 

Research can bridge knowledge gaps and change the way healthcare practitioners work by providing solutions to previously unknown questions.

In this post, we’ll discuss the importance of research and its impact on medical breakthroughs.  

The Importance Of Health Research

The purpose of studying is to gather information and evidence, inform actions, and contribute to the overall knowledge of a certain field. None of this is possible without research. 

Understanding how to conduct research and the importance of it may seem like a very simple idea to some, but in reality, it’s more than conducting a quick browser search and reading a few chapters in a textbook. 

No matter what career field you are in, there is always more to learn. Even for people who hold a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in their field of study, there is always some sort of unknown that can be researched. Delving into this unlocks the unknowns, letting you explore the world from different perspectives and fueling a deeper understanding of how the universe works.

To make things a little more specific, this concept can be clearly applied in any healthcare scenario. Health research has an incredibly high value to society as it provides important information about disease trends and risk factors, outcomes of treatments, patterns of care, and health care costs and use. All of these factors as well as many more are usually researched through a clinical trial. 

What Is The Importance Of Clinical Research?

Clinical trials are a type of research that provides information about a new test or treatment. They are usually carried out to find out what, or if, there are any effects of these procedures or drugs on the human body. 

All legitimate clinical trials are carefully designed, reviewed and completed, and need to be approved by professionals before they can begin. They also play a vital part in the advancement of medical research including:

• Providing new and good information on which types of drugs are more effective.  
• Bringing new treatments such as medicines, vaccines and devices into the field. 
• Testing the safety and efficacy of a new drug before it is brought to market and used in clinical practice.
• Giving the opportunity for more effective treatments to benefit millions of lives both now and in the future. 
• Enhancing health, lengthening life, and reducing the burdens of illness and disability. 

This all plays back to clinical research as it opens doors to advancing prevention, as well as providing treatments and cures for diseases and disabilities. Clinical trial volunteer participants are essential to this progress which further supports the need for the importance of research to be well-known amongst healthcare professionals, students and the general public. 

Five Reasons Why Research is Critical

Research is vital for almost everyone irrespective of their career field. From doctors to lawyers to students to scientists, research is the key to better work. 

• Increases quality of life

 Research is the backbone of any major scientific or medical breakthrough. None of the advanced treatments or life-saving discoveries used to treat patients today would be available if it wasn’t for the detailed and intricate work carried out by scientists, doctors and healthcare professionals over the past decade. 

This improves quality of life because it can help us find out important facts connected to the researched subject. For example, universities across the globe are now studying a wide variety of things from how technology can help breed healthier livestock, to how dance can provide long-term benefits to people living with Parkinson’s. 

For both of these studies, quality of life is improved. Farmers can use technology to breed healthier livestock which in turn provides them with a better turnover, and people who suffer from Parkinson’s disease can find a way to reduce their symptoms and ease their stress. 

Research is a catalyst for solving the world’s most pressing issues. Even though the complexity of these issues evolves over time, they always provide a glimmer of hope to improving lives and making processes simpler. 

• Builds up credibility 

People are willing to listen and trust someone with new information on one condition – it’s backed up. And that’s exactly where research comes in. Conducting studies on new and unfamiliar subjects, and achieving the desired or expected outcome, can help people accept the unknown.

However, this goes without saying that your research should be focused on the best sources. It is easy for people to poke holes in your findings if your studies have not been carried out correctly, or there is no reliable data to back them up. 

This way once you have done completed your research, you can speak with confidence about your findings within your field of study. 

• Drives progress forward 

It is with thanks to scientific research that many diseases once thought incurable, now have treatments. For example, before the 1930s, anyone who contracted a bacterial infection had a high probability of death. There simply was no treatment for even the mildest of infections as, at the time, it was thought that nothing could kill bacteria in the gut.

When antibiotics were discovered and researched in 1928, it was considered one of the biggest breakthroughs in the medical field. This goes to show how much research drives progress forward, and how it is also responsible for the evolution of technology . 

Today vaccines, diagnoses and treatments can all be simplified with the progression of medical research, making us question just what research can achieve in the future. 

• Engages curiosity 

The acts of searching for information and thinking critically serve as food for the brain, allowing our inherent creativity and logic to remain active. Aside from the fact that this curiosity plays such a huge part within research, it is also proven that exercising our minds can reduce anxiety and our chances of developing mental illnesses in the future. 

Without our natural thirst and our constant need to ask ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ many important theories would not have been put forward and life-changing discoveries would not have been made. The best part is that the research process itself rewards this curiosity. 

Research opens you up to different opinions and new ideas which can take a proposed question and turn into a real-life concept. It also builds discerning and analytical skills which are always beneficial in many career fields – not just scientific ones. 

• Increases awareness 

The main goal of any research study is to increase awareness, whether it’s contemplating new concepts with peers from work or attracting the attention of the general public surrounding a certain issue. 

Around the globe, research is used to help raise awareness of issues like climate change, racial discrimination, and gender inequality. Without consistent and reliable studies to back up these issues, it would be hard to convenience people that there is a problem that needs to be solved in the first place. 

The problem is that social media has become a place where fake news spreads like a wildfire, and with so many incorrect facts out there it can be hard to know who to trust. Assessing the integrity of the news source and checking for similar news on legitimate media outlets can help prove right from wrong. 

This can pinpoint fake research articles and raises awareness of just how important fact-checking can be. 

The Importance Of Research To Students

It is not a hidden fact that research can be mentally draining, which is why most students avoid it like the plague. But the matter of fact is that no matter which career path you choose to go down, research will inevitably be a part of it. 

But why is research so important to students ? The truth is without research, any intellectual growth is pretty much impossible. It acts as a knowledge-building tool that can guide you up to the different levels of learning. Even if you are an expert in your field, there is always more to uncover, or if you are studying an entirely new topic, research can help you build a unique perspective about it.

For example, if you are looking into a topic for the first time, it might be confusing knowing where to begin. Most of the time you have an overwhelming amount of information to sort through whether that be reading through scientific journals online or getting through a pile of textbooks. Research helps to narrow down to the most important points you need so you are able to find what you need to succeed quickly and easily. 

It can also open up great doors in the working world. Employers, especially those in the scientific and medical fields, are always looking for skilled people to hire. Undertaking research and completing studies within your academic phase can show just how multi-skilled you are and give you the resources to tackle any tasks given to you in the workplace. 

The Importance Of Research Methodology

There are many different types of research that can be done, each one with its unique methodology and features that have been designed to use in specific settings. 

When showing your research to others, they will want to be guaranteed that your proposed inquiry needs asking, and that your methodology is equipt to answer your inquiry and will convey the results you’re looking for.

That’s why it’s so important to choose the right methodology for your study. Knowing what the different types of research are and what each of them focuses on can allow you to plan your project to better utilise the most appropriate methodologies and techniques available. Here are some of the most common types:

• Theoretical Research: This attempts to answer a question based on the unknown. This could include studying phenomena or ideas whose conclusions may not have any immediate real-world application. Commonly used in physics and astronomy applications.
• Applied Research: Mainly for development purposes, this seeks to solve a practical problem that draws on theory to generate practical scientific knowledge. Commonly used in STEM and medical fields. 
• Exploratory Research: Used to investigate a problem that is not clearly defined, this type of research can be used to establish cause-and-effect relationships. It can be applied in a wide range of fields from business to literature. 
• Correlational Research: This identifies the relationship between two or more variables to see if and how they interact with each other. Very commonly used in psychological and statistical applications. 

The Importance Of Qualitative Research

This type of research is most commonly used in scientific and social applications. It collects, compares and interprets information to specifically address the “how” and “why” research questions. 

Qualitative research allows you to ask questions that cannot be easily put into numbers to understand human experience because you’re not limited by survey instruments with a fixed set of possible responses.

Information can be gathered in numerous ways including interviews, focus groups and ethnographic research which is then all reported in the language of the informant instead of statistical analyses. 

This type of research is important because they do not usually require a hypothesis to be carried out. Instead, it is an open-ended research approach that can be adapted and changed while the study is ongoing. This enhances the quality of the data and insights generated and creates a much more unique set of data to analyse. 

The Process Of Scientific Research

No matter the type of research completed, it will be shared and read by others. Whether this is with colleagues at work, peers at university, or whilst it’s being reviewed and repeated during secondary analysis.

A reliable procedure is necessary in order to obtain the best information which is why it’s important to have a plan. Here are the six basic steps that apply in any research process. 

• Observation and asking questions: Seeing a phenomenon and asking yourself ‘How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?’. It is best that these questions are measurable and answerable through experimentation. 
• Gathering information: Doing some background research to learn what is already known about the topic, and what you need to find out. 
• Forming a hypothesis: Constructing a tentative statement to study.
• Testing the hypothesis: Conducting an experiment to test the accuracy of your statement. This is a way to gather data about your predictions and should be easy to repeat. 
• Making conclusions: Analysing the data from the experiment(s) and drawing conclusions about whether they support or contradict your hypothesis. 
• Reporting: Presenting your findings in a clear way to communicate with others. This could include making a video, writing a report or giving a presentation to illustrate your findings. 

Although most scientists and researchers use this method, it may be tweaked between one study and another. Skipping or repeating steps is common within, however the core principles of the research process still apply.

By clearly explaining the steps and procedures used throughout the study, other researchers can then replicate the results. This is especially beneficial for peer reviews that try to replicate the results to ensure that the study is sound. 

What Is The Importance Of Research In Everyday Life?

Conducting a research study and comparing it to how important it is in everyday life are two very different things.

Carrying out research allows you to gain a deeper understanding of science and medicine by developing research questions and letting your curiosity blossom. You can experience what it is like to work in a lab and learn about the whole reasoning behind the scientific process. But how does that impact everyday life? 

Simply put, it allows us to disprove lies and support truths. This can help society to develop a confident attitude and not believe everything as easily, especially with the rise of fake news.

Research is the best and reliable way to understand and act on the complexities of various issues that we as humans are facing. From technology to healthcare to defence to climate change, carrying out studies is the only safe and reliable way to face our future.

Not only does research sharpen our brains, but also helps us to understand various issues of life in a much larger manner, always leaving us questioning everything and fuelling our need for answers. 

Logan Bessant is a dedicated science educator and the founder of Science Resource Online, launched in 2020. With a background in science education and a passion for accessible learning, Logan has built a platform that offers free, high-quality educational resources to learners of all ages and backgrounds.

Related Articles:

• What is STEM education?
• How Stem Education Improves Student Learning
• What Are the Three Domains for the Roles of Technology for Teaching and Learning?
• Why Is FIDO2 Secure?

Featured Articles

Significance of a Study: Revisiting the “So What” Question

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

19k Accesses

Every researcher wants their study to matter—to make a positive difference for their professional communities. To ensure your study matters, you can formulate clear hypotheses and choose methods that will test them well, as described in Chaps. 1, 2, 3 and 4. You can go further, however, by considering some of the terms commonly used to describe the importance of studies, terms like significance, contributions, and implications. As you clarify for yourself the meanings of these terms, you learn that whether your study matters depends on how convincingly you can argue for its importance. Perhaps most surprising is that convincing others of its importance rests with the case you make before the data are ever gathered. The importance of your hypotheses should be apparent before you test them. Are your predictions about things the profession cares about? Can you make them with a striking degree of precision? Are the rationales that support them compelling? You are answering the “So what?” question as you formulate hypotheses and design tests of them. This means you can control the answer. You do not need to cross your fingers and hope as you collect data.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. Setting the Groundwork

One of the most common questions asked of researchers is “So what?” What difference does your study make? Why are the findings important? The “so what” question is one of the most basic questions, often perceived by novice researchers as the most difficult question to answer. Indeed, addressing the “so what” question continues to challenge even experienced researchers. It is not always easy to articulate a convincing argument for the importance of your work. It can be especially difficult to describe its importance without falling into the trap of making claims that reach beyond the data.

That this issue is a challenge for researchers is illustrated by our analysis of reviewer comments for JRME . About one-third of the reviews for manuscripts that were ultimately rejected included concerns about the importance of the study. Said another way, reviewers felt the “So what?” question had not been answered. To paraphrase one journal reviewer, “The manuscript left me unsure of what the contribution of this work to the field’s knowledge is, and therefore I doubt its significance.” We expect this is a frequent concern of reviewers for all research journals.

Our goal in this chapter is to help you navigate the pressing demands of journal reviewers, editors, and readers for demonstrating the importance of your work while staying within the bounds of acceptable claims based on your results. We will begin by reviewing what we have said about these issues in previous chapters. We will then clarify one of the confusing aspects of developing appropriate arguments—the absence of consensus definitions of key terms such as significance, contributions, and implications. Based on the definitions we propose, we will examine the critical role of alignment for realizing the potential significance of your study. Because the importance of your study is communicated through your evolving research paper, we will fold suggestions for writing your paper into the discussion of creating and executing your study.

We laid the groundwork in Chap. 1 for what we consider to be important research in education:

In our view, the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. So, we believe the ultimate purpose of scientific inquiry in education is to support the improvement of learning opportunities for all students…. If there is no way to imagine a connection to improving learning opportunities for students, even a distant connection, we recommend you reconsider whether it is an important hypothesis within the education community.

Of course, you might prefer another “ultimate purpose” for research in education. That’s fine. The critical point is that the argument for the importance of the hypotheses you are testing should be connected to the value of a long-term goal you can describe. As long as most of the educational community agrees with this goal, and you can show how testing your hypotheses will move the field forward to achieving this goal, you will have developed a convincing argument for the importance of your work.

In Chap. 2 , we argued the importance of your hypotheses can and should be established before you collect data. Your theoretical framework should carry the weight of your argument because it should describe how your hypotheses will extend what is already known. Your methods should then show that you will test your hypotheses in an appropriate way—in a way that will allow you to detect how the results did, and did not, confirm the hypotheses. This will, in turn, allow you to formulate revised hypotheses. We described establishing the importance of your study by saying, “The importance can come from the fact that, based on the results, you will be able to offer revised hypotheses that help the field better understand an issue relevant for improving all students’ learning opportunities.”

The ideas from Chaps. 1 , 2 , and 3 go a long way toward setting the parameters for what counts as an important study and how its importance can be determined. Chapter 4 focused on ensuring that the importance of a study can be realized. The next section fills in the details by proposing definitions for the most common terms used to claim importance: significance, contributions, and implications.

You might notice that we do not have a chapter dedicated to discussing the presentation of the findings—that is, a “results” chapter. We do not mean to imply that presenting results is trivial. However, we believe that if you follow our recommendations for writing your evolving research paper, presenting the results will be quite straightforward. The key is to present your results so they can be most easily compared with your predictions. This means, among other things, organizing your presentation of results according to your earlier presentation of hypotheses.

Part II. Clarifying Importance by Revisiting the Definitions of Key Terms

What does it mean to say your findings are significant? Statistical significance is clear. There are widely accepted standards for determining the statistical significance of findings. But what about educational significance? Is this the same as claiming that your study makes an important contribution? Or, that your study has important implications? Different researchers might answer these questions in different ways. When key terms like these are overused, their definitions gradually broaden or shift, and they can lose their meaning. That is unfortunate, because it creates confusion about how to develop claims for the importance of a study.

By clarifying the definitions, we hope to clarify what is required to claim that a study is significant , that it makes a contribution , and that it has important implications . Not everyone defines the terms as we do. Our definitions are probably a bit narrower or more targeted than those you may encounter elsewhere. Depending on where you want to publish your study, you may want to adapt your use of these terms to match more closely the expectations of a particular journal. But the way we define and address these terms is not antithetical to common uses. And we believe ridding the terms of unnecessary overlap allows us to discriminate among different key concepts with respect to claims for the importance of research studies. It is not necessary to define the terms exactly as we have, but it is critical that the ideas embedded in our definitions be distinguished and that all of them be taken into account when examining the importance of a study.

We will use the following definitions:

Significance: The importance of the problem, questions, and/or hypotheses for improving the learning opportunities for all students (you can substitute a different long-term goal if its value is widely shared). Significance can be determined before data are gathered. Significance is an attribute of the research problem , not the research findings .

Contributions : The value of the findings for revising the hypotheses, making clear what has been learned, what is now better understood.

Implications : Deductions about what can be concluded from the findings that are not already included in “contributions.” The most common deductions in educational research are for improving educational practice. Deductions for research practice that are not already defined as contributions are often suggestions about research methods that are especially useful or methods to avoid.

Significance

The significance of a study is built by formulating research questions and hypotheses you connect through a careful argument to a long-term goal of widely shared value (e.g., improving learning opportunities for all students). Significance applies both to the domain in which your study is located and to your individual study. The significance of the domain is established by choosing a goal of widely shared value and then identifying a domain you can show is connected to achieving the goal. For example, if the goal to which your study contributes is improving the learning opportunities for all students, your study might aim to understand more fully how things work in a domain such as teaching for conceptual understanding, or preparing teachers to attend to all students, or designing curricula to support all learners, or connecting learning opportunities to particular learning outcomes.

The significance of your individual study is something you build ; it is not predetermined or self-evident. Significance of a study is established by making a case for it, not by simply choosing hypotheses everyone already thinks are important. Although you might believe the significance of your study is obvious, readers will need to be convinced.

Significance is something you develop in your evolving research paper. The theoretical framework you present connects your study to what has been investigated previously. Your argument for significance of the domain comes from the significance of the line of research of which your study is a part. The significance of your study is developed by showing, through the presentation of your framework, how your study advances this line of research. This means the lion’s share of your answer to the “So what?” question will be developed as part of your theoretical framework.

Although defining significance as located in your paper prior to presenting results is not a definition universally shared among educational researchers, it is becoming an increasingly common view. In fact, there is movement toward evaluating the significance of a study based only on the first sections of a research paper—the sections prior to the results (Makel et al., 2021 ).

In addition to addressing the “So what?” question, your theoretical framework can address another common concern often voiced by readers: “What is so interesting? I could have predicted those results.” Predictions do not need to be surprising to be interesting and significant. The significance comes from the rationales that show how the predictions extend what is currently known. It is irrelevant how many researchers could have made the predictions. What makes a study significant is that the theoretical framework and the predictions make clear how the study will increase the field’s understanding toward achieving a goal of shared value.

An important consequence of interpreting significance as a carefully developed argument for the importance of your research study within a larger domain is that it reveals the advantage of conducting a series of connected studies rather than single, disconnected studies. Building the significance of a research study requires time and effort. Once you have established significance for a particular study, you can build on this same argument for related studies. This saves time, allows you to continue to refine your argument across studies, and increases the likelihood your studies will contribute to the field.

Contributions

As we have noted, in fields as complicated as education, it is unlikely that your predictions will be entirely accurate. If the problem you are investigating is significant, the hypotheses will be formulated in such a way that they extend a line of research to understand more deeply phenomena related to students’ learning opportunities or another goal of shared value. Often, this means investigating the conditions under which phenomena occur. This gets complicated very quickly, so the data you gather will likely differ from your predictions in a variety of ways. The contributions your study makes will depend on how you interpret these results in light of the original hypotheses.

Contributions Emerge from Revisions to your Hypotheses

We view interpreting results as a process of comparing the data with the predictions and then examining the way in which hypotheses should be revised to more fully account for the results. Revising will almost always be warranted because, as we noted, predictions are unlikely to be entirely accurate. For example, if researchers expect Outcome A to occur under specified conditions but find that it does not occur to the extent predicted or actually does occur but without all the conditions, they must ask what changes to the hypotheses are needed to predict more accurately the conditions under which Outcome A occurred. Are there, for example, essential conditions that were not anticipated and that should be included in the revised hypotheses?

Consider an example from a recently published study (Wang et al., 2021 ). A team of researchers investigated the following research question: “How are students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs and their perceived mathematics achievement?” The researchers predicted that students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations would be highly related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs and their perceived mathematics achievement. The rationale was based largely on prior research that had consistently found parents’ general educational expectations to be highly correlated with students’ achievement.

The findings showed that Chinese high school students’ perceptions of their parents’ educational expectations were positively related to these students’ mathematics-related beliefs. In other words, students who believed their parents expected them to attain higher levels of education had more desirable mathematics-related beliefs.

However, students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations about mathematics achievement were not related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs in the same way as the more general parental educational expectations. Students who reported that their parents had no specific expectations possessed more desirable mathematics-related beliefs than all other subgroups. In addition, these students tended to perceive their mathematics achievement rank in their class to be higher on average than students who reported that their parents expressed some level of expectation for mathematics achievement.

Because this finding was not predicted, the researchers revised the original hypothesis. Their new prediction was that students who believe their parents have no specific mathematics achievement expectations possess more positive mathematics-related beliefs and higher perceived mathematics achievement than students who believe their parents do have specific expectations. They developed a revised rationale that drew on research on parental pressure and mathematics anxiety, positing that parents’ specific mathematics achievement expectations might increase their children’s sense of pressure and anxiety, thus fostering less positive mathematics-related beliefs. The team then conducted a follow-up study. Their findings aligned more closely with the new predictions and affirmed the better explanatory power of the revised rationale. The contributions of the study are found in this increased explanatory power—in the new understandings of this phenomenon contained in the revisions to the rationale.

Interpreting findings in order to revise hypotheses is not a straightforward task. Usually, the rationales blend multiple constructs or variables and predict multiple outcomes, with different outcomes connected to different research questions and addressed by different sets of data. Nevertheless, the contributions of your study depend on specifying the differences between your original hypotheses and your revised hypotheses. What can you explain now that you could not explain before?

We believe that revising hypotheses is an optimal response to any question of contributions because a researcher’s initial hypotheses plus the revisions suggested by the data are the most productive way to tie a study into the larger chain of research of which it is a part. Revised hypotheses represent growth in knowledge. Building on other researchers’ revised hypotheses and revising them further by more explicitly and precisely describing the conditions that are expected to influence the outcomes in the next study accumulates knowledge in a form that can be recorded, shared, built upon, and improved.

The significance of your study is presented in the opening sections of your evolving research paper whereas the contributions are presented in the final section, after the results. In fact, the central focus in this “Discussion” section should be a specification of the contributions (note, though, that this guidance may not fully align with the requirements of some journals).

Contributions Answer the Question of Generalizability

A common and often contentious, confusing issue that can befuddle novice and experienced researchers alike is the generalizability of results. All researchers prefer to believe the results they report apply to more than the sample of participants in their study. How important would a study be if the results applied only to, say, two fourth-grade classrooms in one school, or to the exact same tasks used as measures? How do you decide to which larger population (of students or tasks) your results could generalize? How can you state your claims so they are precisely those justified by the data?

To illustrate the challenge faced by researchers in answering these questions, we return to the JRME reviewers. We found that 30% of the reviews expressed concerns about the match between the results and the claims. For manuscripts that ultimately received a decision of Reject, the majority of reviewers said the authors had overreached—the claims were not supported by the data. In other words, authors generalized their claims beyond those that could be justified.

The Connection Between Contributions and Generalizability

In our view, claims about contributions can be examined productively alongside considerations of generalizability. To make the case for this view, we need to back up a bit. Recall that the purpose of research is to understand a phenomenon. To understand a phenomenon, you need to determine the conditions under which it occurs. Consequently, productive hypotheses specify the conditions under which the predictions hold and explain why and how these conditions make a difference. And the conditions set the parameters on generalizability. They identify when, where, and for whom the effect or situation will occur. So, hypotheses describe the extent of expected generalizability, and revised hypotheses that contain the contributions recalibrate generalizability and offer new predictions within these parameters.

An Example That Illustrates the Connection

In Chap. 4 , we introduced an example with a research question asking whether second graders improve their understanding of place value after a specially designed instructional intervention. We suggested asking a few second and third graders to complete your tasks to see if they generated the expected variation in performance. Suppose you completed this pilot study and now have satisfactory tasks. What conditions might influence the effect of the intervention? After careful study, you developed rationales that supported three conditions: the entry level of students’ understanding, the way in which the intervention is implemented, and the classroom norms that set expectations for students’ participation.

Suppose your original hypotheses predicted the desired effect of the intervention only if the students possessed an understanding of several concepts on which place value is built, only if the intervention was implemented with fidelity to the detailed instructional guidelines, and only if classroom norms encouraged students to participate in small-group work and whole-class discussions. Your claims of generalizability will apply to second-grade settings with these characteristics.

Now suppose you designed the study so the intervention occurred in five second-grade classrooms that agreed to participate. The pre-intervention assessment showed all students with the minimal level of entry understanding. The same well-trained teacher was employed to teach the intervention in all five classrooms, none of which included her own students. And you learned from prior observations and reports of the classroom teachers that three of the classrooms operated with the desired classroom norms, but two did not. Because of these conditions, your study is now designed to test one of your hypotheses—the desired effect will occur only if classroom norms encouraged students to participate in small-group work and whole-class discussions. This is the only condition that will vary; the other two (prior level of understanding and fidelity of implementation) are the same across classrooms so you will not learn how these affect the results.

Suppose the classrooms performed equally well on the post-intervention assessments. You expected lower performance in the two classrooms with less student participation, so you need to revise your hypotheses. The challenge is to explain the higher-than-expected performance of these students. Because you were interested in understanding the effects of this condition, you observed several lessons in all the classrooms during the intervention. You can now use this information to explain why the intervention worked equally well in classrooms with different norms.

Your revised hypothesis captures this part of your study’s contribution. You can now say more about the ways in which the intervention can help students improve their understanding of place value because you have different information about the role of classroom norms. This, in turn, allows you to specify more precisely the nature and extent of the generalizability of your findings. You now can generalize your findings to classrooms with different norms. However, because you did not learn more about the impact of students’ entry level understandings or of different kinds of implementation, the generalizability along these dimensions remains as limited as before.

This example is simplified. In many studies, the findings will be more complicated, and more conditions will likely be identified, some of which were anticipated and some of which emerged while conducting the study and analyzing the data. Nevertheless, the point is that generalizability should be tied to the conditions that are expected to affect the results. Further, unanticipated conditions almost always appear, so generalizations should be conservative and made with caution and humility. They are likely to change after testing the new predictions.

Contributions Are Assured When Hypotheses Are Significant and Methods Are Appropriate and Aligned

We have argued that the contributions of your study are produced by the revised hypotheses you can formulate based on your results. Will these revisions always represent contributions to the field? What if the revisions are minor? What if your results do not inform revisions to your hypotheses?

We will answer these questions briefly now and then develop them further in Part IV of this chapter. The answer to the primary question is “yes,” your revisions will always be a contribution to the field if (1) your hypotheses are significant and (2) you crafted appropriate methods to test the hypotheses. This is true even if your revisions are minor or if your data are not as informative as you expected. However, this is true only if you meet the two conditions in the earlier sentence. The first condition (significant hypotheses) can be satisfied by following the suggestions in the earlier section on significance. The second condition (appropriate methods) is addressed further in Part III in this chapter.

Implications

Before examining the role of methods in connecting significance with important contributions, we elaborate briefly our definition of “implications.” We reserve implications for the conclusions you can logically deduce from your findings that are not already presented as contributions. This means that, like contributions, implications are presented in the Discussion section of your research paper.

Many educational researchers present two types of implications: implications for future research and implications for practice. Although we are aware of this common usage, we believe our definition of “contributions” cover these implications. Clarifying why we call these “contributions” will explain why we largely reserve the word “implications” for recommendations regarding methods.

Implications for Future Research

Implications for future research often include (1) recommendations for empirical studies that would extend the findings of this study, (2) inferences about the usefulness of theoretical constructs, and (3) conclusions about the advisability of using particular kinds of methods. Given our earlier definitions, we prefer to label the first two types of implications as contributions.

Consider recommendations for empirical studies. After analyzing the data and presenting the results, we have suggested you compare the results with those predicted, revise the rationales for the original predictions to account for the results, and make new predictions based on the revised rationales. It is precisely these new predictions that can form the basis for recommending future research. Testing these new predictions is what would most productively extend this line of research. It can sometimes sound as if researchers are recommending future studies based on hunches about what research might yield useful findings. But researchers can do better than this. It would be more productive to base recommendations on a careful analysis of how the predictions of the original study could be sharpened and improved.

Now consider inferences about the usefulness of theoretical constructs. Our argument for labeling these inferences as contributions is similar. Rationales for predictions are where the relevant theoretical constructs are located. Revisions to these rationales based on the differences between the results and the predictions reveal the theoretical constructs that were affirmed to support accurate predictions and those that must be revised. In our view, usefulness is determined through this revision process.

Implications that do not come under our meaning of contributions are in the third type of implications, namely the appropriateness of methods for generating rich contributions. These kinds of implications are produced by your evaluation of your methods: research design, sampling procedures, tasks, data collection procedures, and data analyses. Although not always included in the discussion of findings, we believe it would be helpful for researchers to identify particular methods that were useful for conducting their study and those that should be modified or avoided. We believe these are appropriately called implications.

Implications for Practice

If the purpose of research is to better understand how to improve learning opportunities for all students, then it is appropriate to consider whether implications for improving educational practice can be drawn from the results of a study. How are these implications formulated? This is an important question because, in our view, these claims often come across as an afterthought, “Oh, I need to add some implications for practice.” But here is the sobering reality facing researchers: By any measure, the history of educational research shows that identifying these implications has had little positive effect on practice.

Perhaps the most challenging task for researchers who attempt to draw implications for practice is to interpret their findings for appropriate settings. A researcher who studied the instructional intervention for second graders on place value and found that average performance in the intervention classrooms improved more than in the textbook classrooms might be tempted to draw implications for practice. What should the researcher say? That second-grade teachers should adopt the intervention? Such an implication would be an overreach because, as we noted earlier, the findings cannot be generalized to all second-grade classrooms. Moreover, an improvement in average performance does not mean the intervention was better for all students.

The challenge is to identify the conditions under which the intervention would improve the learning opportunities for all students. Some of these conditions will be identified as the theoretical framework is built because the predictions need to account for these conditions. But some will be unforeseen, and some that are identified will not be informed by the findings. Recall that, in the study described earlier, a condition of entry level of understanding was hypothesized but the design of the study did not allow the researcher to draw any conclusions about its effect.

What can researchers say about implications for practice given the complexities involved in generalizing findings to other settings? We offer two recommendations. First, because it is difficult to specify all the conditions under which a phenomenon occurs, it is rarely appropriate to prescribe an educational practice. Researchers cannot anticipate the conditions under which individual teachers operate, conditions that often require adaptation of a suggested practice rather than implementation of a practice as prescribed.

Our second recommendation comes from returning to the purpose for educational research—to understand more fully how to improve learning opportunities for all students (or to achieve another goal of widely shared value). As we have described, understanding comes primarily from building and reevaluating rationales for your predictions. If you reach a new understanding related to improving learning opportunities, an understanding that could have practical implications, we recommend you share this understanding as an implication for practice.

For example, suppose the researcher who found better average performance of second graders after the intervention on place value had also studied several conditions under which performance improved. And suppose the researcher found that most students who did not improve their performance misunderstood a concept that appeared early in the intervention (e.g., the multiplicative relationship between positional values of a numeral). An implication for practice the researcher might share would be to describe the potential importance of understanding this concept early in the sequence of activities if teachers try out this intervention.

If you use our definitions, these implications for practice would be presented as contributions because they emerge directly from reevaluating and revising your rationales. We believe it is appropriate to use “Contributions” as the heading for this section in the Discussion section of your research paper. However, if editors prefer “Implications” we recommend following their suggestion.

We want to be clear that the terms you use for the different ways your study is important is not critical. We chose to define the terms significance, contributions, and implications in very specific and not universally shared ways to distinguish all the meanings of importance you should consider. Some of these can be established through your theoretical framework, some by the revisions of your hypotheses, and some by reflecting on the value of particular methods. The important thing, from our point of view, is that the ideas we defined for each of these terms are distinguished and recognized as specific ways of determining the importance of your study.

Part III. The Role of Methods in Determining Contributions

We have argued that every part of the study (and of the evolving research paper) should be aligned. All parts should be connected through a coherent chain of reasoning. In this chapter, we argue that the chain of reasoning is not complete until the methods are presented and the results are interpreted and discussed. The methods of the study create a bridge that connects the introductory material (research questions, theoretical framework, literature review, hypotheses) with the results and interpretations.

The role that methods play in scientific inquiry is to ensure that your hypotheses will be tested appropriately so the significance of your study will yield its potential contributions. To do this, the methods must do more than follow the standard guidelines and be technically correct (see Chap. 4 ). They must also fit with the surrounding parts of the study. We call this coherence.

Coherence Across the Phases of Scientific Inquiry

Coherence means the parts of a whole are fully aligned. When doing scientific inquiry, the early parts or phases should motivate the later phases. The methods you use should be motivated or explained by the earlier phases (e.g., research questions, theoretical framework, hypotheses). Your methods, in turn, should produce results that can be interpreted by comparing them with your predictions. Methods are aligned with earlier phases when you can use the rationales contained in your hypotheses to decide what kinds of data are needed to test your predictions, how best to gather these kinds of data, and what analyses should be performed (see Chap. 4 and Cai et al., 2019a ).

For a visual representation of this coherence, see Fig. 5.1 . Each box identifies an aspect of scientific inquiry. Hypotheses (shown in Box 1) include the rationales and predictions. Because the rationales encompass the theoretical framework and the literature review, Box 1 establishes the significance of the study. Box 2 represents the methods, which we defined in Chap. 4 as the entire set of procedures you will use, including the basic design, measures for collecting data, and analytic approaches. In Fig. 5.1 , the hypothesis in Box 1 points you to the methods you will use. That is, you will choose methods that provide data for analyses that will generate results or findings (Box 3) that allow you to make comparisons against your predictions. Based on those comparisons, you will revise your hypotheses and derive the contributions and implications of your study (Box 4).

The Chain of Coherence That Runs Through All Parts of a Research Study

We intend Fig. 5.1 to carry several messages. One is that coherence of a study and the associated research paper require all aspects of the study to flow from one into the other. Each set of prior entries must motivate and justify the next one. For example, the data and analyses you intend to gather and use in Box 2 (Methods) must be those that are motivated and explained by the research question and hypothesis (prediction and rationale) in Box 1.

A second message in the figure is that coherence includes Box 4, “Discussion.” Aligned with the first three boxes, the fourth box flows from these boxes but is also constrained by them. The contributions and implications authors describe in the Discussion section of the paper cannot go beyond what is allowed by the original hypotheses and the revisions to these hypotheses indicated by the findings.

Methods Enable Significance to Yield Contributions

We begin this section by identifying a third message conveyed in Fig. 5.1 . The methods of the study, represented by Box 2, provide a bridge that connects the significance of the study (Box 1) with the contributions of the study (Box 4). The results (Box 3) indicate the nature of the contributions by determining the revisions to the original hypotheses.

In our view, the connecting role played by the methods is often underappreciated. Crafting appropriate methods aligned with the significance of the study, on one hand, and the interpretations, on the other, can determine whether a study is judged to make a contribution.

If the hypotheses are established as significant, and if appropriate methods are used to test the predictions, the study will make important contributions even if the data are not statistically significant. We can say this another way. When researchers establish the significance of the hypotheses (i.e., convince readers they are of interest to the field) and use methods that provide a sound test of these hypotheses, the data they present will be of interest regardless of how they turn out. This is why Makel et al. ( 2021 ) endorse a review process for publication that emphasizes the significance of the study as presented in the first sections of a research paper.

Treating the methods as connecting the introductory arguments to the interpretations of data prevent researchers from making a common mistake: When writing the research paper, some researchers lose track of the research questions and/or the predictions. In other words, results are presented but are not interpreted as answers to the research questions or compared with the predictions. It is as if the introductory material of the paper begins one story, and the interpretations of results ends a different story. Lack of alignment makes it impossible to tell one coherent story.

A final point is that the alignment of a study cannot be evaluated and appreciated if the methods are not fully described. Methods must be described clearly and completely in the research paper so readers can see how they flow from the earlier phases of the study and how they yield the data presented. We suggested in Chap. 4 a rule of thumb for deciding whether the methods have been fully described: “Readers should be able to replicate the study if they wish.”

Part IV. Special Considerations that Affect a Study’s Contributions

We conclude Chap. 5 by addressing two additional issues that can affect how researchers interpret the results and make claims about the contributions of a study. Usually, researchers deal with these issues in the Discussion section of their research paper, but we believe it is useful to consider them as you plan and conduct your study. The issues can be posed as questions: How should I treat the limitations of my study? How should I deal with findings that are completely unexpected?

Limitations of a Study

We can identify two kinds of limitations: (1) limitations that constrain your ability to interpret your results because of unfortunate choices you made, and (2) limitations that constrain your ability to generalize your results because of missing variables you could not fit into the scope of your study or did not anticipate. We recommend different ways of dealing with these.

Limitations Due to Unfortunate Choices

All researchers make unfortunate choices. These are mistakes that could have been prevented. Often, they are choices in how a study was designed and/or executed. Maybe the sample did not have the characteristics assumed, or a task did not assess what was expected, or the intervention was not implemented as planned. Although many unfortunate choices can be prevented by thinking through the consequences of every decision or by conducting a well-designed pilot study or two, some will occur anyway. How should you deal with them?

The consequence of unfortunate choices is that the data do not test the hypotheses as precisely or completely as hoped. When this happens, the data must be interpreted with these constraints in mind. Almost always, this limits the researcher to making fewer or narrower claims than desired about differences and similarities between the results and the predictions. Usually this means conclusions about the ways in which the rationales must be revised require extra qualifications. In other words, claims about contributions of the study must be made with extra caution.

Research papers frequently include a subsection in the Discussion called “Limitations of the Study.” Researchers often use this subsection to identify the study’s limitations by describing the unfortunate choices, but they do not always spell out how these limitations should affect the contributions of the paper. Sometimes, it appears that researchers are simply checking off a requirement to identify the limitations by saying something like “The results should be interpreted with caution.” But this does not help readers understand exactly what cautions should be applied and it does not hold researchers accountable for the limitations.

We recommend something different. We suggest you do the hard work of figuring out how the data should be interpreted in light of the limitations and share these details with the readers. You might do this when the results are presented or when you interpret them. Rather than presenting your claims about the contributions of the study and then saying readers should interpret these with “caution” because of the study’s limitations, we suggest presenting only those interpretations and claims of contributions that can be made with the limitations in mind.

One way to think about the constraints you will likely need to impose on your interpretations is in terms of generalizability. Recall that earlier in this chapter, we described the close relationship between contributions and generalizability. When generalizability is restricted, so are contributions.

Limitations Due to Missing Variables

Because of the complexity of problems, questions, and hypotheses explored in educational research, researchers are unlikely to anticipate in their studies all the variables that affect the data and results. In addition, tradeoffs often must be made. Researchers cannot study everything at once, so decisions must be made about which variables to study carefully and which to either control or ignore.

In the earlier example of studying whether second graders improve their understanding of place value after a specially designed instructional intervention, the researcher identified three variables that were expected to influence the effect of the intervention: students’ entry level of understanding, implementation of the intervention, and norms of the classrooms in which the intervention was implemented. The researcher decided to control the implementation variable by hiring one experienced teacher to implement the intervention in all the classrooms. This meant the variable of individual teacher differences was not included in the study and the researcher could not generalize to classrooms with these differences.

Some researchers might see controlling the implementation of the intervention as a limitation. We do not. As a factor that is not allowed to vary, it constrains the generalizations a researcher can make, but we believe these kinds of controlled variables are better treated as opportunities for future research. Perhaps the researcher’s observations in the classroom provided information that could be used to make some predictions about which elements of the intervention are essential and which are optional—about which aspects of the intervention must be implemented as written and which can vary with different teachers. When revising the rationales to show what was learned in this study, the researcher could include rationales for new, tentative predictions about the effects of the intervention in classrooms where implementation differed in specified ways. These predictions create a genuine contribution of the study. If you use our definitions, these new predictions, often presented under “implications for future research,” would be presented as “contributions.”

Notice that if you follow our advice, you would not need to include a separate section in the Discussion of your paper labeled “Limitations.” We acknowledge, however, that some journal editors recommend such a subsection. In this case, we suggest you include this subsection along with treating the two different kinds of limitations as we recommend. You can do both.

Dealing with Unexpected Findings

Researchers are often faced with unexpected and perhaps surprising results, even when they have developed a convincing theoretical framework, posed research questions tightly connected to this framework, presented predictions about expected outcomes, and selected methods that appropriately test these predictions. Indeed, the unexpected findings can be the most interesting and valuable products of the study. They can range from mildly surprising to “Wow. I didn’t expect that.” How should researchers treat such findings? Our answer is based on two principles.

The first principle is that the value of research does not lie in whether the predictions are completely accurate but in helping the field learn more about the explanatory power of theoretical frameworks. That is, the value lies in the increased understanding of phenomena generated by examining the ability of theoretical frameworks (or rationales) to predict outcomes and explain results. The second principle, a corollary to the first, is to treat unexpected findings in a way that is most educative for the reader.

Based on our arguments to this point, you could guess we will say there will always be unexpected findings. Predicted answers to significant research questions in education will rarely, if ever, be entirely accurate. So, you can count on dealing with unexpected findings.

Consistent with the two principles above, your goal should be to use unexpected findings to understand more fully the phenomenon under investigation. We recommend one of three different paths. The choice of which path to take depends on what you decide after reflecting again on the decisions you made at each phase of the study.

The first path is appropriate when researchers reexamine their theoretical framework in light of the unexpected findings and decide that it is still a compelling framework based on previous work. They reason that readers are likely to have been convinced by this framework and would likely have made similar predictions. In this case, we believe that it is educative for researchers to (a) summarize their initial framework, (b) present the findings and distinguish those that were aligned with the predictions from those that were not, and (c) explain why the theoretical framework was inadequate and propose changes to the framework that would have created more alignment with the unexpected findings.

Revisions to initial hypotheses are especially useful if they include explanations for why a researcher might have been wrong (and researchers who ask significant questions in domains as complex as education are almost always wrong in some way). Depending on the ways in which the revised framework differs from the original, the authors have two options. If the revised framework is an expansion of the original, it would be appropriate for the authors to propose directions for future research that would extend this study. Alternatively, if the revised framework is still largely within the scope of the original study and consists of revisions to the original hypotheses, the revisions could guide a second study to check the adequacy of the revisions. This second study could be conducted by the same researchers (perhaps before the final manuscript is written and presented as two parts of the same report) or it could be proposed in the Discussion as a specific study that could be conducted by other researchers.

The second path is appropriate when researchers reexamine their theoretical framework in light of the unexpected findings and recognize serious flaws in the framework. The flaws could result from a number of factors, including defining elements of the framework in too general a way to formulate well-grounded hypotheses, failing to include a variable, or not accounting carefully enough for the previous work in this domain, both theoretical and empirical. In many of these cases, readers would not be well served by reading a poorly developed framework and then learning that the framework, which had not been convincing, did not accurately predict the results. Before scrapping the study and starting over, we suggest stepping back and reexamining the framework. Is it possible to develop a more coherent, complete, and convincing framework? Would this framework predict the results more accurately? If the findings remain unexpected based on the predictions generated by this revised, more compelling framework, then the first path applies.

It is likely that the new framework will better predict the findings. After all, the researchers now know the findings they will report. However, it is unlikely that the framework will accurately predict all the findings. This is because the framework is not built around the findings of this study of which authors are now aware (but have not yet been presented). Frameworks are built on research and theory already published. This means the redesigned framework is built from exactly the same empirical findings and theoretical arguments available before the study was conducted. The redesigned framework also is constrained by needing to justify exactly those methods used in the study. The redesigned framework cannot justify different methods or even slightly altered methods. The task for researchers is to show how the new theoretical framework necessarily generates, using the same methods, the predictions they present in the research paper. Just as before, it is unlikely this framework can account for all the findings. Just as before, after presenting the results the researchers should explain why they believe particular hypotheses were confirmed and why others should be revised, even in small ways, based on the findings reported. Researchers can now use these findings to revise the hypotheses presented in the paper. The point we are making is that we believe it is acceptable to reconstruct frameworks before writing research reports if doing so would be more educative for the reader.

Finally, the third path becomes appropriate when researchers, in reexamining their theoretical framework, trace the problem to a misalignment between the methods they used and the theoretical framework or the research questions. Perhaps the researchers recognize that the tasks they used did not yield data that could test the predictions and address the research questions. Or perhaps the researchers realize that the sample they selected would likely have been heavily influenced by a factor they failed to take into account. In other words, the researchers decide that the unexpected findings were due to a problem with the methods they used, not with the framework or the accompanying predictions. In this case, we recommend that the researchers correct the methodological problems and conduct the study again.

Part V. A Few Suggestions for Structuring Your Discussion Section

Writing the Discussion section of your research paper can be overwhelming given all our suggestions about what to include in this section. Here are a few tips that might help you create a simple template for this section.

We recommend the Discussion begin with a brief summary of the main results, especially those you will interpret in this section. This summary should not contain new data or results not previously presented in the paper.

The Discussion could then move to presenting the contributions in the ways we have described. To do this you could point out the ways in which the results differed from the predictions and suggest revisions to your rationales that would have better predicted the results. Doing this will show how the contributions of your study extend what is known beyond the research you drew on to build your original rationale. You can then propose how to extend your contributions to research by proposing future research studies that would test your new predictions. If you believe the revisions you make to your rationales produce new insights or understandings that could be helpful for educational practitioners, you can identify these contributions to practice as well. This comprises the bulk of the Discussion section.

If you have embedded the limitations in earlier sections of the paper, you will have presented your results and interpreted your findings constrained by these limitations. If you choose (or are asked) to describe limitations in the Discussion, you could identify the limitations and then point to the ways they affected your interpretations of the findings. Finally, the Discussion could conclude with the implications of the study for methodological choices that could improve research in the domain in which your study is located or how future studies could overcome the limitations you identified.

Because we are providing guidance on writing your research paper for publication, we will reiterate here that you should investigate the expectations and conventions of the journal to which you will submit your paper. Usually, it will be acceptable to use the terms “significance,” “contributions,” and “implications” as we have defined them. However, if the editors expect you to use the terms differently, follow the editors’ expectations. Our definitions in this chapter are meant to help you think clearly about the different ways you can make a case for the importance of your research. What matters is that you have carefully built and described a coherent chain of scientific inquiry that allows your study to translate the significance of your research problem into contributions to the field.

We began the chapter with the “So what?” question. The question looks simple and straightforward but is challenging and complicated. Its simple appearance can lead researchers to believe it should have a simple answer. But it almost never does. In this chapter, we tried to address the many complications that arise when answering the question. We hope you now have some new insights and new tools for answering the question in your next study.

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019a). Choosing and justifying robust methods for educational research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (4), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, G. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50 (8), 493–504.

Wang, G., Zhang, S., & Cai, J. (2021). How are parental expectations related to students’ beliefs and their perceived achievement? Educational Studies in Mathematics., 108 , 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10073-w

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). Significance of a Study: Revisiting the “So What” Question. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_5

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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
• Community Eye Health
• v.35(117); 2022
• PMC10061254

Why does research matter?

Victor h hu.

Assistant Clinical Professor: International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Consultant Ophthalmologist: Mid Cheshire NHS Hospitals, UK.

A working knowledge of research – both how it is done, and how it can be used – is important for everyone involved in direct patient care and the planning & delivery of eye programmes.

A research coordinator collecting data from a health extension worker. ethiopia

The mention of ‘research’ can be off-putting and may seem irrelevant in the busy environment of a clinic or hospital. However, research is central to all aspects of eye care delivery – both inside and outside the clinic.

Whether we are health workers, public health practitioners, managers, policy makers, or editors – all of us ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’: we rely on the research done by others before us. This can be as simple – and profound – as hand washing between patients; a habit that only became common practice in the 1870s, following the work of the Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis and Scottish surgeon Joseph Lister. Or it can be as complex as making a diagnosis of glaucoma and knowing what treatment to give. All current eye care practice is based on research. Clinical, operational (eye care delivery) and public health practice will continue to be profoundly shaped by new research developments.

What is research?

In its simplest form, research is about investigating the world around us to increase our knowledge, so we can work out how to do things better.

In health care, we use a scientific approach to carry out research; there is a set way of doing things that ensures research is done in a logical way, and that results are published widely, so that other people can scrutinise what has been done. This gives us confidence that the results will be useful in everyday practice.

It is important to critically evaluate research and research findings, including checking that research has been carried out in the proper way, and whether the conclusions that have been made are reasonable and justified. One of the ways in which the scientific community ensures the quality of research is through the process of peer review. Before research papers are accepted for publication in a scientific journal, they are reviewed by other researchers (peer reviewed) to check the quality of the research and the validity of the results and conclusions. Even so, the quality of published research can vary.

This is why systematic reviews and meta-analyses are so valuable: they answer important questions by identifying, evaluating, and summarising good quality evidence from a range of published research papers. Often, systematic reviews conclude that there is not enough evidence to answer a question with absolute certainty, or to produce an answer that will be applicable in different countries or health care settings. This is useful, as it gives researchers guidance about where more research is needed (see article on page 13).

But this can be a challenge for clinicians – how can we make good decisions in the absence of definitive evidence? Clinical experience is very important, but where possible this should be informed by good research – see page 6 for practical tips.

Health care practitioners and managers can also use guidance from professional bodies such as the World Health Organization. The article on page 8 explains the process by which guidelines are developed and shows why we can rely on them.

In conclusion, research is fundamental to the everyday practice of health care professionals, including eye care workers. Research allows us to find out new things and to provide better care for patients. There are many different types of research that can be carried out and these can vary enormously. It is important to ask the right question, as this will determine the type of research that is done (see page 5).

All of us can participate in research: it starts with asking questions and then going to find out the answers. The article on page 10 offers practical suggestions for carrying out small-scale research that is relevant and useful to eye care.

Types of health research

Basic science research, such as in molecular genetics or cell biology, fills the gaps in our understanding of disease mechanisms (pathogenesis).

Clinical research addresses how diseases in individuals can present and be diagnosed, and how a condition progresses and can be managed.

Epidemiological research , which is at the population level (as opposed to the individual level), answers questions about the number of people in the population who have a condition, what factors (called exposures) are causing the condition, and how it can be treated or prevented at the population level.

Going beyond epidemiology, there is also operational and health systems research , which focuses on how best to deliver health interventions, clinical and rehabilitation services, or behaviour change initiatives.

Other types of research , which are also important for public health, include health economics, social science, and statistical modelling.

Finally, systematic literature reviews can be very useful, as they identify and summarise the available evidence on a specific topic.

By Clare Gilbert and GVS Murthy

Examples of research questions and how they have been answered

Can povidone iodine prevent endophthalmitis.

In many eye departments, cataract surgery is a frequently preformed operation. One of the most serious complications is infection within the eye (endophthalmitis) which can lead to loss of vision. Several well conducted randomised controlled clinical trials have shown that instilling 0.5% aqueous povidone iodine eye drops, an antiseptic agent, before surgery reduces the risk of this devastating infection, with the first trial undertaken in 1991. 1

What is the best treatment for primary open-angle glaucoma?

Chronic glaucoma can be a very difficult condition to manage, particularly when patients often only present to eye departments once they have already had significant vision loss. Eye drops which lower intraocular pressure are often prescribed; however, patients may not use the eyedrops because they are expensive, can be difficult to instil, and do not improve their vision. Surgery is an option, but patients can be reluctant to undergo surgery on their only good eye, and there can be postoperative complications. Laser treatment is another option. In a recent study in Tanzania, patients were randomly allocated to Timolol 0.5% eye drops or a form of laser called Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty (SLT). 2 After one year, SLT was found to be superior to drops for high-pressure glaucoma.

Why don't older adults in England have their eyes examined?

Focus group discussions among older adults in England revealed that, despite most participants being eligible for state-funded check-ups, wearing spectacles was associated with the appearance of being frail. They were also afraid of appearing to ‘fail’ tests, and had concerns about the cost of spectacles. 3

How cost effective is a diabetic retinopathy screening programme?

An economic evaluation in South Africa compared alternative interventions. Screening using non-mydriatic retinal photographs taken by a technician supervised by an ophthalmic nurse and read by a general medical officer was cost-effective and the savings made allowed the government to fund disability grants for people who went blind. 4

Acknowledgements

Stephen Gichuhi and Nyawira Mwangi contributed to preliminary work on this article.

The Importance of Research in the Advancement of Society

Thanks to the internet and other technologies, life moves at a very fast pace. We’re constantly adapting and learning new ways to do things–as well as expecting and even demanding innovation from our scientists, executives, and leaders.

Without research, our demands would go completely unanswered!

Curiosity leads to research

Research is what propels humanity forward. It’s fueled by curiosity: we get curious, ask questions, and immerse ourselves in discovering everything there is to know. Learning is thriving. Without curiosity and research, progress would slow to a halt, and our lives as we know them would be completely different.

What would happen without research?

If early civilizations hadn’t been curious about the dark sky, we wouldn’t know anything about space. Decades of research have led us to where we are today: a civilized society with the knowledge and tools to move forward.

If that research slowed to a standstill, what would happen?

We’d become ignorant and unaware. We wouldn’t understand or go forward. Without research, we couldn’t say we were close to finding the cure for cancer or find the most eco-friendly way to light up our homes and offices. We wouldn’t know that, even though bees are not our favorites, they do a job that help us all.

Without research, we could not possibly have survived as long as we have.

And there are still millions of things that have yet to be discovered: diseases to cure, waters to explore, species to discover. All of that is possible with research.

The future of research

Thankfully, schools are becoming more concerned with science and technology, and research is finding its place in the minds of today’s students. Students are eager to make discoveries, create solutions to the world’s problems, and invent the next big thing. We’re going places, one research project at a time.

How do we enable researchers to spend their time on, well, research (instead of filling out forms)? Thankfully, there’s cloud-based software to make that easier. Researchers and research administrators can find funding faster , apply for it more easily, manage their funding once they get it, meet federal and local requirements for documentation, stay in compliance if research involves humans or animals, and make sure research facilities are safe .

All of that means they’re one step closer to tomorrow’s big discoveries.

Adapted from an essay by Cali Simboli

Ready for easier research administration?

Featured resource:.

6 ways to minimize risk in research administration

Get ebook >> 

More From Forbes

The role of research at universities: why it matters.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

(Photo by William B. Plowman/Getty Images)

Teaching and learning, research and discovery, synthesis and creativity, understanding and engagement, service and outreach. There are many “core elements” to the mission of a great university. Teaching would seem the most obvious, but for those outside of the university, “research” (taken to include scientific research, scholarship more broadly, as well as creative activity) may be the least well understood. This creates misunderstanding of how universities invest resources, especially those deriving from undergraduate tuition and state (or other public) support, and the misperception that those resources are being diverted away from what is believed should be the core (and sole) focus, teaching. This has led to a loss of trust, confidence, and willingness to continue to invest or otherwise support (especially our public) universities.

Why are universities engaged in the conduct of research? Who pays? Who benefits? And why does it all matter? Good questions. Let’s get to some straightforward answers. Because the academic research enterprise really is not that difficult to explain, and its impacts are profound.

So let’s demystify university-based research. And in doing so, hopefully we can begin building both better understanding and a better relationship between the public and higher education, both of which are essential to the future of US higher education.   

Why are universities engaged in the conduct of research?

Universities engage in research as part of their missions around learning and discovery. This, in turn, contributes directly and indirectly to their primary mission of teaching. Universities and many colleges (the exception being those dedicated exclusively to undergraduate teaching) have as part of their mission the pursuit of scholarship. This can come in the form of fundamental or applied research (both are most common in the STEM fields, broadly defined), research-based scholarship or what often is called “scholarly activity” (most common in the social sciences and humanities), or creative activity (most common in the arts). Increasingly, these simple categorizations are being blurred, for all good reasons and to the good of the discovery of new knowledge and greater understanding of complex (transdisciplinary) challenges and the creation of increasingly interrelated fields needed to address them.

It goes without saying that the advancement of knowledge (discovery, innovation, creation) is essential to any civilization. Our nation’s research universities represent some of the most concentrated communities of scholars, facilities, and collective expertise engaged in these activities. But more importantly, this is where higher education is delivered, where students develop breadth and depth of knowledge in foundational and advanced subjects, where the skills for knowledge acquisition and understanding (including contextualization, interpretation, and inference) are honed, and where students are educated, trained, and otherwise prepared for successful careers. Part of that training and preparation derives from exposure to faculty who are engaged at the leading-edge of their fields, through their research and scholarly work. The best faculty, the teacher-scholars, seamlessly weave their teaching and research efforts together, to their mutual benefit, and in a way that excites and engages their students. In this way, the next generation of scholars (academic or otherwise) is trained, research and discovery continue to advance inter-generationally, and the cycle is perpetuated.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

University research can be expensive, particularly in laboratory-intensive fields. But the responsibility for much (indeed most) of the cost of conducting research falls to the faculty member. Faculty who are engaged in research write grants for funding (e.g., from federal and state agencies, foundations, and private companies) to support their work and the work of their students and staff. In some cases, the universities do need to invest heavily in equipment, facilities, and personnel to support select research activities. But they do so judiciously, with an eye toward both their mission, their strategic priorities, and their available resources.

Medical research, and medical education more broadly, is expensive and often requires substantial institutional investment beyond what can be covered by clinical operations or externally funded research. But universities with medical schools/medical centers have determined that the value to their educational and training missions as well as to their communities justifies the investment. And most would agree that university-based medical centers are of significant value to their communities, often providing best-in-class treatment and care in midsize and smaller communities at a level more often seen in larger metropolitan areas.

Research in the STEM fields (broadly defined) can also be expensive. Scientific (including medical) and engineering research often involves specialized facilities or pieces of equipment, advanced computing capabilities, materials requiring controlled handling and storage, and so forth. But much of this work is funded, in large part, by federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Energy, US Department of Agriculture, and many others.

Research in the social sciences is often (not always) less expensive, requiring smaller amount of grant funding. As mentioned previously, however, it is now becoming common to have physical, natural, and social scientist teams pursuing large grant funding. This is an exciting and very promising trend for many reasons, not the least of which is the nature of the complex problems being studied.

Research in the arts and humanities typically requires the least amount of funding as it rarely requires the expensive items listed previously. Funding from such organizations as the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and private foundations may be able to support significant scholarship and creation of new knowledge or works through much more modest grants than would be required in the natural or physical sciences, for example.

Philanthropy may also be directed toward the support of research and scholarly activity at universities. Support from individual donors, family foundations, private or corporate foundations may be directed to support students, faculty, labs or other facilities, research programs, galleries, centers, and institutes.

Who benefits?

Students, both undergraduate and graduate, benefit from studying in an environment rich with research and discovery. Besides what the faculty can bring back to the classroom, there are opportunities to engage with faculty as part of their research teams and even conduct independent research under their supervision, often for credit. There are opportunities to learn about and learn on state-of-the-art equipment, in state-of-the-art laboratories, and from those working on the leading edge in a discipline. There are opportunities to co-author, present at conferences, make important connections, and explore post-graduate pathways.

The broader university benefits from active research programs. Research on timely and important topics attracts attention, which in turn leads to greater institutional visibility and reputation. As a university becomes known for its research in certain fields, they become magnets for students, faculty, grants, media coverage, and even philanthropy. Strength in research helps to define a university’s “brand” in the national and international marketplace, impacting everything from student recruitment, to faculty retention, to attracting new investments.

The community, region, and state benefits from the research activity of the university. This is especially true for public research universities. Research also contributes directly to economic development, clinical, commercial, and business opportunities. Resources brought into the university through grants and contracts support faculty, staff, and student salaries, often adding additional jobs, contributing directly to the tax base. Research universities, through their expertise, reputation, and facilities, can attract new businesses into their communities or states. They can also launch and incubate startup companies, or license and sell their technologies to other companies. Research universities often host meeting and conferences which creates revenue for local hotels, restaurants, event centers, and more. And as mentioned previously, university medical centers provide high-quality medical care, often in midsize communities that wouldn’t otherwise have such outstanding services and state-of-the-art facilities.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

And finally, why does this all matter?

Research is essential to advancing society, strengthening the economy, driving innovation, and addressing the vexing and challenging problems we face as a people, place, and planet. It’s through research, scholarship, and discovery that we learn about our history and ourselves, understand the present context in which we live, and plan for and secure our future.

Research universities are vibrant, exciting, and inspiring places to learn and to work. They offer opportunities for students that few other institutions can match – whether small liberal arts colleges, mid-size teaching universities, or community colleges – and while not right for every learner or every educator, they are right for many, if not most. The advantages simply cannot be ignored. Neither can the importance or the need for these institutions. They need not be for everyone, and everyone need not find their way to study or work at our research universities, and we stipulate that there are many outstanding options to meet and support different learning styles and provide different environments for teaching and learning. But it’s critically important that we continue to support, protect, and respect research universities for all they do for their students, their communities and states, our standing in the global scientific community, our economy, and our nation.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples

What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples

Published on June 7, 2021 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023 by Pritha Bhandari.

A research design is a strategy for answering your   research question  using empirical data. Creating a research design means making decisions about:

• Your overall research objectives and approach
• Whether you’ll rely on primary research or secondary research
• Your sampling methods or criteria for selecting subjects
• Your data collection methods
• The procedures you’ll follow to collect data
• Your data analysis methods

A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research objectives and that you use the right kind of analysis for your data.

Table of contents

Step 1: consider your aims and approach, step 2: choose a type of research design, step 3: identify your population and sampling method, step 4: choose your data collection methods, step 5: plan your data collection procedures, step 6: decide on your data analysis strategies, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research design.

• Introduction

Before you can start designing your research, you should already have a clear idea of the research question you want to investigate.

There are many different ways you could go about answering this question. Your research design choices should be driven by your aims and priorities—start by thinking carefully about what you want to achieve.

The first choice you need to make is whether you’ll take a qualitative or quantitative approach.

Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible and inductive , allowing you to adjust your approach based on what you find throughout the research process.

Quantitative research designs tend to be more fixed and deductive , with variables and hypotheses clearly defined in advance of data collection.

It’s also possible to use a mixed-methods design that integrates aspects of both approaches. By combining qualitative and quantitative insights, you can gain a more complete picture of the problem you’re studying and strengthen the credibility of your conclusions.

Practical and ethical considerations when designing research

As well as scientific considerations, you need to think practically when designing your research. If your research involves people or animals, you also need to consider research ethics .

• How much time do you have to collect data and write up the research?
• Will you be able to gain access to the data you need (e.g., by travelling to a specific location or contacting specific people)?
• Do you have the necessary research skills (e.g., statistical analysis or interview techniques)?
• Will you need ethical approval ?

At each stage of the research design process, make sure that your choices are practically feasible.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Within both qualitative and quantitative approaches, there are several types of research design to choose from. Each type provides a framework for the overall shape of your research.

Types of quantitative research designs

Quantitative designs can be split into four main types.

• Experimental and   quasi-experimental designs allow you to test cause-and-effect relationships
• Descriptive and correlational designs allow you to measure variables and describe relationships between them.

With descriptive and correlational designs, you can get a clear picture of characteristics, trends and relationships as they exist in the real world. However, you can’t draw conclusions about cause and effect (because correlation doesn’t imply causation ).

Experiments are the strongest way to test cause-and-effect relationships without the risk of other variables influencing the results. However, their controlled conditions may not always reflect how things work in the real world. They’re often also more difficult and expensive to implement.

Types of qualitative research designs

Qualitative designs are less strictly defined. This approach is about gaining a rich, detailed understanding of a specific context or phenomenon, and you can often be more creative and flexible in designing your research.

The table below shows some common types of qualitative design. They often have similar approaches in terms of data collection, but focus on different aspects when analyzing the data.

Your research design should clearly define who or what your research will focus on, and how you’ll go about choosing your participants or subjects.

In research, a population is the entire group that you want to draw conclusions about, while a sample is the smaller group of individuals you’ll actually collect data from.

Defining the population

A population can be made up of anything you want to study—plants, animals, organizations, texts, countries, etc. In the social sciences, it most often refers to a group of people.

For example, will you focus on people from a specific demographic, region or background? Are you interested in people with a certain job or medical condition, or users of a particular product?

The more precisely you define your population, the easier it will be to gather a representative sample.

• Sampling methods

Even with a narrowly defined population, it’s rarely possible to collect data from every individual. Instead, you’ll collect data from a sample.

To select a sample, there are two main approaches: probability sampling and non-probability sampling . The sampling method you use affects how confidently you can generalize your results to the population as a whole.

Probability sampling is the most statistically valid option, but it’s often difficult to achieve unless you’re dealing with a very small and accessible population.

For practical reasons, many studies use non-probability sampling, but it’s important to be aware of the limitations and carefully consider potential biases. You should always make an effort to gather a sample that’s as representative as possible of the population.

Case selection in qualitative research

In some types of qualitative designs, sampling may not be relevant.

For example, in an ethnography or a case study , your aim is to deeply understand a specific context, not to generalize to a population. Instead of sampling, you may simply aim to collect as much data as possible about the context you are studying.

In these types of design, you still have to carefully consider your choice of case or community. You should have a clear rationale for why this particular case is suitable for answering your research question .

For example, you might choose a case study that reveals an unusual or neglected aspect of your research problem, or you might choose several very similar or very different cases in order to compare them.

Data collection methods are ways of directly measuring variables and gathering information. They allow you to gain first-hand knowledge and original insights into your research problem.

You can choose just one data collection method, or use several methods in the same study.

Survey methods

Surveys allow you to collect data about opinions, behaviors, experiences, and characteristics by asking people directly. There are two main survey methods to choose from: questionnaires and interviews .

Observation methods

Observational studies allow you to collect data unobtrusively, observing characteristics, behaviors or social interactions without relying on self-reporting.

Observations may be conducted in real time, taking notes as you observe, or you might make audiovisual recordings for later analysis. They can be qualitative or quantitative.

Other methods of data collection

There are many other ways you might collect data depending on your field and topic.

If you’re not sure which methods will work best for your research design, try reading some papers in your field to see what kinds of data collection methods they used.

Secondary data

If you don’t have the time or resources to collect data from the population you’re interested in, you can also choose to use secondary data that other researchers already collected—for example, datasets from government surveys or previous studies on your topic.

With this raw data, you can do your own analysis to answer new research questions that weren’t addressed by the original study.

Using secondary data can expand the scope of your research, as you may be able to access much larger and more varied samples than you could collect yourself.

However, it also means you don’t have any control over which variables to measure or how to measure them, so the conclusions you can draw may be limited.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

As well as deciding on your methods, you need to plan exactly how you’ll use these methods to collect data that’s consistent, accurate, and unbiased.

Planning systematic procedures is especially important in quantitative research, where you need to precisely define your variables and ensure your measurements are high in reliability and validity.

Operationalization

Some variables, like height or age, are easily measured. But often you’ll be dealing with more abstract concepts, like satisfaction, anxiety, or competence. Operationalization means turning these fuzzy ideas into measurable indicators.

If you’re using observations , which events or actions will you count?

If you’re using surveys , which questions will you ask and what range of responses will be offered?

You may also choose to use or adapt existing materials designed to measure the concept you’re interested in—for example, questionnaires or inventories whose reliability and validity has already been established.

Reliability and validity

Reliability means your results can be consistently reproduced, while validity means that you’re actually measuring the concept you’re interested in.

For valid and reliable results, your measurement materials should be thoroughly researched and carefully designed. Plan your procedures to make sure you carry out the same steps in the same way for each participant.

If you’re developing a new questionnaire or other instrument to measure a specific concept, running a pilot study allows you to check its validity and reliability in advance.

Sampling procedures

As well as choosing an appropriate sampling method , you need a concrete plan for how you’ll actually contact and recruit your selected sample.

That means making decisions about things like:

• How many participants do you need for an adequate sample size?
• What inclusion and exclusion criteria will you use to identify eligible participants?
• How will you contact your sample—by mail, online, by phone, or in person?

If you’re using a probability sampling method , it’s important that everyone who is randomly selected actually participates in the study. How will you ensure a high response rate?

If you’re using a non-probability method , how will you avoid research bias and ensure a representative sample?

Data management

It’s also important to create a data management plan for organizing and storing your data.

Will you need to transcribe interviews or perform data entry for observations? You should anonymize and safeguard any sensitive data, and make sure it’s backed up regularly.

Keeping your data well-organized will save time when it comes to analyzing it. It can also help other researchers validate and add to your findings (high replicability ).

On its own, raw data can’t answer your research question. The last step of designing your research is planning how you’ll analyze the data.

Quantitative data analysis

In quantitative research, you’ll most likely use some form of statistical analysis . With statistics, you can summarize your sample data, make estimates, and test hypotheses.

Using descriptive statistics , you can summarize your sample data in terms of:

• The distribution of the data (e.g., the frequency of each score on a test)
• The central tendency of the data (e.g., the mean to describe the average score)
• The variability of the data (e.g., the standard deviation to describe how spread out the scores are)

The specific calculations you can do depend on the level of measurement of your variables.

Using inferential statistics , you can:

• Make estimates about the population based on your sample data.
• Test hypotheses about a relationship between variables.

Regression and correlation tests look for associations between two or more variables, while comparison tests (such as t tests and ANOVAs ) look for differences in the outcomes of different groups.

Your choice of statistical test depends on various aspects of your research design, including the types of variables you’re dealing with and the distribution of your data.

Qualitative data analysis

In qualitative research, your data will usually be very dense with information and ideas. Instead of summing it up in numbers, you’ll need to comb through the data in detail, interpret its meanings, identify patterns, and extract the parts that are most relevant to your research question.

Two of the most common approaches to doing this are thematic analysis and discourse analysis .

There are many other ways of analyzing qualitative data depending on the aims of your research. To get a sense of potential approaches, try reading some qualitative research papers in your field.

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

A research design is a strategy for answering your   research question . It defines your overall approach and determines how you will collect and analyze data.

A well-planned research design helps ensure that your methods match your research aims, that you collect high-quality data, and that you use the right kind of analysis to answer your questions, utilizing credible sources . This allows you to draw valid , trustworthy conclusions.

Quantitative research designs can be divided into two main categories:

• Correlational and descriptive designs are used to investigate characteristics, averages, trends, and associations between variables.
• Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are used to test causal relationships .

Qualitative research designs tend to be more flexible. Common types of qualitative design include case study , ethnography , and grounded theory designs.

The priorities of a research design can vary depending on the field, but you usually have to specify:

• Your research questions and/or hypotheses
• Your overall approach (e.g., qualitative or quantitative )
• The type of design you’re using (e.g., a survey , experiment , or case study )
• Your data collection methods (e.g., questionnaires , observations)
• Your data collection procedures (e.g., operationalization , timing and data management)
• Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical tests  or thematic analysis )

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.

Operationalization means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioral avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalize the variables that you want to measure.

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 7, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-design/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

The Why: Explaining the significance of your research

In the first four articles of this series, we examined The What: Defining a research project , The Where: Constructing an effective writing environment , The When: Setting realistic timeframes for your research , and The Who: Finding key sources in the existing literature . In this article, we will explore the fifth, and final, W of academic writing, The Why: Explaining the significance of your research.

Q1: When considering the significance of your research, what is the general contribution you make?

According to the Unite for Sight online module titled “ The Importance of Research ”:

“The purpose of research is to inform action. Thus, your study should seek to contextualize its findings within the larger body of research. Research must always be of high quality in order to produce knowledge that is applicable outside of the research setting. Furthermore, the results of your study may have implications for policy and future project implementation.”

In response to this TweetChat question, Twitter user @aemidr shared that the “dissemination of the research outcomes” is their contribution. Petra Boynton expressed a contribution of “easy to follow resources other people can use to help improve their health/wellbeing”.

Eric Schmieder said, “In general, I try to expand the application of technology to improve the efficiency of business processes through my research and personal use and development of technology solutions.” While Janet Salmons offered the response, “ I am a metaresearcher , that is, I research emerging qualitative methods & write about them. I hope contribution helps student & experienced researchers try new approaches.”

Despite the different contributions each of these participants noted as the significance of their individual research efforts, there is a significance to each. In addition to the importance stated through the above examples, Leann Zarah offered 7 Reasons Why Research Is Important , as follows:

• A Tool for Building Knowledge and for Facilitating Learning
• Means to Understand Various Issues and Increase Public Awareness
• An Aid to Business Success
• A Way to Prove Lies and to Support Truths
• Means to Find, Gauge, and Seize Opportunities
• A Seed to Love Reading, Writing, Analyzing, and Sharing Valuable Information
• Nourishment and Exercise for the Mind

Q1a: What is the specific significance of your research to yourself or other individuals?

The first of “ 3 Important Things to Consider When Selecting Your Research Topic ”, as written by Stephen Fiedler is to “choose something that interests you”. By doing so, you are more likely to stay motivated and persevere through inevitable challenges.

As mentioned earlier, for Salmons her interests lie in emerging methods and new approaches to research. As Salmons pointed out in the TweetChat, “Conventional methods may not be adequate in a globally-connected world – using online methods expands potential participation.”

For @aemidr, “specific significance of my research is on health and safety from the environment and lifestyle”. In contrast, Schmieder said “my ongoing research allows me to be a better educator, to be more efficient in my own business practices, and to feel comfortable engaging with new technology”.

Regardless of discipline, a personal statement can help identify for yourself and others your suitability for specific research. Some things to include in the statement are:

• Your reasons for choosing your topic of research
• The aspects of your topic of research that interest you most
• Any work experience, placement or voluntary work you have undertaken, particularly if it is relevant to your subject. Include the skills and abilities you have gained from these activities
• How your choice of research fits in with your future career plans

Q2: Why is it important to communicate the value of your research?

According to Salmons, “If you research and no one knows about it or can use what you discover, it is just an intellectual exercise. If we want the public to support & fund research, we must show why it’s important!” She has written for the SAGE MethodSpace blog on the subject Write with Purpose, Publish for Impact building a collection of articles from both the MethodSpace blog and TAA’s blog, Abstract .

Peter J. Stogios shares with us benefits to both the scientist and the public in his article, “ Why Sharing Your Research with the Public is as Necessary as Doing the Research Itself ”. Unsure where to start? Stogios states, “There are many ways scientists can communicate more directly with the public. These include writing a personal blog, updating their lab’s or personal website to be less technical and more accessible to non-scientists, popular science forums and message boards, and engaging with your institution’s research communication office. Most organizations publish newsletters or create websites showcasing the work being done, and act as intermediaries between the researchers and the media. Scientists can and should interact more with these communicators.”

Schmieder stated during the TweetChat that the importance of communicating the value of your research is “primarily to help others understand why you do what you do, but also for funding purposes, application of your results by others, and increased personal value and validation”.

In her article, “ Explaining Your Research to the Public: Why It Matters, How to Do It! ”, Sharon Page-Medrich conveys the importance, stating “UC Berkeley’s 30,000+ undergraduate and 11,000+ graduate students generate or contribute to diverse research in the natural and physical sciences, social sciences and humanities, and many professional fields. Such research and its applications are fundamental to saving lives, restoring healthy environments, making art and preserving culture, and raising standards of living. Yet the average person-in-the-street may not see the connection between students’ investigations and these larger outcomes.”

Q2a: To whom is it most difficult to explain that value?

Although important, it’s not always easy to share our research efforts with others. Erin Bedford sets the scene as she tells us “ How to (Not) Talk about Your Research ”. “It’s happened to the best of us. First, the question: ‘so, what is your research on?’ Then, the blank stare as you try to explain. And finally, the uninterested but polite nod and smile.”

Schmieder acknowledges that these polite people who care enough to ask, but often are the hardest to explain things to are “family and friends who don’t share the same interests or understanding of the subject matter.” It’s not that they don’t care about the efforts, it’s that the level to which a researcher’s investment and understanding is different from those asking about their work.

When faced with less-than-supportive reactions from friends, Noelle Sterne shares some ways to retain your perspective and friendship in her TAA blog article, “ Friends – How to deal with their negative responses to your academic projects ”.

Q3: What methods have you used to explain your research to others (both inside and outside of your discipline)?

Schmieder stated, “I have done webinars, professional development seminars, blog articles, and online courses” in an effort to communicate research to others. The Edinburg Napier University LibGuides guide to Sharing Your Research includes some of these in their list of resources as well adding considerations of online presence, saving time / online efficiency, copyright, and compliance to the discussion.

Michaela Panter states in her article, “ Sharing Your Findings with a General Audience ”, that “tips and guidelines for conveying your research to a general audience are increasingly widespread, yet scientists remain wary of doing so.” She notes, however, that “effectively sharing your research with a general audience can positively affect funding for your work” and “engaging the general public can further the impact of your research”.

If these are affects you desire, consider CES’s “ Six ways to share your research findings ”, as follows:

• Know your audience and define your goal
• Collaborate with others
• Make a plan
• Embrace plain language writing
• Layer and link, and
• Evaluate your work

Q4: What are some places you can share your research and its significance beyond your writing?

Beyond traditional journal article publication efforts, there are many opportunities to share your research with a larger community. Schmieder listed several options during the TweetChat event, specifically, “conference presentations, social media, blogs, professional networks and organizations, podcasts, and online courses”.

Elsevier’s resource, “ Sharing and promoting your article ” provides advice on sharing your article in the following ten places:

• At a conference
• For classroom teaching purposes
• For grant applications
• With my colleagues
• On a preprint server
• On my personal blog or website
• On my institutional repository
• On a subject repository (or other non-commercial repository)
• On Scholarly Communication Network (SCN), such as Mendeley or Scholar Universe
• Social Media, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter

Nature Publishing Group’s “ tips for promoting your research ” include nine ways to get started:

• Share your work with your social networks
• Update your professional profile
• Utilize research-sharing platforms
• Create a Google Scholar profile – or review and enhance your existing one
• Highlight key and topical points in a blog post
• Make your research outputs shareable and discoverable
• Register for a unique ORCID author identifier
• Encourage readership within your institution

Finally, Sheffield Solutions produced a top ten list of actions you can take to help share and disseminate your work more widely online, as follows:

• Create an ORCID ID
• Upload to Sheffield’s MyPublications system
• Make your work Open Access
• Create a Google Scholar profile
• Join an academic social network
• Connect through Twitter
• Blog about your research
• Upload to Slideshare or ORDA
• Track your research

Q5: How is the significance of your study conveyed in your writing efforts?

Schmieder stated, “Significance is conveyed through the introduction, the structure of the study, and the implications for further research sections of articles”. According to The Writing Center at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “A thesis statement tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion”.

In their online Tips & Tools resource on Thesis Statements , they share the following six questions to ask to help determine if your thesis is strong:

• Do I answer the question?
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose?
• Is my thesis statement specific enough?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test?
• Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering?
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test?

Some journals, such as Elsevier’s Acta Biomaterialia, now require a statement of significance with manuscript submissions. According to the announcement linked above, “these statements will address the novelty aspect and the significance of the work with respect to the existing literature and more generally to the society.” and “by highlighting the scientific merit of your research, these statements will help make your work more visible to our readership.”

Q5a: How does the significance influence the structure of your writing?

According to Jeff Hume-Pratuch in the Academic Coaching & Writing (ACW) article, “ Using APA Style in Academic Writing: Precision and Clarity ”, “The need for precision and clarity of expression is one of the distinguishing marks of academic writing.” As a result, Hume-Pratuch advises that you “choose your words wisely so that they do not come between your idea and the audience.” To do so, he suggests avoiding ambiguous expressions, approximate language, and euphemisms and jargon in your writing.

Schmieder shared in the TweetChat that “the impact of the writing is affected by the target audience for the research and can influence word choice, organization of ideas, and elements included in the narrative”.

Discussing the organization of ideas, Patrick A. Regoniel offers “ Two Tips in Writing the Significance of the Study ” claiming that by referring to the statement of the problem and writing from general to specific contribution, you can “prevent your mind from wandering wildly or aimlessly as you explore the significance of your study”.

Q6: What are some ways you can improve your ability to explain your research to others?

For both Schmieder and Salmons, practice is key. Schmieder suggested, “Practice simplifying the concepts. Focus on why rather than what. Share research in areas where they are active and comfortable”. Salmons added, “answer ‘so what’ and ‘who cares’ questions. Practice creating a sentence. For my study of the collaborative process: ‘Learning to collaborate is important for team success in professional life’ works better than ‘a phenomenological study of instructors’ perceptions’”.

In a guest blog post for Scientific American titled “ Effective Communication, Better Science ”, Mónica I. Feliú-Mójer claimed “to be a successful scientist, you must be an effective communicator.” In support of the goal of being an effective communicator, a list of training opportunities and other resources are included in the article.

Along the same lines, The University of Melbourne shared the following list of resources, workshops, and programs in their online resource on academic writing and communication skills :

• Speaking and Presenting : Resources for presenting your research, using PowerPoint to your advantage, presenting at conferences and helpful videos on presenting effectively
• Research Impact Library Advisory Service  (RILAS): Helps you to determine the impact of your publications and other research outputs for academic promotions and grant applications
• Three Minute Thesis Competition  (3MT): Research communication competition that requires you to deliver a compelling oration on your thesis topic and its significance in just three minutes or less.
• Visualise your Thesis Competition : A dynamic and engaging audio-visual “elevator pitch” (e-Poster) to communicate your research to a broad non-specialist audience in 60 seconds.

As we complete this series exploration of the five W’s of academic writing, we hope that you are adequately prepared to apply them to your own research efforts of defining a research project, constructing an effective writing environment, setting realistic timeframes for your research, finding key sources in the existing literature, and last, but not least, explaining the significance of your research.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

What is the Significance of a Study? Examples and Guide

If you’re reading this post you’re probably wondering: what is the significance of a study?

No matter where you’re at with a piece of research, it is a good idea to think about the potential significance of your work. And sometimes you’ll have to explicitly write a statement of significance in your papers, it addition to it forming part of your thesis.

In this post I’ll cover what the significance of a study is, how to measure it, how to describe it with examples and add in some of my own experiences having now worked in research for over nine years.

If you’re reading this because you’re writing up your first paper, welcome! You may also like my how-to guide for all aspects of writing your first research paper .

Looking for guidance on writing the statement of significance for a paper or thesis? Click here to skip straight to that section.

What is the Significance of a Study?

For research papers, theses or dissertations it’s common to explicitly write a section describing the significance of the study. We’ll come onto what to include in that section in just a moment.

However the significance of a study can actually refer to several different things.

Working our way from the most technical to the broadest, depending on the context, the significance of a study may refer to:

• Within your study: Statistical significance. Can we trust the findings?
• Wider research field: Research significance. How does your study progress the field?
• Commercial / economic significance: Could there be business opportunities for your findings?
• Societal significance: What impact could your study have on the wider society.
• And probably other domain-specific significance!

We’ll shortly cover each of them in turn, including how they’re measured and some examples for each type of study significance.

But first, let’s touch on why you should consider the significance of your research at an early stage.

Why Care About the Significance of a Study?

No matter what is motivating you to carry out your research, it is sensible to think about the potential significance of your work. In the broadest sense this asks, how does the study contribute to the world?

After all, for many people research is only worth doing if it will result in some expected significance. For the vast majority of us our studies won’t be significant enough to reach the evening news, but most studies will help to enhance knowledge in a particular field and when research has at least some significance it makes for a far more fulfilling longterm pursuit.

Furthermore, a lot of us are carrying out research funded by the public. It therefore makes sense to keep an eye on what benefits the work could bring to the wider community.

Often in research you’ll come to a crossroads where you must decide which path of research to pursue. Thinking about the potential benefits of a strand of research can be useful for deciding how to spend your time, money and resources.

It’s worth noting though, that not all research activities have to work towards obvious significance. This is especially true while you’re a PhD student, where you’re figuring out what you enjoy and may simply be looking for an opportunity to learn a new skill.

However, if you’re trying to decide between two potential projects, it can be useful to weigh up the potential significance of each.

Let’s now dive into the different types of significance, starting with research significance.

Research Significance

What is the research significance of a study.

Unless someone specifies which type of significance they’re referring to, it is fair to assume that they want to know about the research significance of your study.

Research significance describes how your work has contributed to the field, how it could inform future studies and progress research.

Where should I write about my study’s significance in my thesis?

Typically you should write about your study’s significance in the Introduction and Conclusions sections of your thesis.

It’s important to mention it in the Introduction so that the relevance of your work and the potential impact and benefits it could have on the field are immediately apparent. Explaining why your work matters will help to engage readers (and examiners!) early on.

It’s also a good idea to detail the study’s significance in your Conclusions section. This adds weight to your findings and helps explain what your study contributes to the field.

On occasion you may also choose to include a brief description in your Abstract.

What is expected when submitting an article to a journal

It is common for journals to request a statement of significance, although this can sometimes be called other things such as:

• Impact statement
• Significance statement
• Advances in knowledge section

Here is one such example of what is expected:

Impact Statement:  An Impact Statement is required for all submissions.  Your impact statement will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, Global Editors, and appropriate Associate Editor. For your manuscript to receive full review, the editors must be convinced that it is an important advance in for the field. The Impact Statement is not a restating of the abstract. It should address the following: Why is the work submitted important to the field? How does the work submitted advance the field? What new information does this work impart to the field? How does this new information impact the field? Experimental Biology and Medicine journal, author guidelines

Typically the impact statement will be shorter than the Abstract, around 150 words.

Defining the study’s significance is helpful not just for the impact statement (if the journal asks for one) but also for building a more compelling argument throughout your submission. For instance, usually you’ll start the Discussion section of a paper by highlighting the research significance of your work. You’ll also include a short description in your Abstract too.

How to describe the research significance of a study, with examples

Whether you’re writing a thesis or a journal article, the approach to writing about the significance of a study are broadly the same.

I’d therefore suggest using the questions above as a starting point to base your statements on.

• Why is the work submitted important to the field?
• How does the work submitted advance the field?
• What new information does this work impart to the field?
• How does this new information impact the field?

Answer those questions and you’ll have a much clearer idea of the research significance of your work.

When describing it, try to clearly state what is novel about your study’s contribution to the literature. Then go on to discuss what impact it could have on progressing the field along with recommendations for future work.

Potential sentence starters

If you’re not sure where to start, why not set a 10 minute timer and have a go at trying to finish a few of the following sentences. Not sure on what to put? Have a chat to your supervisor or lab mates and they may be able to suggest some ideas.

• This study is important to the field because…
• These findings advance the field by…
• Our results highlight the importance of…
• Our discoveries impact the field by…

Now you’ve had a go let’s have a look at some real life examples.

Statement of significance examples

A statement of significance / impact:

Impact Statement This review highlights the historical development of the concept of “ideal protein” that began in the 1950s and 1980s for poultry and swine diets, respectively, and the major conceptual deficiencies of the long-standing concept of “ideal protein” in animal nutrition based on recent advances in amino acid (AA) metabolism and functions. Nutritionists should move beyond the “ideal protein” concept to consider optimum ratios and amounts of all proteinogenic AAs in animal foods and, in the case of carnivores, also taurine. This will help formulate effective low-protein diets for livestock, poultry, and fish, while sustaining global animal production. Because they are not only species of agricultural importance, but also useful models to study the biology and diseases of humans as well as companion (e.g. dogs and cats), zoo, and extinct animals in the world, our work applies to a more general readership than the nutritionists and producers of farm animals. Wu G, Li P. The “ideal protein” concept is not ideal in animal nutrition.  Experimental Biology and Medicine . 2022;247(13):1191-1201. doi: 10.1177/15353702221082658

And the same type of section but this time called “Advances in knowledge”:

Advances in knowledge: According to the MY-RADs criteria, size measurements of focal lesions in MRI are now of relevance for response assessment in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Size changes of 1 or 2 mm are frequently observed due to uncertainty of the measurement only, while the actual focal lesion has not undergone any biological change. Size changes of at least 6 mm or more in  T 1  weighted or  T 2  weighted short tau inversion recovery sequences occur in only 5% or less of cases when the focal lesion has not undergone any biological change. Wennmann M, Grözinger M, Weru V, et al. Test-retest, inter- and intra-rater reproducibility of size measurements of focal bone marrow lesions in MRI in patients with multiple myeloma [published online ahead of print, 2023 Apr 12].  Br J Radiol . 2023;20220745. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20220745

Other examples of research significance

Moving beyond the formal statement of significance, here is how you can describe research significance more broadly within your paper.

Describing research impact in an Abstract of a paper:

Three-dimensional visualisation and quantification of the chondrocyte population within articular cartilage can be achieved across a field of view of several millimetres using laboratory-based micro-CT. The ability to map chondrocytes in 3D opens possibilities for research in fields from skeletal development through to medical device design and treatment of cartilage degeneration. Conclusions section of the abstract in my first paper .

In the Discussion section of a paper:

We report for the utility of a standard laboratory micro-CT scanner to visualise and quantify features of the chondrocyte population within intact articular cartilage in 3D. This study represents a complimentary addition to the growing body of evidence supporting the non-destructive imaging of the constituents of articular cartilage. This offers researchers the opportunity to image chondrocyte distributions in 3D without specialised synchrotron equipment, enabling investigations such as chondrocyte morphology across grades of cartilage damage, 3D strain mapping techniques such as digital volume correlation to evaluate mechanical properties  in situ , and models for 3D finite element analysis  in silico  simulations. This enables an objective quantification of chondrocyte distribution and morphology in three dimensions allowing greater insight for investigations into studies of cartilage development, degeneration and repair. One such application of our method, is as a means to provide a 3D pattern in the cartilage which, when combined with digital volume correlation, could determine 3D strain gradient measurements enabling potential treatment and repair of cartilage degeneration. Moreover, the method proposed here will allow evaluation of cartilage implanted with tissue engineered scaffolds designed to promote chondral repair, providing valuable insight into the induced regenerative process. The Discussion section of the paper is laced with references to research significance.

How is longer term research significance measured?

Looking beyond writing impact statements within papers, sometimes you’ll want to quantify the long term research significance of your work. For instance when applying for jobs.

The most obvious measure of a study’s long term research significance is the number of citations it receives from future publications. The thinking is that a study which receives more citations will have had more research impact, and therefore significance , than a study which received less citations. Citations can give a broad indication of how useful the work is to other researchers but citations aren’t really a good measure of significance.

Bear in mind that us researchers can be lazy folks and sometimes are simply looking to cite the first paper which backs up one of our claims. You can find studies which receive a lot of citations simply for packaging up the obvious in a form which can be easily found and referenced, for instance by having a catchy or optimised title.

Likewise, research activity varies wildly between fields. Therefore a certain study may have had a big impact on a particular field but receive a modest number of citations, simply because not many other researchers are working in the field.

Nevertheless, citations are a standard measure of significance and for better or worse it remains impressive for someone to be the first author of a publication receiving lots of citations.

Other measures for the research significance of a study include:

• Accolades: best paper awards at conferences, thesis awards, “most downloaded” titles for articles, press coverage.
• How much follow-on research the study creates. For instance, part of my PhD involved a novel material initially developed by another PhD student in the lab. That PhD student’s research had unlocked lots of potential new studies and now lots of people in the group were using the same material and developing it for different applications. The initial study may not receive a high number of citations yet long term it generated a lot of research activity.

That covers research significance, but you’ll often want to consider other types of significance for your study and we’ll cover those next.

Statistical Significance

What is the statistical significance of a study.

Often as part of a study you’ll carry out statistical tests and then state the statistical significance of your findings: think p-values eg <0.05. It is useful to describe the outcome of these tests within your report or paper, to give a measure of statistical significance.

Effectively you are trying to show whether the performance of your innovation is actually better than a control or baseline and not just chance. Statistical significance deserves a whole other post so I won’t go into a huge amount of depth here.

Things that make publication in  The BMJ  impossible or unlikely Internal validity/robustness of the study • It had insufficient statistical power, making interpretation difficult; • Lack of statistical power; The British Medical Journal’s guide for authors

Calculating statistical significance isn’t always necessary (or valid) for a study, such as if you have a very small number of samples, but it is a very common requirement for scientific articles.

Writing a journal article? Check the journal’s guide for authors to see what they expect. Generally if you have approximately five or more samples or replicates it makes sense to start thinking about statistical tests. Speak to your supervisor and lab mates for advice, and look at other published articles in your field.

How is statistical significance measured?

Statistical significance is quantified using p-values . Depending on your study design you’ll choose different statistical tests to compute the p-value.

A p-value of 0.05 is a common threshold value. The 0.05 means that there is a 1/20 chance that the difference in performance you’re reporting is just down to random chance.

• p-values above 0.05 mean that the result isn’t statistically significant enough to be trusted: it is too likely that the effect you’re showing is just luck.
• p-values less than or equal to 0.05 mean that the result is statistically significant. In other words: unlikely to just be chance, which is usually considered a good outcome.

Low p-values (eg p = 0.001) mean that it is highly unlikely to be random chance (1/1000 in the case of p = 0.001), therefore more statistically significant.

It is important to clarify that, although low p-values mean that your findings are statistically significant, it doesn’t automatically mean that the result is scientifically important. More on that in the next section on research significance.

How to describe the statistical significance of your study, with examples

In the first paper from my PhD I ran some statistical tests to see if different staining techniques (basically dyes) increased how well you could see cells in cow tissue using micro-CT scanning (a 3D imaging technique).

In your methods section you should mention the statistical tests you conducted and then in the results you will have statements such as:

Between mediums for the two scan protocols C/N [contrast to noise ratio] was greater for EtOH than the PBS in both scanning methods (both  p  < 0.0001) with mean differences of 1.243 (95% CI [confidence interval] 0.709 to 1.778) for absorption contrast and 6.231 (95% CI 5.772 to 6.690) for propagation contrast. … Two repeat propagation scans were taken of samples from the PTA-stained groups. No difference in mean C/N was found with either medium: PBS had a mean difference of 0.058 ( p  = 0.852, 95% CI -0.560 to 0.676), EtOH had a mean difference of 1.183 ( p  = 0.112, 95% CI 0.281 to 2.648). From the Results section of my first paper, available here . Square brackets added for this post to aid clarity.

From this text the reader can infer from the first paragraph that there was a statistically significant difference in using EtOH compared to PBS (really small p-value of <0.0001). However, from the second paragraph, the difference between two repeat scans was statistically insignificant for both PBS (p = 0.852) and EtOH (p = 0.112).

By conducting these statistical tests you have then earned your right to make bold statements, such as these from the discussion section:

Propagation phase-contrast increases the contrast of individual chondrocytes [cartilage cells] compared to using absorption contrast. From the Discussion section from the same paper.

Without statistical tests you have no evidence that your results are not just down to random chance.

Beyond describing the statistical significance of a study in the main body text of your work, you can also show it in your figures.

In figures such as bar charts you’ll often see asterisks to represent statistical significance, and “n.s.” to show differences between groups which are not statistically significant. Here is one such figure, with some subplots, from the same paper:

In this example an asterisk (*) between two bars represents p < 0.05. Two asterisks (**) represents p < 0.001 and three asterisks (***) represents p < 0.0001. This should always be stated in the caption of your figure since the values that each asterisk refers to can vary.

Now that we know if a study is showing statistically and research significance, let’s zoom out a little and consider the potential for commercial significance.

Commercial and Industrial Significance

What are commercial and industrial significance.

Moving beyond significance in relation to academia, your research may also have commercial or economic significance.

Simply put:

• Commercial significance: could the research be commercialised as a product or service? Perhaps the underlying technology described in your study could be licensed to a company or you could even start your own business using it.
• Industrial significance: more widely than just providing a product which could be sold, does your research provide insights which may affect a whole industry? Such as: revealing insights or issues with current practices, performance gains you don’t want to commercialise (e.g. solar power efficiency), providing suggested frameworks or improvements which could be employed industry-wide.

I’ve grouped these two together because there can certainly be overlap. For instance, perhaps your new technology could be commercialised whilst providing wider improvements for the whole industry.

Commercial and industrial significance are not relevant to most studies, so only write about it if you and your supervisor can think of reasonable routes to your work having an impact in these ways.

How are commercial and industrial significance measured?

Unlike statistical and research significances, the measures of commercial and industrial significance can be much more broad.

Here are some potential measures of significance:

Commercial significance:

• How much value does your technology bring to potential customers or users?
• How big is the potential market and how much revenue could the product potentially generate?
• Is the intellectual property protectable? i.e. patentable, or if not could the novelty be protected with trade secrets: if so publish your method with caution!
• If commercialised, could the product bring employment to a geographical area?

Industrial significance:

What impact could it have on the industry? For instance if you’re revealing an issue with something, such as unintended negative consequences of a drug , what does that mean for the industry and the public? This could be:

• Reduced overhead costs
• Better safety
• Faster production methods
• Improved scaleability

How to describe the commercial and industrial significance of a study, with examples

Commercial significance.

If your technology could be commercially viable, and you’ve got an interest in commercialising it yourself, it is likely that you and your university may not want to immediately publish the study in a journal.

You’ll probably want to consider routes to exploiting the technology and your university may have a “technology transfer” team to help researchers navigate the various options.

However, if instead of publishing a paper you’re submitting a thesis or dissertation then it can be useful to highlight the commercial significance of your work. In this instance you could include statements of commercial significance such as:

The measurement technology described in this study provides state of the art performance and could enable the development of low cost devices for aerospace applications. An example of commercial significance I invented for this post

Industrial significance

First, think about the industrial sectors who could benefit from the developments described in your study.

For example if you’re working to improve battery efficiency it is easy to think of how it could lead to performance gains for certain industries, like personal electronics or electric vehicles. In these instances you can describe the industrial significance relatively easily, based off your findings.

For example:

By utilising abundant materials in the described battery fabrication process we provide a framework for battery manufacturers to reduce dependence on rare earth components. Again, an invented example

For other technologies there may well be industrial applications but they are less immediately obvious and applicable. In these scenarios the best you can do is to simply reframe your research significance statement in terms of potential commercial applications in a broad way.

As a reminder: not all studies should address industrial significance, so don’t try to invent applications just for the sake of it!

Societal Significance

What is the societal significance of a study.

The most broad category of significance is the societal impact which could stem from it.

If you’re working in an applied field it may be quite easy to see a route for your research to impact society. For others, the route to societal significance may be less immediate or clear.

Studies can help with big issues facing society such as:

• Medical applications : vaccines, surgical implants, drugs, improving patient safety. For instance this medical device and drug combination I worked on which has a very direct route to societal significance.
• Political significance : Your research may provide insights which could contribute towards potential changes in policy or better understanding of issues facing society.
• Public health : for instance COVID-19 transmission and related decisions.
• Climate change : mitigation such as more efficient solar panels and lower cost battery solutions, and studying required adaptation efforts and technologies. Also, better understanding around related societal issues, for instance this study on the effects of temperature on hate speech.

How is societal significance measured?

Societal significance at a high level can be quantified by the size of its potential societal effect. Just like a lab risk assessment, you can think of it in terms of probability (or how many people it could help) and impact magnitude.

Societal impact = How many people it could help x the magnitude of the impact

Think about how widely applicable the findings are: for instance does it affect only certain people? Then think about the potential size of the impact: what kind of difference could it make to those people?

Between these two metrics you can get a pretty good overview of the potential societal significance of your research study.

How to describe the societal significance of a study, with examples

Quite often the broad societal significance of your study is what you’re setting the scene for in your Introduction. In addition to describing the existing literature, it is common to for the study’s motivation to touch on its wider impact for society.

For those of us working in healthcare research it is usually pretty easy to see a path towards societal significance.

Our CLOUT model has state-of-the-art performance in mortality prediction, surpassing other competitive NN models and a logistic regression model … Our results show that the risk factors identified by the CLOUT model agree with physicians’ assessment, suggesting that CLOUT could be used in real-world clinicalsettings. Our results strongly support that CLOUT may be a useful tool to generate clinical prediction models, especially among hospitalized and critically ill patient populations. Learning Latent Space Representations to Predict Patient Outcomes: Model Development and Validation

In other domains the societal significance may either take longer or be more indirect, meaning that it can be more difficult to describe the societal impact.

Even so, here are some examples I’ve found from studies in non-healthcare domains:

We examined food waste as an initial investigation and test of this methodology, and there is clear potential for the examination of not only other policy texts related to food waste (e.g., liability protection, tax incentives, etc.; Broad Leib et al., 2020) but related to sustainable fishing (Worm et al., 2006) and energy use (Hawken, 2017). These other areas are of obvious relevance to climate change… AI-Based Text Analysis for Evaluating Food Waste Policies

The continued development of state-of-the art NLP tools tailored to climate policy will allow climate researchers and policy makers to extract meaningful information from this growing body of text, to monitor trends over time and administrative units, and to identify potential policy improvements. BERT Classification of Paris Agreement Climate Action Plans

Top Tips For Identifying & Writing About the Significance of Your Study

• Writing a thesis? Describe the significance of your study in the Introduction and the Conclusion .
• Submitting a paper? Read the journal’s guidelines. If you’re writing a statement of significance for a journal, make sure you read any guidance they give for what they’re expecting.
• Take a step back from your research and consider your study’s main contributions.
• Read previously published studies in your field . Use this for inspiration and ideas on how to describe the significance of your own study
• Discuss the study with your supervisor and potential co-authors or collaborators and brainstorm potential types of significance for it.

Now you’ve finished reading up on the significance of a study you may also like my how-to guide for all aspects of writing your first research paper .

Writing an academic journal paper

I hope that you’ve learned something useful from this article about the significance of a study. If you have any more research-related questions let me know, I’m here to help.

To gain access to my content library you can subscribe below for free:

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024

How to Master Data Management in Research

25th April 2024 27th April 2024

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 23rd February 2024

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How to effectively explain why my research is important?

I gave a presentation on my PhD research at university last week, and it was criticised for lacking practical significance. A different comment suggested the presentation was not placed in context. Could somebody provide some advice on how to place research in context and convey its practical significance? How can I effectively assess who/what/where/when will see the benefits of my research?

• 8 <rant>It is annoying that (in general in academia) you are forced to say that your research is significant. So it is... (which is hard to tell before) or you make it up.</rant> –  Piotr Migdal Commented Jul 4, 2013 at 7:17
• 1 @Piotr Migdal: I disagree with you. What I find annoying is two things: that there seems to be little place for fondamental research, and that in response fondamental researchers lie about their motivations to make it look more applied than it is. But one should be able to explain at least why she is interested in the question she worked out for years, and this has to be related to some sort of significance. –  Benoît Kloeckner Commented Jul 4, 2013 at 7:45
• 9 @BenoîtKloeckner Actually, I agree with you. The question "Why do you consider this topic worth investigating?" is crucial (and when it is a PhD student is is usually not yet possible to judge significance, without story-telling). But when it comes to "practical significance"... well, for fundamental research (as opposed to applied, or - engineering) it almost certainly not cure cancer, solve environmental problems and create a quantum computer (and again, Roentgen didn't work on "saving millions of lives with better diagnostics" - he was just working on a potentially fruitful thing). –  Piotr Migdal Commented Jul 4, 2013 at 12:17
• I have similar issue but with my advisor. He always asks me for applications (applied scenarios) for my research ideas. I believe its out there but I do not know what's the name of it. I either come up with application from my little head or the whole paper will be screwed. –  seteropere Commented Jul 5, 2013 at 4:34

3 Answers 3

Ask yourself a number of questions:

• Why am I doing the research?
• What problem am I solving?
• Why should anyone else by interested in this research?
• How can my results help solve someone else's problem?

The first two questions will help you understand what you are doing from your own personal perspective, as well as establishing the context of the work. The latter two will help you establish why someone else would be interested in your work.

In short, ask What? and So what? about your work.

• 3 I think that for many PhD students the answer to the first question is "because my supervisor picked this project for me"... Of course, the real reason is never stated publicly... –  Nick S Commented Oct 20, 2016 at 0:49

Definitely, your advisor is the person who should help you most with this question, so make sure you talk to her.

With this disclaimer, I would like to distinguish two things: the good and the bad way to justify the significance of your research. To be clear, good and bad are personal (but motivated) judgments and are not related with what will please people asking you that question, but with what is sane argument.

Let's start with the bad way:

this is the most important thing and most others are specialization of it: giving false but vaguely plausible reasons to study what you studied, hopping to reach other's expectations,

claiming applications that are often claimed in the area, or vaguely related but at best very long term applications (e.g. "my study of cell migration is crucial for understanding metastases, so it will help cure Cancer"; this works with any fondamental research in cell biology),

name-dropping (e.g. "Nobel Prize Trucmuche has studied this 20 years ago, so surely that must be interesting"),

generalization for the sake of generalization -applies maybe mostly to maths, but applies a lot there- (e.g. "Finsler geometry is a generalization of Riemannian geometry, so surely it is interesting").

lacking any clue (e.g. "My advisor told me to do it, so I did"). If you don't know why you are doing what you do, at some point you should find out or change subject.

Note that 1. is very, very often seen in grant application, and it might be impossible in some cases to apply successfully without resorting to this kind of argument. This does not make it a good argument; we should be as thorough in assessing the relevance of our research than we are in assessing our research result.

Now the good way:

this is the most important thing and all others are specialization of it: explaining the reasons why you where interested in the project, why you find it fascinating or interesting,

giving perspective applications that sincerely did motivate your work , either from start or that you realized during the research process. This may not exist, which is not (rather, should not be) an issue, at least in fondamental research,

placing your research in context: how it relates to what has been done before, to which previously raised question it answers, which previously held beliefs it contradicts,

explaining how it generalizes previous work to meaningful, existing examples (e.g. "My theorem on Finsler geometry explains such and such features of Hilbert geometry"),

explain the perspectives opened by your work (e.g. "if we believe this principle applies even more generally, then we can hope to use my methods to understand such and such important phenomenons"),

explain why it is fun (e.g. "look at this dancing corn starch: weird, huh?")

Without knowing your actual field of research, here are some general pointers (by no means, is this an exhaustive list):

Research and find other papers based on or is similar to your work, this will give a bit of a basis for the practical context.

From reading of papers, try and define a gap where your research may help with.

Ask your supervisor/advisor for advice in this, employ their help in defining the context.

• 1 "From reading of papers, try and define a gap where your research may help with." This seems to go backward: you do research because you noticed a gap in what we know, not the other way round. –  Benoît Kloeckner Commented Jul 4, 2013 at 7:46
• Doesn't hurt to find further evidence for this, particularly in a practical sense. –  user7130 Commented Jul 4, 2013 at 7:59
• 3 @Benoit: Maybe in an ideal sense, but I think many PhD students start marching down their research path because their advisor has noticed that gap; I don't know how many students find that gap on their own. That's why I like the third suggestion here the most. –  J.R. Commented Jul 4, 2013 at 10:37
• 1 @J.R.: sure, but then the advisor can point out the gap, and at some point the graduate student must understand the motivation by herself. –  Benoît Kloeckner Commented Jul 4, 2013 at 14:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd ..

• Featured on Meta
• We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...

Hot Network Questions

• What real-world cultures inspired the various human name examples?
• How to prepare stack pointer for bare metal Rust?
• Filling the areas enclosed by two curves and calculate them
• Why did Nigel Farage choose Clacton as the constituency to campaign in?
• Subscripts in fractions on an exponent look terrible
• ForeignFunctionLoad / RawMemoryAllocate and c-struct that includes an array
• Are all subcorrespondences of the weak Pareto correspondence monotonic at the unrestricted domain of linear orders?
• Single-qubit quantum channel from the CNOT gate
• Simulate slow disks in KVM to see effect of LVM cache in test setup
• Why does Google Maps only rotate 90º but not 180º when I rotate my iPhone?
• Does closedness of the image of unit sphere imply the closed range of the operator
• Will the 3D effect change shockwave angle/strength?
• What caused the builder to change plans midstream on this 1905 library in New England?
• If Biden steps back or is replaced, until when must he do it?
• 11 trees in 6 rows with 4 trees in each row
• Everything has a tiny nuclear reactor in it. How much of a concern are illegal nuclear bombs?
• Why is there not a test for diagonalizability of a matrix
• Why not build smaller Ringworlds?
• Eye rig not rotating properly
• It was the second, but we were told it was the fifth
• Mac Mini G4 not reinitialized
• Decorate equations with arrows using TikZ
• Was I wrongfully denied boarding for a flight where the airliner lands to a gate that doesn't directly connect to the international part the airport?
• Why is QR considered a problem for disc rotor alignment and not rim brake alignment?

10 Reasons Why Research is Important

No matter what career field you’re in or how high up you are, there’s always more to learn . The same applies to your personal life. No matter how many experiences you have or how diverse your social circle, there are things you don’t know. Research unlocks the unknowns, lets you explore the world from different perspectives, and fuels a deeper understanding. In some areas, research is an essential part of success. In others, it may not be absolutely necessary, but it has many benefits. Here are ten reasons why research is important:

#1. Research expands your knowledge base

The most obvious reason to do research is that you’ll learn more. There’s always more to learn about a topic, even if you are already well-versed in it. If you aren’t, research allows you to build on any personal experience you have with the subject. The process of research opens up new opportunities for learning and growth.

#2. Research gives you the latest information

Research encourages you to find the most recent information available . In certain fields, especially scientific ones, there’s always new information and discoveries being made. Staying updated prevents you from falling behind and giving info that’s inaccurate or doesn’t paint the whole picture. With the latest info, you’ll be better equipped to talk about a subject and build on ideas.

#3. Research helps you know what you’re up against

In business, you’ll have competition. Researching your competitors and what they’re up to helps you formulate your plans and strategies. You can figure out what sets you apart. In other types of research, like medicine, your research might identify diseases, classify symptoms, and come up with ways to tackle them. Even if your “enemy” isn’t an actual person or competitor, there’s always some kind of antagonist force or problem that research can help you deal with.

#4. Research builds your credibility

People will take what you have to say more seriously when they can tell you’re informed. Doing research gives you a solid foundation on which you can build your ideas and opinions. You can speak with confidence about what you know is accurate. When you’ve done the research, it’s much harder for someone to poke holes in what you’re saying. Your research should be focused on the best sources. If your “research” consists of opinions from non-experts, you won’t be very credible. When your research is good, though, people are more likely to pay attention.

#5. Research helps you narrow your scope

When you’re circling a topic for the first time, you might not be exactly sure where to start. Most of the time, the amount of work ahead of you is overwhelming. Whether you’re writing a paper or formulating a business plan, it’s important to narrow the scope at some point. Research helps you identify the most unique and/or important themes. You can choose the themes that fit best with the project and its goals.

#6. Research teaches you better discernment

Doing a lot of research helps you sift through low-quality and high-quality information. The more research you do on a topic, the better you’ll get at discerning what’s accurate and what’s not. You’ll also get better at discerning the gray areas where information may be technically correct but used to draw questionable conclusions.

#7. Research introduces you to new ideas

You may already have opinions and ideas about a topic when you start researching. The more you research, the more viewpoints you’ll come across. This encourages you to entertain new ideas and perhaps take a closer look at yours. You might change your mind about something or, at least, figure out how to position your ideas as the best ones.

#8. Research helps with problem-solving

Whether it’s a personal or professional problem, it helps to look outside yourself for help. Depending on what the issue is, your research can focus on what others have done before. You might just need more information, so you can make an informed plan of attack and an informed decision. When you know you’ve collected good information, you’ll feel much more confident in your solution.

#9. Research helps you reach people

Research is used to help raise awareness of issues like climate change , racial discrimination, gender inequality , and more. Without hard facts, it’s very difficult to prove that climate change is getting worse or that gender inequality isn’t progressing as quickly as it should. The public needs to know what the facts are, so they have a clear idea of what “getting worse” or “not progressing” actually means. Research also entails going beyond the raw data and sharing real-life stories that have a more personal impact on people.

#10. Research encourages curiosity

Having curiosity and a love of learning take you far in life. Research opens you up to different opinions and new ideas. It also builds discerning and analytical skills. The research process rewards curiosity. When you’re committed to learning, you’re always in a place of growth. Curiosity is also good for your health. Studies show curiosity is associated with higher levels of positivity, better satisfaction with life, and lower anxiety.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty. "10 Reasons Why Research is Important." The Important Site, 2020-04-18, available at: https://theimportantsite.com/10-reasons-why-research-is-important/ .

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.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Your environment. your health., what is ethics in research & why is it important, by david b. resnik, j.d., ph.d..

December 23, 2020

The ideas and opinions expressed in this essay are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the NIH, NIEHS, or US government.

When most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of professional conduct like the Hippocratic Oath ("First of all, do no harm"), a religious creed like the Ten Commandments ("Thou Shalt not kill..."), or a wise aphorisms like the sayings of Confucius. This is the most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Although most people acquire their sense of right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs throughout life and human beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might be tempted to regard them as simple commonsense. On the other hand, if morality were nothing more than commonsense, then why are there so many ethical disputes and issues in our society?

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Alternative test methods are methods that replace, reduce, or refine animal use in research and testing

Learn more about Environmental science Basics

One plausible explanation of these disagreements is that all people recognize some common ethical norms but interpret, apply, and balance them in different ways in light of their own values and life experiences. For example, two people could agree that murder is wrong but disagree about the morality of abortion because they have different understandings of what it means to be a human being.

Most societies also have legal rules that govern behavior, but ethical norms tend to be broader and more informal than laws. Although most societies use laws to enforce widely accepted moral standards and ethical and legal rules use similar concepts, ethics and law are not the same. An action may be legal but unethical or illegal but ethical. We can also use ethical concepts and principles to criticize, evaluate, propose, or interpret laws. Indeed, in the last century, many social reformers have urged citizens to disobey laws they regarded as immoral or unjust laws. Peaceful civil disobedience is an ethical way of protesting laws or expressing political viewpoints.

Another way of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study standards of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology, or sociology. For example, a "medical ethicist" is someone who studies ethical standards in medicine. One may also define ethics as a method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for analyzing complex problems and issues. For instance, in considering a complex issue like global warming , one may take an economic, ecological, political, or ethical perspective on the problem. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could examine the ethical values and principles at stake.

See ethics in practice at NIEHS

Read latest updates in our monthly  Global Environmental Health Newsletter

Many different disciplines, institutions , and professions have standards for behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These standards also help members of the discipline to coordinate their actions or activities and to establish the public's trust of the discipline. For instance, ethical standards govern conduct in medicine, law, engineering, and business. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative activities. There is even a specialized discipline, research ethics, which studies these norms. See Glossary of Commonly Used Terms in Research Ethics and Research Ethics Timeline .

There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. First, norms promote the aims of research , such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating , falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize error.

Join an NIEHS Study

See how we put research Ethics to practice.

Visit Joinastudy.niehs.nih.gov to see the various studies NIEHS perform.

Second, since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work , such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such as guidelines for authorship , copyright and patenting policies , data sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to protect intellectual property interests while encouraging collaboration. Most researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed prematurely.

Third, many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public . For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, the human subjects protections, and animal care and use are necessary in order to make sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held accountable to the public.

Fourth, ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research. People are more likely to fund a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of research.

Finally, many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social values , such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public health and safety. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm human and animal subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological safety may jeopardize his health and safety or the health and safety of staff and students.

Codes and Policies for Research Ethics

Given the importance of ethics for the conduct of research, it should come as no surprise that many different professional associations, government agencies, and universities have adopted specific codes, rules, and policies relating to research ethics. Many government agencies have ethics rules for funded researchers.

• National Institutes of Health (NIH)
• National Science Foundation (NSF)
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
• Singapore Statement on Research Integrity
• American Chemical Society, The Chemist Professional’s Code of Conduct
• Code of Ethics (American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science)
• American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
• Statement on Professional Ethics (American Association of University Professors)
• Nuremberg Code
• World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki

Ethical Principles

The following is a rough and general summary of some ethical principles that various codes address*:

Strive for honesty in all scientific communications. Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status. Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data. Do not deceive colleagues, research sponsors, or the public.

Objectivity

Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required. Avoid or minimize bias or self-deception. Disclose personal or financial interests that may affect research.

Keep your promises and agreements; act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and action.

Carefulness

Avoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers. Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

Share data, results, ideas, tools, resources. Be open to criticism and new ideas.

Transparency

Disclose methods, materials, assumptions, analyses, and other information needed to evaluate your research.

Accountability

Take responsibility for your part in research and be prepared to give an account (i.e. an explanation or justification) of what you did on a research project and why.

Intellectual Property

Honor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property. Do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission. Give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research. Never plagiarize.

Confidentiality

Protect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records.

Responsible Publication

Publish in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.

Responsible Mentoring

Help to educate, mentor, and advise students. Promote their welfare and allow them to make their own decisions.

Respect for Colleagues

Respect your colleagues and treat them fairly.

Social Responsibility

Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public education, and advocacy.

Non-Discrimination

Avoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors not related to scientific competence and integrity.

Maintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole.

Know and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.

Animal Care

Show proper respect and care for animals when using them in research. Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.

Human Subjects protection

When conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits; respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy; take special precautions with vulnerable populations; and strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly.

* Adapted from Shamoo A and Resnik D. 2015. Responsible Conduct of Research, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press).

Ethical Decision Making in Research

Although codes, policies, and principles are very important and useful, like any set of rules, they do not cover every situation, they often conflict, and they require interpretation. It is therefore important for researchers to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply various research rules and how to make decisions and act ethically in various situations. The vast majority of decisions involve the straightforward application of ethical rules. For example, consider the following case:

The research protocol for a study of a drug on hypertension requires the administration of the drug at different doses to 50 laboratory mice, with chemical and behavioral tests to determine toxic effects. Tom has almost finished the experiment for Dr. Q. He has only 5 mice left to test. However, he really wants to finish his work in time to go to Florida on spring break with his friends, who are leaving tonight. He has injected the drug in all 50 mice but has not completed all of the tests. He therefore decides to extrapolate from the 45 completed results to produce the 5 additional results.

Many different research ethics policies would hold that Tom has acted unethically by fabricating data. If this study were sponsored by a federal agency, such as the NIH, his actions would constitute a form of research misconduct , which the government defines as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (or FFP). Actions that nearly all researchers classify as unethical are viewed as misconduct. It is important to remember, however, that misconduct occurs only when researchers intend to deceive : honest errors related to sloppiness, poor record keeping, miscalculations, bias, self-deception, and even negligence do not constitute misconduct. Also, reasonable disagreements about research methods, procedures, and interpretations do not constitute research misconduct. Consider the following case:

Dr. T has just discovered a mathematical error in his paper that has been accepted for publication in a journal. The error does not affect the overall results of his research, but it is potentially misleading. The journal has just gone to press, so it is too late to catch the error before it appears in print. In order to avoid embarrassment, Dr. T decides to ignore the error.

Dr. T's error is not misconduct nor is his decision to take no action to correct the error. Most researchers, as well as many different policies and codes would say that Dr. T should tell the journal (and any coauthors) about the error and consider publishing a correction or errata. Failing to publish a correction would be unethical because it would violate norms relating to honesty and objectivity in research.

There are many other activities that the government does not define as "misconduct" but which are still regarded by most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to as " other deviations " from acceptable research practices and include:

• Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors
• Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors
• Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you are the sole inventor
• Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper
• Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for a journal
• Using data, ideas, or methods you learn about while reviewing a grant or a papers without permission
• Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper
• Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your research
• Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving peers adequate information to review your work
• Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior work
• Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project will make a significant contribution to the field
• Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita
• Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it the fastest
• Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students
• Failing to keep good research records
• Failing to maintain research data for a reasonable period of time
• Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's submission
• Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors
• Using a racist epithet in the laboratory
• Making significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your institution's Animal Care and Use Committee or Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research without telling the committee or the board
• Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment
• Wasting animals in research
• Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's biosafety rules
• Sabotaging someone's work
• Stealing supplies, books, or data
• Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out
• Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs
• Owning over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your research and not disclosing this financial interest
• Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to obtain economic benefits

These actions would be regarded as unethical by most scientists and some might even be illegal in some cases. Most of these would also violate different professional ethics codes or institutional policies. However, they do not fall into the narrow category of actions that the government classifies as research misconduct. Indeed, there has been considerable debate about the definition of "research misconduct" and many researchers and policy makers are not satisfied with the government's narrow definition that focuses on FFP. However, given the huge list of potential offenses that might fall into the category "other serious deviations," and the practical problems with defining and policing these other deviations, it is understandable why government officials have chosen to limit their focus.

Finally, situations frequently arise in research in which different people disagree about the proper course of action and there is no broad consensus about what should be done. In these situations, there may be good arguments on both sides of the issue and different ethical principles may conflict. These situations create difficult decisions for research known as ethical or moral dilemmas . Consider the following case:

Dr. Wexford is the principal investigator of a large, epidemiological study on the health of 10,000 agricultural workers. She has an impressive dataset that includes information on demographics, environmental exposures, diet, genetics, and various disease outcomes such as cancer, Parkinson’s disease (PD), and ALS. She has just published a paper on the relationship between pesticide exposure and PD in a prestigious journal. She is planning to publish many other papers from her dataset. She receives a request from another research team that wants access to her complete dataset. They are interested in examining the relationship between pesticide exposures and skin cancer. Dr. Wexford was planning to conduct a study on this topic.

Dr. Wexford faces a difficult choice. On the one hand, the ethical norm of openness obliges her to share data with the other research team. Her funding agency may also have rules that obligate her to share data. On the other hand, if she shares data with the other team, they may publish results that she was planning to publish, thus depriving her (and her team) of recognition and priority. It seems that there are good arguments on both sides of this issue and Dr. Wexford needs to take some time to think about what she should do. One possible option is to share data, provided that the investigators sign a data use agreement. The agreement could define allowable uses of the data, publication plans, authorship, etc. Another option would be to offer to collaborate with the researchers.

The following are some step that researchers, such as Dr. Wexford, can take to deal with ethical dilemmas in research:

What is the problem or issue?

It is always important to get a clear statement of the problem. In this case, the issue is whether to share information with the other research team.

What is the relevant information?

Many bad decisions are made as a result of poor information. To know what to do, Dr. Wexford needs to have more information concerning such matters as university or funding agency or journal policies that may apply to this situation, the team's intellectual property interests, the possibility of negotiating some kind of agreement with the other team, whether the other team also has some information it is willing to share, the impact of the potential publications, etc.

What are the different options?

People may fail to see different options due to a limited imagination, bias, ignorance, or fear. In this case, there may be other choices besides 'share' or 'don't share,' such as 'negotiate an agreement' or 'offer to collaborate with the researchers.'

How do ethical codes or policies as well as legal rules apply to these different options?

The university or funding agency may have policies on data management that apply to this case. Broader ethical rules, such as openness and respect for credit and intellectual property, may also apply to this case. Laws relating to intellectual property may be relevant.

Are there any people who can offer ethical advice?

It may be useful to seek advice from a colleague, a senior researcher, your department chair, an ethics or compliance officer, or anyone else you can trust. In the case, Dr. Wexford might want to talk to her supervisor and research team before making a decision.

After considering these questions, a person facing an ethical dilemma may decide to ask more questions, gather more information, explore different options, or consider other ethical rules. However, at some point he or she will have to make a decision and then take action. Ideally, a person who makes a decision in an ethical dilemma should be able to justify his or her decision to himself or herself, as well as colleagues, administrators, and other people who might be affected by the decision. He or she should be able to articulate reasons for his or her conduct and should consider the following questions in order to explain how he or she arrived at his or her decision:

• Which choice will probably have the best overall consequences for science and society?
• Which choice could stand up to further publicity and scrutiny?
• Which choice could you not live with?
• Think of the wisest person you know. What would he or she do in this situation?
• Which choice would be the most just, fair, or responsible?

After considering all of these questions, one still might find it difficult to decide what to do. If this is the case, then it may be appropriate to consider others ways of making the decision, such as going with a gut feeling or intuition, seeking guidance through prayer or meditation, or even flipping a coin. Endorsing these methods in this context need not imply that ethical decisions are irrational, however. The main point is that human reasoning plays a pivotal role in ethical decision-making but there are limits to its ability to solve all ethical dilemmas in a finite amount of time.

Promoting Ethical Conduct in Science

Do U.S. research institutions meet or exceed federal mandates for instruction in responsible conduct of research? A national survey

 Read about U.S. research instutuins follow federal manadates for ethics in research 

Learn more about NIEHS Research

Most academic institutions in the US require undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate students to have some education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) . The NIH and NSF have both mandated training in research ethics for students and trainees. Many academic institutions outside of the US have also developed educational curricula in research ethics

Those of you who are taking or have taken courses in research ethics may be wondering why you are required to have education in research ethics. You may believe that you are highly ethical and know the difference between right and wrong. You would never fabricate or falsify data or plagiarize. Indeed, you also may believe that most of your colleagues are highly ethical and that there is no ethics problem in research..

If you feel this way, relax. No one is accusing you of acting unethically. Indeed, the evidence produced so far shows that misconduct is a very rare occurrence in research, although there is considerable variation among various estimates. The rate of misconduct has been estimated to be as low as 0.01% of researchers per year (based on confirmed cases of misconduct in federally funded research) to as high as 1% of researchers per year (based on self-reports of misconduct on anonymous surveys). See Shamoo and Resnik (2015), cited above.

Clearly, it would be useful to have more data on this topic, but so far there is no evidence that science has become ethically corrupt, despite some highly publicized scandals. Even if misconduct is only a rare occurrence, it can still have a tremendous impact on science and society because it can compromise the integrity of research, erode the public’s trust in science, and waste time and resources. Will education in research ethics help reduce the rate of misconduct in science? It is too early to tell. The answer to this question depends, in part, on how one understands the causes of misconduct. There are two main theories about why researchers commit misconduct. According to the "bad apple" theory, most scientists are highly ethical. Only researchers who are morally corrupt, economically desperate, or psychologically disturbed commit misconduct. Moreover, only a fool would commit misconduct because science's peer review system and self-correcting mechanisms will eventually catch those who try to cheat the system. In any case, a course in research ethics will have little impact on "bad apples," one might argue.

According to the "stressful" or "imperfect" environment theory, misconduct occurs because various institutional pressures, incentives, and constraints encourage people to commit misconduct, such as pressures to publish or obtain grants or contracts, career ambitions, the pursuit of profit or fame, poor supervision of students and trainees, and poor oversight of researchers (see Shamoo and Resnik 2015). Moreover, defenders of the stressful environment theory point out that science's peer review system is far from perfect and that it is relatively easy to cheat the system. Erroneous or fraudulent research often enters the public record without being detected for years. Misconduct probably results from environmental and individual causes, i.e. when people who are morally weak, ignorant, or insensitive are placed in stressful or imperfect environments. In any case, a course in research ethics can be useful in helping to prevent deviations from norms even if it does not prevent misconduct. Education in research ethics is can help people get a better understanding of ethical standards, policies, and issues and improve ethical judgment and decision making. Many of the deviations that occur in research may occur because researchers simply do not know or have never thought seriously about some of the ethical norms of research. For example, some unethical authorship practices probably reflect traditions and practices that have not been questioned seriously until recently. If the director of a lab is named as an author on every paper that comes from his lab, even if he does not make a significant contribution, what could be wrong with that? That's just the way it's done, one might argue. Another example where there may be some ignorance or mistaken traditions is conflicts of interest in research. A researcher may think that a "normal" or "traditional" financial relationship, such as accepting stock or a consulting fee from a drug company that sponsors her research, raises no serious ethical issues. Or perhaps a university administrator sees no ethical problem in taking a large gift with strings attached from a pharmaceutical company. Maybe a physician thinks that it is perfectly appropriate to receive a $300 finder’s fee for referring patients into a clinical trial.

If "deviations" from ethical conduct occur in research as a result of ignorance or a failure to reflect critically on problematic traditions, then a course in research ethics may help reduce the rate of serious deviations by improving the researcher's understanding of ethics and by sensitizing him or her to the issues.

Finally, education in research ethics should be able to help researchers grapple with the ethical dilemmas they are likely to encounter by introducing them to important concepts, tools, principles, and methods that can be useful in resolving these dilemmas. Scientists must deal with a number of different controversial topics, such as human embryonic stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, and research involving animal or human subjects, which require ethical reflection and deliberation.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Learning in Research: Importance of Building Research Skills for Students

Learning in research is a fundamental aspect of academic progress, and it plays a vital role in the success of researchers. Science and technology are developing at an unprecedented rate, with new discoveries and advancements being made every day. This makes it crucial for researchers to continuously enhance their research skills and stay ahead of the curve. Lifelong learning , which refers to the ongoing pursuit of knowledge throughout one’s career, is indispensable to thrive in your field. This article explores the importance of learning in research and outlines the benefits of building research skills for students with tailormade courses for researchers .  

Table of Contents

Learning in research and academic progress  

Research is not for the faint of heart. More so when you’re starting out. PhD students need to take care of multiple things in limited time – conducting research, completing their course work, attending classes, and building your network. You also need to keep up with the new research methodologies, technologies, and paradigms as they develop. In this scenario, it’s easy to doubt yourself and wonder if you even belong on academia. Focusing on continued learning in research is one way to deal with these imposter feelings and continue on your path to success. There are many advantages in adding to and polishing research skills for students . We’ve listed the benefits of lifelong learning in research that not only help you build a solid foundation of knowledge but also enables you to explore new avenues and contribute to your specific fields of study.   

Benefits of lifelong learning in research  

Continuously honing research skills offers numerous benefits to researchers, particularly students who are embarking on their academic journeys. Here are some key advantages to restoring your focus on learning in research :  

• Professional growth: Researchers who fail to keep up with the latest trends risk being left behind. Learning in research fosters personal and professional growth, empowering researchers to expand their knowledge base and develop their expertise. By acquiring new research skills for students and researchers, you can undertake more complex projects, produce high-quality work, and gain recognition in your field. Lifelong learning ensures you stay ahead of the race in a highly competitive environment, which allows you to secure better professional opportunities to advance your career.
• Enhanced problem-solving: Research often involves tackling complex problems. Learning in research helps to expand your horizons, explore new areas of interest, and broaden your knowledge base so you can develop pioneering solutions for scientific problems. Lifelong learning also enhances critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, enabling researchers to approach challenges from multiple perspectives. By taking up courses for researchers and acquiring a diverse set of critical skills, researchers can develop innovative solutions to complex problems.

• Adaptability: In a continually evolving research landscape, being adaptable is crucial for success. Continual learning in research equips you to navigate challenges, embrace change, and quickly adapt to new methodologies, technologies, and trends to ensure your research remains relevant and impactful. Moreover, being open to exploring a broader range of resources and tools allows you to widen your options, adopt the best suited options for your research, and keep you moving ahead in your career.
• Networking opportunities: Lifelong learning also creates opportunities for researchers to connect and collaborate with peers, experts, and mentors. Through workshops, conferences, and online platforms, you get to exchange ideas, gain valuable insights, and forge connections with peers around the world. Being seen as an expert, who focuses on learning in research , makes you more sought after for research collaborations than those who lag behind in their understanding of current developments
• Confidence in knowledge : Lifelong learning keeps you aware of the latest developments, allowing you to apply new online tools, innovative technologies, and varied approaches to your own work. Those who keep learning in research are typically more confident about their work and are able to pursue topics even outside their area of expertise. Not only does this give you a sense of personal fulfilment, it increases your chances of faster career growth and advancement.

How to continue learning in research  

Researcher.Life’s R Upskill , with more than 120 courses for researchers , is a great place to start your journey of lifelong learning . You can choose from top researcher skill courses and enhance your expertise in scientific writing, data analysis, project management, peer review, and scientific communication among others. Helmed by industry and academic experts, these courses are designed to help researchers improve existing skills and develop new capabilities that will help them advance in their careers. With simple explanations of complex processes, bite-sized modules, and flexible learning options, the platform allows researchers to learn at their own pace, from anywhere in the world. So commit to lifelong learning – sign up for Researcher.Life now to get free access to 20 handpicked courses for researchers!

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Researcher.Life All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month !    

Related Posts

What is a Case Study in Research? Definition, Methods, and Examples

Take Top AI Tools for Researchers for a Spin with the Editage All Access 7-Day Pass!

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

Research: Using AI at Work Makes Us Lonelier and Less Healthy

• David De Cremer
• Joel Koopman

Employees who use AI as a core part of their jobs report feeling more isolated, drinking more, and sleeping less than employees who don’t.

The promise of AI is alluring — optimized productivity, lightning-fast data analysis, and freedom from mundane tasks — and both companies and workers alike are fascinated (and more than a little dumbfounded) by how these tools allow them to do more and better work faster than ever before. Yet in fervor to keep pace with competitors and reap the efficiency gains associated with deploying AI, many organizations have lost sight of their most important asset: the humans whose jobs are being fragmented into tasks that are increasingly becoming automated. Across four studies, employees who use it as a core part of their jobs reported feeling lonelier, drinking more, and suffering from insomnia more than employees who don’t.

Imagine this: Jia, a marketing analyst, arrives at work, logs into her computer, and is greeted by an AI assistant that has already sorted through her emails, prioritized her tasks for the day, and generated first drafts of reports that used to take hours to write. Jia (like everyone who has spent time working with these tools) marvels at how much time she can save by using AI. Inspired by the efficiency-enhancing effects of AI, Jia feels that she can be so much more productive than before. As a result, she gets focused on completing as many tasks as possible in conjunction with her AI assistant.

• David De Cremer is a professor of management and technology at Northeastern University and the Dunton Family Dean of its D’Amore-McKim School of Business. His website is daviddecremer.com .
• JK Joel Koopman is the TJ Barlow Professor of Business Administration at the Mays Business School of Texas A&M University. His research interests include prosocial behavior, organizational justice, motivational processes, and research methodology. He has won multiple awards from Academy of Management’s HR Division (Early Career Achievement Award and David P. Lepak Service Award) along with the 2022 SIOP Distinguished Early Career Contributions award, and currently serves on the Leadership Committee for the HR Division of the Academy of Management .

Partner Center

The secret digital behaviors of Gen Z

Google studied Gen Z's actions online. What they found is alarming.

Gen Z has come of age swimming in a gloppy stew of digital content. Every day they navigate memes, photos, social media, chats with their friends, flashes of video, influencers influencing , news articles from a zillion places across the net. How do America's teens and youngest adults sort through all that digitized gunk to determine what's important, or useful, or true?

A lot of folks would love to know. Social networks want young users . Media outlets want subscribers . Politicians want votes . Professors want to know why their students won't read books . Everyone, it seems, has a stake in understanding Kids These Days.

Over the past couple of years, researchers at Jigsaw, a Google subsidiary that focuses on online politics and polarization, have been studying how Gen Zers digest and metabolize what they see online. The researchers were hoping that their work would provide one of the first in-depth, ethnographic studies of Gen Z's "information literacy." But the minute they started, their most fundamental assumption about the nature of digital information came crashing down.

"Within a week of actual research, we just threw out the term information literacy ," says Yasmin Green, Jigsaw's CEO. Gen Zers, it turns out, are "not on a linear journey to evaluate the veracity of anything." Instead, they're engaged in what the researchers call "information sensibility" — a "socially informed" practice that relies on "folk heuristics of credibility." In other words, Gen Zers know the difference between rock-solid news and AI-generated memes. They just don't care .

Jigsaw's findings offer a revealing glimpse into the digital mindset of Gen Z . Where older generations are out there struggling to fact-check information and cite sources, Gen Zers don't even bother. They just read the headlines and then speed-scroll to the comments, to see what everyone else says. They're outsourcing the determination of truth and importance to like-minded, trusted influencers. And if an article's too long, they just skip it. They don't want to see stuff that might force them to think too hard, or that upsets them emotionally. If they have a goal, Jigsaw found, it's to learn what they need to know to remain cool and conversant in their chosen social groups.

Related stories

"The old guard is like: 'Yeah, but you have to care ultimately about the truth,'" Green says. "The Gen Z take is: 'You can tell me your truth and what you think is important.'" What establishes the relevance of a claim isn't some established notion of authority. It's the social signals they get from their peers.

Jigsaw's research doesn't purport to be statistically significant. They didn't poll a large group of Gen Z users about their digital habits. Instead, they relied on intense interviews with a handful of 13- to 24-year-olds from a representative range of demographics, classes, and genders. They were doing what anthropologists do in the field — looking for qualitative depth rather than quantitative data.

What they heard surprised them. Young folks basically say they see no difference between going online for news versus for social interaction. Gen Zers approach most of their digital experience in what the researchers call "timepass" mode, just looking to not be bored. If they want to answer a question or learn something new, they might turn to a search engine, but they're acquiring new information mainly via their social feeds, which are algorithmically pruned to reflect what they care about and who they trust. In short, they've created their own filters to process an onslaught of digitized information. Only the important stuff shows up, and if something shows up, it must be important.

They don't read long articles. And they don't trust anything with ads, or paywalls, or pop-ups asking for donations or subscriptions. "If you're making clickbait, you have zero faith in your content," one subject told the researchers. "And news sources — even CNN and The New York Times — do clickbait. I throw those articles away immediately."

For Gen Z, the online world resembles the stratified, cliquish lunchroom of a 1980s teen movie. Instead of listening to stuffy old teachers, like CNN and the Times, they take their cues from online influencers — the queen bees and quarterback bros at the top of the social hierarchy. The influencers' personal experience makes them authentic, and they speak Gen Z's language.

"Gen Zers will have a favorite influencer or set of influencers who they essentially outsource their trust to, and then they're incredibly loyal to everything that influencer is saying," says Beth Goldberg, Jigsaw's head of research. "It becomes extremely costly to fall out of that influencer's group, because they're getting all their information from them."

None of this means that Gen Z is any less intelligent or diligent than other generations. They know how to research something more deeply. It's just that, usually, they don't wanna. "They tap into those critical literacy skills in a really small proportion of the time they spend online," Goldberg says. If they're prepping for an argument they know they're going to have, or when they have to make big life decisions about schools or investments, they're willing to deal with the drudgery of factfinding. "But the vast majority of the time, they're spending their time mindlessly in timepass mode. Veracity was not only not top of mind, it actually wasn't important to them at all."

When one subject shared a fake image of Donald Trump running from the NYPD, the researchers challenged them on it. "They kind of shrugged," Goldberg says. From the subject's perspective, they were using their critical thinking and media-literacy skills. After all, Trump was, at the time, headed for a criminal trial in New York . It could have been true.

And when it comes to things like diet or wellness, Gen Zers will just try it on their own bodies and see if it works. They perceive that as a safe way to do their own research, mostly because it's not hurting anyone else. If that new diet or exercise regimen "works" on their body, that's more believable than data showing its effects on a whole population.

If facty-sounding stuff does manage to sneak into Gen Z's feeds — claims about what constitutes a healthy diet, or what Trump would do as president, or whether Ukraine or Russia is to blame for Russia's invasion of Ukraine — they're likely to head straight for the comments . That's partly because they know the digital hoi polloi will quickly unmask any fake news. But it's also because they're concerned about whether the news — or a particular reaction to it — might prove to be a cancelable take.

"Cancel culture came to be a thing as they were growing up. They were trained and attend to how to perform, and not perform, to avoid that," says Goldberg. "They're getting trusted information from closed group chats or followers with private feeds, so they're able to perform that they're part of an in-group and can perform specific social signals." For Gen Z, checking what other people are saying in the comments isn't shallow. It's a matter of social life or death.

If this sounds like a generation that will believe any flimflam they encounter and never subscribe to a newspaper, well, the researchers at Jigsaw worry about that too. But the good news is, Gen Zers aren't seeing as much intentional falsehood as you might think. Research shows that most mis- and disinformation is being made and consumed by a dwindling minority of users who seek it out, not sprayed algorithmically into the eyeballs of credulous, internet-surfing teens. "Casual consumption of silly TikToks is very unlikely to lead someone into a dark corner of hate or misinformation," says David Rothschild, an economist at Microsoft Research who studies online behavior. "It is highly likely that if they get there, they chose to get there."

All of us are consuming less formal news content these days, like TV or newspapers. And like Gen Z, we're all relying more and more on our social networks to tell us what's going on. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that most users on Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok encounter news frequently. On X, it most often comes from the media outlets and journalists who actually produced the news. On Facebook and Instagram, it comes via family and friends whose viewpoints, for better or worse, you already know. But on TikTok — with its disproportionately younger user base — the source is usually influencers. They aggregate, meta-analyze, and pre-digest what other sources are saying. Maybe that's why users on TikTok, compared with other platforms, say they're unlikely to be "worn out" by the news they see. Someone else already did the hard work; they're getting the executive summary.

As clickbait-avoidant Gen Zers might suspect, Jigsaw's interest in their online behavior isn't purely academic. The Google subsidiary makes software called Perspective that lots of news outlets — including The New York Times — use to moderate their comment sections. The new iteration of Perspective incorporates Jigsaw's latest findings, elevating comments that contain warm and fuzzy "bridging" sentiments , like curiosity and reasonableness, to the top of the section. The aim is to reach Gen Z readers where they live — scrolling through the comments — and turn them into subscribers. By studying Gen Z in the wild, Jigsaw can lay better traps for them in their native habitat .

As a Gen Xer, I'm inherently skeptical of broad pronouncements about the up-and-coming generation. You should have heard some of the stuff boomers said about us. (Not that we cared. Like, whatever.) But I'll confess that I worried about the idea that Gen Z checks the comments to decide what to believe. So, after a therapeutic clutch at my pearls, I figured I'd better check it out. To evaluate Jigsaw's research, I performed a scientific gut check: I looked at Google Scholar to see how many other researchers had cited the study. That's a standard metric for how much a field values any given journal article.

And then I realized: I was basically checking the comments. We all do it — we look for lots of links, for 5-star reviews, for what the replies say. These are all valid ways to surf the modern social-informational ecosystem. The kids are all right, and all right .

Still, I wondered what Gen Zers themselves might make of Jigsaw's research. Conveniently, two of them live in my house and call me Dad. So I texted them the findings, along with a question-mark emoji.

"Yeah, seems right," the younger one replied. "But you know not all of us do that."

I counted myself lucky — that was more of a response than Goldberg got. "We always share the final results with respondents," she says. But when Goldberg asked her subjects what they thought of her research, true to her findings, all she heard back was the gravid silence of teenagers looking at their phones. "I'm not sure how many of our Gen Zers read our papers," she concluded ruefully. No comment section, no comment.

Adam Rogers is a senior correspondent at Business Insider.

About Discourse Stories

Through our Discourse journalism, Business Insider seeks to explore and illuminate the day’s most fascinating issues and ideas. Our writers provide thought-provoking perspectives, informed by analysis, reporting, and expertise. Read more Discourse stories here .

More from Tech

Most popular

• Main content

Celebrating 150 years of Harvard Summer School. Learn about our history.

Why You Should Make a Good Night’s Sleep a Priority

Poor sleep habits and sleep deprivation are serious problems for most high school and college students. This guide offers important tips on how—and why—to improve your sleep hygiene.

The time you spend in high school and college can be both fun and rewarding. At the same time, these can be some of the busiest years of your life.

Balancing all the demands on your time—a full course load, extracurricular activities, and socializing with friends—can be challenging. And if you also work or have family commitments, it can feel like there just aren’t enough hours in the day. 

With so many competing priorities, sacrificing sleep may feel like the only way to get everything done. 

Despite the sleepiness you might feel the next day, one late night probably won’t have a major impact on your well-being. But regularly short-changing yourself on quality sleep can have serious implications for school, work, and your physical and mental health.

Alternatively, prioritizing a regular sleep schedule can make these years healthier, less stressful, and more successful long-term.

The sleep you need versus the sleep you get

According to the National Sleep Foundation , high school students (ages 14-17) need about eight to 10 hours of sleep each night. For young adults (ages 18 to 25), the range is need between seven and nine hours.

How do you know how much sleep you need within this range? 

According to Dr. Edward Pace-Schott, Harvard Summer School and Harvard Medical School faculty member and sleep expert, you can answer that question simply by observing how much you sleep when you don’t need to get up.

“When you’ve been on vacation for two weeks, how are you sleeping during that second week? How long are you sleeping? If you’re sleeping eight or nine hours when you don’t have any reason to get up, then chances are you need that amount or close to that amount of sleep,” says Pace-Schott. 

Most students, however, get far less sleep than the recommended amount. 

Seventy to 96 percent of college students get less than eight hours of sleep each week night. And over half of college students sleep less than seven hours per night. The numbers are similar for high school students; 73 percent of high school students get between seven and seven and a half hours of sleep .

Of course, many students attempt to catch up on lost sleep by sleeping late on the weekends. Unfortunately, this pattern is neither healthy nor a true long-term solution to sleep deprivation. 

And what about those students who say that they function perfectly well on just a couple hours of sleep?

“There are very few individuals who are so-called short sleepers, people who really don’t need more than six hours of sleep. But, there are a lot more people who claim to be short sleepers than there are real short sleepers,” says Pace-Schott.

Consequences of sleep deprivation

The consequences of sleep deprivation are fairly well established but may still be surprising.

For example, did you know that sleep deprivation can create the same level of cognitive impairment as drinking alcohol? 

According to the CDC , staying awake for 18 hours can have the same effect as a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05 percent. Staying awake for 24 hours can equate to a BAC of 0.10 percent (higher than the legal limit of 0.08 percent). 

And according to research by AAA , drowsy driving causes an average of 328,000 motor vehicle accidents each year in the US. Drivers who sleep less than five hours per night are more than five times as likely to have a crash as drivers who sleep for seven hours or more.  

Other signs of chronic sleep deprivation include:

• Daytime sleepiness and fatigue
• Irritability and short temper
• Mood changes
• Trouble coping with stress
• Difficulty focusing, concentrating, and remembering

Over the long term, chronic sleep deprivation can have a serious impact on your physical and mental health. Insufficient sleep has been linked, for example, to weight gain and obesity, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

The impact on your mental health can be just as serious. Harvard Medical School has conducted numerous studies, including research by Pace-Schott, demonstrating a link between sleep deprivation and mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression.

Earn college credits with a summer course at Harvard Summer School.

Importance of sleep for high school and college students

As difficult as it is to prioritize sleep, the advantages of going to bed early and getting quality sleep every night are very real.

College students who prioritize sleep are likely to see an improvement in their academic performance.

If you are well rested, you will experience less daytime sleepiness and fatigue. You may need less caffeine to stay awake during those long lectures. And you will also find you are more productive, more attentive to detail, and able to concentrate better while studying.

But the connection between sleep and academic performance goes well beyond concentration and attentiveness.

“Sleep is very important for consolidating memories. In any sort of experimental setting, study results show better performance if you learn material and then sleep on it, instead of remaining awake. So there’s lots and lots of evidence now indicating that sleep promotes memory strengthening and memory consolidation,” says Pace-Schott. 

There is also a strong connection between sleep quality and stress.

Students who prioritize sleep are better able to cope with the stress that comes with being an active student. 

“It’s a vicious circle where the more stressed you get, the less you sleep, and the less you sleep, the more stressed you get. And in the long term, that can lead to serious psychiatric problems,” says Pace-Schott.

In the worst case scenario, the combination of lack of sleep and stress can lead to mental health disorders such as depression, general anxiety disorder, and potentially even post-traumatic stress disorder.

But prioritizing sleep can create a positive feedback loop as well. 

Establishing a sleep schedule and adequate sleep duration can improve your ability to cope with stress. Being active and productive will help you get more done throughout the day, which also reduces feelings of stress.

And the less stressed you feel during the day, the better you will sleep at night. 

Tips for getting more sleep as a student

The key to getting a good night’s sleep is establishing healthy sleep habits, also known as sleep hygiene.

The first step is deciding to make sleep a priority. 

Staying ahead of coursework and avoiding distractions and procrastination while you study is key to avoiding the need for late night study sessions. And prioritizing sleep may mean leaving a party early or choosing your social engagements carefully. 

Yet the reward—feeling awake and alert the next morning—will reinforce that positive choice. 

The next step is establishing healthy bedtime and daytime patterns to promote good quality sleep.

Pace-Schott offers the following tips on steps you can take to create healthy sleep hygiene:

• Limit caffeine in close proximity to bed time. College students should also avoid alcohol intake, which disrupts quality sleep.
• Avoid electronic screens (phone, laptop, tablet, desktop) within an hour of bedtime. 
• Engage in daily physical exercise, but avoid intense exercise within two hours of bedtime.
• Establish a sleep schedule. Be as consistent as possible in your bedtime and rise time, and get exposure to morning sunlight.
• Establish a “wind-down” routine prior to bedtime.
• Limit use of bed for daily activities other than sleep (e.g., TV, work, eating)

Of course, college students living in dorms or other communal settings may find their sleep disturbed by circumstances beyond their control: a poor-quality mattress, inability to control the temperature of your bedroom, or noisy roommates, for example. 

But taking these active steps to promote healthy sleep will, barring these other uncontrollable circumstances, help you fall asleep faster, stay asleep, and get a more restorative sleep.

And for students who are still not convinced of the importance of sleep, Pace-Schott says that personal observation is the best way to see the impact of healthy sleep habits. 

“Keep a sleep diary for a week. Pay attention to your sleep in a structured way. And be sure to record how you felt during the day. This can really help you make the link between how you slept the night before and how you feel during the day. It’s amazing how much you will learn about your sleep and its impact on your life.” 

Interested in summer at Harvard? Learn more about our summer programs.

Request Information

What You Need to Know About Pre-College Program Activities

Rigorous, fast-paced—and a lot of fun.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

• Open access
• Published: 02 July 2024

Lived experience, social support, and challenges to health service use during the COVID-19 pandemic among HIV key populations in Indonesia

• Evi Sukmaningrum   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8885-7823 1 , 2 ,
• Judith Levy 3 ,
• Made Diah Negara 2 ,
• Devika Devika 2 ,
• Brigitta Dhyah K. Wardhani 4 ,
• Luh Putu Lila Wulandari 5 &
• Pande Putu Januraga 4 , 6  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  774 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

284 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected the lives, health, and social well-being of people globally including presenting special challenges in low to middle income countries for people living with HIV. This study investigates the pandemic experiences of the four key HIV-positive populations in Indonesia: men who have sex with men, transgender women, female sex workers, and people who use drugs. In-depth interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 22 key population members recruited through 9 nongovernment HIV agencies in Jakarta and Bali, Indonesia. Indonesia’s Large-scale Social Restrictions Policy mandating physical distancing and stay-at-home orders had been in effect for 7–10 months at the time of the interviews. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo™ (R1.7) software. A grounded theory approach identified key concepts along with similarities, differences, and reoccurring patterns of COVID-19 lived experience among participants. Participants recounted the impact of both the pandemic and the Restriction Policy on their interpersonal, financial, medical, and psychosocial well-being. When in need, they turned to formal and informal sources of financial and social support plus their own resourcefulness. Along with other factors, HIV medication shortages, HIV and COVID-19 related stigma, and fear of acquiring COVID-19 negatively impacted their antiretroviral adherence and the use of health services. The results point to the latent consequences of government attempts to curb a pandemic through public health lockdowns and enforced policies of physical separation. Its findings reveal the importance of ensuring that public safety nets for HIV key populations are available to supplement more informal personal sources of needed support.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly disrupted many aspects of human life throughout the world while exerting a severe effect on the social fabric, economy, and population health of many countries. The governmental policies enacted as a result of the pandemic were in some cases draconian. Mounting mortality and morbidity rates of COVID-19 led multiple governments to enact large-scale restrictions on population mobility, group and mass gatherings, and face-to-face social and physical interaction. Legal mandates to observe physical distancing between individuals significantly altered “normal” human routines and redefined the nature of interpersonal relationships [ 1 , 2 ].

Numerous studies have investigated the pandemic’s effects on the health and well-being of people who are HIV-positive [ 3 ]. Results show that the many structural, cultural, psychosocial, and health factors that surround and complicate the lives of people living with HIV (PLWH) have both produced and exacerbated the challenges of living within the psychosocial and physical environment imposed by the pandemic. Yet despite a growing body of global research in multiple countries around the globe, few studies appear to specifically examine the combined effect of HIV and COVID-19 on the life experiences and psychosocial well-being of PLWH in Southeast Asia. The few exceptions include research investigating personal access to health care and supportive services in Malaysia among PLWH who use drugs [ 4 ], HIV disclosure dilemmas among HIV-positive women seeking COVID-19 treatment in Sumatra, Indonesia [ 5 ], and COVID-related threats to health and well-being among vulnerable HIV groups in Vietnam [ 1 ].

Drawing on data collected through qualitative in-depth interviews, this paper addresses this existing gap in HIV science by examining the impact of the pandemic on the lived experience, social support, and challenges to health service use among of members of four HIV key populations in Indonesia during the first year of the country’s COVID-19- pandemic. Home to the world’s fourth largest population, Indonesia has experienced one of the highest rates of COVID-19 infections in the region since the start of the pandemic, and its number of COVID-19 deaths rank uppermost in Southeast Asia [ 6 ]. In addition, although Indonesia has seen a gradual reduction in annual HIV incidence since 2010, its estimated number of people dying from HIV-related medical causes has continued to rise [ 7 , 8 ]. From this syndemic standpoint, Indonesia offers a highly important and informative vantage from which to study the effects of two intersecting pandemics on PLWH.

Indonesia’s first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in March 2020. As of January 2023, more than 6 million people had been diagnosed with the virus and over 160,000 Indonesians had died [ 9 ]. The Indonesian government’s initial response to the country’s rising pandemic was to institute a Large-scale Social Restrictions Policy ( Pembatasan Sosial Berskala Besar ) in Jakarta, Bali, and several other cities and provinces with mounting COVID-19 prevalence. The policy permitted essential offices and factories to remain open but restricted the activities of nonessential firms [ 10 ]. It also allowed people to engage in religious and essential life activities within certain limitations while simultaneously mandating school closings, prohibiting most internal and international travel, reducing public transportation, and issuing stay-at-home requirements except for essential trips. As the outbreak worsened, the government implemented a subsequent series of mandates designed to further restrict community interaction and population mobility [ 10 , 11 ].

Like other low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with limited health resources [ 12 ], Indonesia has struggled throughout the COVID-19 pandemic with little available money to keep its citizens healthy or to supplement the income of those facing financial destitution due to its effects. With a chronically understaffed workforce and underfunded infrastructure, the added demands of the pandemic placed an additional burden on Indonesia’s already vulnerable health care system and strained its pre-COVID-19 delivery of HIV medical services and treatment for PLWH [ 13 ].

It is within this highly challenged socio-economic context that this study investigates the COVID-19 related experiences of the four major HIV-positive key populations in Indonesia: men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender women (TGW), female sex workers (FSW), and people who use drugs (PWUD). In examining their experiences, the study helps to extend the slim body of non-clinical research that considers the dual effects of COVID-19 and HIV on PLWH in a South-East Asian country. The study’s inductive qualitive approach allows study participants to describe their experiences in their own way and in their own words. Their accounts provide insight into the latent consequences for PLWH of government attempts to curb infectious disease transmission through large-scale community lockdowns and social distancing mandates. Embedded in the participants’ words and experiences are clues as to social policy and intervention strategies that may be needed to assist PLWH as the COVID-19 pandemic recedes globally, but its negative psychosocial and economic residual effects continue in Indonesia and likely in other LMICs as new pandemics possibly emerge to take its place. Also, the study’s results are highly informative within both a pandemic and non-pandemic context in enabling stakeholders across various sectors to more fully comprehend and effectively prepare for future public health challenges. In addition, the participants’ experiences are vivid reminders of the importance of ensuring that public safety nets for PLWH are available if needed that supplement and assist more informal sources of instrumental and psychosocial support provided by family, friends, and others in the community.

The data were collected in October through December 2020 when Indonesia’s Large-scale Social Restrictions Policy had been in effect for approximately 7–10 months. Twenty-two participants were recruited for in-depth interviewing, at which time theoretical saturation was reached and nothing new was being learned. Members of all four Indonesia’s HIV key population (FSW, MSM, TGW, and PWUD) were included to assure their representation. Recruitment, including participants for in-depth interviewing, was conducted in Jakarta and Bali, Indonesia through referral from 9 nongovernment (NGO) agencies and other local community groups that specifically serve PLWH. The participating NGOs and local agencies posted information on their social media accounts about the study and its request for potential participants. Individuals who thought that they might qualify and were interested in possibly participating were told to contact the study’s research team to learn more about the study and for eligibility screening. To be eligible to participate in the study, participants had to be HIV-positive, a member of a key population (FSW, MSM, TGW, or PWUD), receiving ARV treatment, and willing to provide informed consent to be interviewed and audio-recorded.

The in-depth interviews were conducted in Bahasa Indonesian by trained, native-speaking interviewers. Based on relevant theory, key issues, and findings in the HIV and COVID-19 literature, the research team developed a qualitative interview guide designed to explore the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the participants’ life (work and routines, social relationships, physical being such as medication and mental health), social support, and access to health services (see Appendix 1). Participants could select which of three interviewing methods that they preferred: by Zoom (either with video or audio only), WhatsApp (either with video or audio only), or telephone (audio only). While these various options can elicit differing volumes of data, the thematic content that they produce is the same [ 14 ]. Interview questions asked participants about their interpersonal, psychosocial, and practical experiences with COVID-19 during the government COVID-19 lock-down. The audio-taped interviews lasted from 50 to 120 min. The analytic criterion of “saturation” [ 17 ] was met with 22 interviews, at which time data collection ceased as no new themes, categories, or insights continued to emerge from the data. Participants received 200,000 Indonesian Rupiah (about $13 USD) as compensation for their time and internet or phone costs. The study was approved for research conduct by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University/Sanglah Hospital with ethical clearance number 1806/UN14.2.2.VII.14/LT/2020. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data coding and analysis

The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using NVivo™ software version R1.7. Consistent with a lived experience perspective, the participants’ accounts formed the unit of analysis. The data were conceptually analyzed using grounded theory, an approach to developing theories and deriving insights about often little-known phenomena through the inductive analysis of data collected directly from research participants [ 15 ]. In this study, it was used to identify key concepts along with their possible relationships to each other and to explore similarities, differences, and reoccurring COVID-19 experiences among and between participants. The coding process began by reading and rereading all interview transcripts to identify patterns and themes in the data related to the participants’ COVID-19 experiences. Second level coding involved identifying clusters of experiences and patterns of behavior that fit under each of these three coding categories. These subcategories were checked against each other to identify both consensus and diversity among participants in their COVID-19 accounts.

Table 1 reports the demographic characteristic of participants categorized according to how they self-identified when seeking HIV services from one of the study’s seven referring organizations. Of the 22 participants, 9 (41%) self-identified as MSM, 5 (23%) as FSW, 4 (18%) as TGW, and 4 (18%) as PWUD. Most participants (59%) were between 29 to 39 years of age. Females, including 4 transwomen, made up nearly 41% of the sample. Of the 22 participants, only 4 (18%) were unemployed with the remainder working either as staff at an NGO, within the private sector, as small business entrepreneurs, or as commercial sex workers. Sixteen (70%) had attended or graduated from senior high school including 4 participants who had attended college. MSM reported the highest level of educational attainment of all four key population groups. Slightly more participants were from Jakarta (53%) than Bali. Three major experiential categories emerged out of the data: the impact of the pandemic and government lock-down policies on participants’ interpersonal, financial, medical, and psychosocial wellbeing; formal and informal sources of social support; and challenges related to health service use.

Impact of the pandemic on the lived experience of Indonesia’s HIV key populations

Impact on financial security.

All 22 respondents reported being under considerable financial stress due to a range of COVID-19-related income challenges that included potential or actual job loss, reduced working hours, loss of employment-related benefits, and/or job insecurity. A transgender woman explains about the financial challenges of becoming destitute due to COVID-19:

Since COVID-19, I lost one job, and my daily income decreased, not increased. In fact, I have nothing at all. There is no income, yet the rent has to be paid, the electricity has to be paid, the water has to be paid. (01, TGW, Jakarta)

Working strictly from home during the lock-down could offer participants working for agencies, schools, and small business firms the opportunity through the internet for continued employment, but not without income loss. NGO personnel, for example, complained of losing transportation and food allowances that were customary job entitlements. Pre-COVID-19, they had received monetary compensation above their basic salaries to cover meals, public transportation costs, and other expenses incurred when working in the community. Such compensation could be stretched to help offset minor nonemployment-related personal expenses. Now under COVID-19, they were solely reimbursed for home internet fees incurred when attending staff meetings or conducting community outreach work via zoom:

In terms of [income from] work, it has decreased because we received additional compensation for food and transportation for doing community outreach. When we are WFH (working from home), we do not have that compensation anymore and instead receive only small amounts for zoom meetings and for all kinds of online activities. So my salary has been much reduced to almost half of what it was before. (08, TGW, Jakarta)

Meanwhile, participants who engaged in commercial sex reported shrinking income as client demand diminished. The government lockdown, the rigors of maintaining physical distancing, and worry about acquiring COVID-19 discouraged or negatively redefined the prevalence and nature of sex-for-money exchanges. Nonetheless, the need to support themselves and/or their families could override initial hesitation to engage in commercial sex:

I didn’t lose my job. It’s just that there are not as many guests as before. Sometimes there are guests, sometimes only one guest every two days. (07, FSW, Bali) To be honest, the hardest thing was that most people wanted to have sex with me for free. Oh my gosh [I thought], I just need to eat while you want it for free. (01, TGW, Jakarta)

Other survival strategies included reducing daily meal consumption or engaging in small business ventures:

Because I was laid off my expenses increased, and my income decreased. It has been dwindling more and more. So yeah, I took an order for mending clothes and then recycling them at the cheapest prices so that I could eat. (01, TGW, Jakarta)

Impact on social relationships

All 22 participants reported that adhering to social distancing to avoid contracting COVID-19 coupled with the isolating effects of Indonesia’s public health lock-down negatively affected their social relationships. Social distancing proved highly difficult to observe, especially with family members, friends, or a sexual partner. As one male participant lamented, “The toughest time during this pandemic is the limited time I have to meet with my partner. So, all this time I have just been home alone.” (14, MSM, Jakarta).

Loneliness and isolation from others were frequent consequences of maintaining social distancing. So was the possibility of being resented by close family and friends for refusing to meet in person. Phone calls and online meetings could help in maintaining interpersonal contact, but these were not perceived as emotionally satisfying or socially bonding as an in-person conversation. Yet when participants did manage to get together after an extended hiatus, it was not uncommon to discover that the interpersonal quality of the relationship had deteriorated. They found that fear of contracting COVID-19 and the demands of social distancing could call into question the strength, reciprocities, and/or expectations of the relationship itself:

She was one of my best friends. Before the pandemic, I usually stayed at her house when I had to come home late from work. One day, I asked her to let me sleepover because it was late at night, and I was scared of being mugged on the street. But she refused and said, “I’m afraid of getting COVID.” It’s really sad that she rejected me --- my own best friend! One day, she got COVID, and she asked me to sleepover and said that she missed me so much. I said to myself, “now, when you need me, then you allow me to sleepover.” (03, FSW, Jakarta)

Impact on psychosocial and mental health

All 22 participants reported experiencing adverse psychological or mental health symptoms that they attributed to the challenges of life lived amidst a highly infectious pandemic. Psychological response to COVID-19 typically appeared in the form of fear, worry, and/or anxiety over such threats as viral exposure, dwindling personal finances, job insecurity, and uncertainty about prospects for the future:

The physical problem is that I am skinnier, but it’s actually more psychological. It’s harder to sleep worrying about tomorrow, worrying about getting infected with COVID. I feel that I almost have chronic depression. (17, MSM, Jakarta)

Worrying about contracting the virus with its social and physical consequences could manifest in such mental and somatic disorders as shortness of breath, headaches, eating disorders, and sleeping problems. A female sex worker from Bali complained, “My headaches have increased during the pandemic.” (15, FSW, Bali). A MSM participant from Bali noted that, “What I experienced the most is insomnia.” (08, MSM, Bali). Meanwhile, interpersonal disagreements and even small frustrations could evoke feelings of anger. One male participant disclosed, “I am now quicker to feel emotional and get angry. Sometimes, merely small things can be so emotional.” (10, MSM, Jakarta). Yet, whom to blame for the situation was unclear as one participant mused:

Activity has decreased, work has decreased, and my income has decreased. Also, I cannot meet relatives in the village. I don’t know who to be angry with. (09, MSM, Bali)

Participants discovered that working from home rather than with others or in the community could prove highly stressful due to government-imposed isolation that was often exacerbated by unreliable communication technology. A community outreach worker described the evolution from initially feeling positive about working from home to the realization that doing so could be very emotionally taxing:

Back in March, we already were working from home. [We thought initially], maybe it would be fun. “OK, we can work from home. We can arrange a work schedule.” But it turns out that after 2 to 3 weeks or a month, it becomes very stressful, really stressful. We haven’t met with our friends; we can’t meet with our family. Everything is coordinated via zoom. With a video call, sometimes there’s a lot of trouble with the signal. (07, MSM, Jakarta)

Adverse health behavior emerged or accelerated during the pandemic in what participants perceived as personal response to COVID-19-related stress and social isolation. Smoking was a common coping mechanism. Other detrimental health behavior included increased food consumption, alcohol binging, and using psychotropic or injection drugs. An individual who reported chronic substance use explained, “During this pandemic, I messed up using more amphetamine, marijuana, heroin, anti-depressants.” (09, PWUD, Jakarta). Another participant who regularly engaged in sex work confessed:

With the depression I’ve had [due to COVID], I am aware that I need to drink when I serve my clients. Then I can forget about everything, such as whether we were using a condom or not, because we were drunk. Because of my depression, I need to get drunk and smoke. I am really concerned that I will make a pattern of drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana when I serve clients.” (10, MSM, Jakarta).

Impact on HIV adherence

Participants perceived their adherence to antiretroviral (ARV) therapy as consistently ranging from fair to good. In explaining why she rarely missed a dose, a sex worker explained, “I really need the medicine because I depend on my health, so I take my medication.” (12, FSW, Bali). Personal experience with being hospitalized for an HIV complication or losing a close friend or partner to HIV could convince participants of the need to maintain a regular medication schedule. A woman participant recounted, “I often see bad things happening to those who don’t take their ARV medication regularly or who even stop their medication. It happened to someone I knew personally.” (02, TGW, Bali).

Despite best intentions, participants discovered that it could prove exceedingly difficult to maintain consistent adherence during the pandemic. Clinic hours changed for the worse to accommodate reduced staffing. Newly revised pick-up times to refill medication conflicted with many work schedules. One participant complained, “I had to stop taking ARV for three days because there really wasn’t any stock at the clinic.” (01, MSM, Bali).

Participants reported that clinic healthcare workers tried to ameliorate ARV shortages by rationing medication dosages while awaiting the arrival of new supplies or by referring patients to larger hospitals with greater stockpiles. Unfortunately for those who were referred, this solution frequently failed, and they were sent back after only a few weeks. Dispensing expired medication also occurred. A participant related an argument that he had with a service provider over outdated medication:

He said it can still be used. But it was clear that the bottle was marked for an expired date on 31st August, while I was given the drugs on 15th August. I told him that the drugs are already expired. The staff is angry at me. They said they only have that stock left. I paid the service fee. I paid for it, yet I was given an expired drug. What if there are negative side effects for patients who take an expired drug? (01, TGW, Jakarta)

The study’s more proactive participants reported finding ways to counter such ARV shortages. Tactics included borrowing the medication from a HIV-positive friend or partner, asking a close associate who worked at a clinic to appropriate the needed ARVs (possibly illegally), rationing unused medication, and going around the health care system. “When I knew there was going to be a shortage of ARVs,” one participant explained, “I immediately bought them online for myself with my own money.” (11, MSM, Bali).

In addition to ARV medication shortages, other impediments to ARV adherence that participants reported included the expense of traveling to a clinic for refills given their reduced incomes, fear of being exposed to COVID-19 during a clinic visit, and medication fatigue.

It’s not that I don’t want to take my ARVs, but I don’t have any. Before the pandemics we already had to pay an administration fee and it’s harder now. I need to go to the clinic 3 to 4 times a month, with additional cost for transportation. Therefore, I sometimes decide not to take the medication. I’ll just plan to go to the clinic next month instead. (02, PWUD, Jakarta)

Social support during the pandemic

Clearly coping with the stress and restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic proved an enormous challenge for PLWH. In the face of high stress and deprivation, it is not unusual for people including our study participants to turn to informal and/or formal sources of support to help meet their emotional, financial, and/or other needs.

Informal sources of support: family, friends, and key population peers

Participants described drawing upon their familial and personal social networks including HIV key population peers for emotional, instrumental, and/or informational support.

Emotional support provided by family and close social network relationships consisted of conveying to participants, and sometimes mutually sharing, supportive feelings such as empathy, affect, and reassurance that things will get better. Participants reported feeling less fearful and more hopeful about their lives and future after sharing their problems or worries with someone even if nothing significant changed. One respondent explained, “I tell my friends if there are problems even though sometimes, I don’t find a solution.” (03, FSW, Jakarta).

Instrumental support consisted of tangible support such as money, food, material goods, temporary housing, and care when ill. Financial help was the most frequently mentioned form of instrumental support. As one informant confessed, “ I borrow from family sometimes to cover my daily needs. I don’t have any choice.” (06. PWUD, Jakarta). Or as another informant asked rhetorically and then self-answered: “What do you do if you’re in a tight spot? I have to borrow some money from others.” (07, FSW, Bali).

Informational support took the form of being given advice or engaging in a mutual sharing of problems and possibly solutions. An informant described the good advice that she received from a peer:

I have a friend in my peer support group who is also from the community who suggested that ‘it’s better for us to sell roasted rice around than do nothing.’ So I said, “Let’s do it! Let’s sell rice around.” Thank God, I was helped and supported by the transgender community. And well, even though I only earn a little, I have had help like that. (01, TGW, Jakarta)

As evidenced by informants’ accounts, family, friends, and members of social networks frequently functioned as crucial sources of informal support, but not always. Participants told of parents or family who lived too far away to be of much help or who had their own daunting challenges to overcome. In some instances, familial relationships were strained and unavailable due to negative judgements about a participant’s behavior such as using illicit drugs, selling sex, or engaging in same sex behavior. As one transgender woman lamented about her family’s rejection of her, “No one cares about me, no one cares.” (01, TGW, Jakarta).

Formal sources of social support: government and community organizations

Participants also reported instances of receiving COVID-related formal assistance from the Indonesian government. For example, one participant reported receiving a cash transfer as a “pre-employment allowance” while he searched for work. (01, MSM, Bali). Local municipalities also provided conditional cash allowances (bantuan langsung tunai), food, and other supplies to PLWH who were in dire need. Unfortunately, from recipients’ perspective, the duration of such support could prove far too brief.

I once received rice and a few supplies from a Bekasi City government agency. It was enough for 4-5 days and maybe up to a week. But it was for one time only. When the government gives out these items, it doesn’t think about duration and how long they will last. But I shouldn’t blame the government in the city where I live. I should instead say thank you. (02, PWUD, Jakarta)

NGOs and peer groups organized around advocacy and support for HIV key populations frequently functioned as vital safety nets for their members. Assistance varied but tended to take the form of grocery and food distributions, cash allowances, meals served at food kitchens, and help in applying for public aid. Such formal assistance proved especially valuable to participants who found it difficult-to-nearly impossible on their own to compile the paperwork or documentation needed to establish their eligibility for government support.

Challenges to health service use

The correlates of the COVID-19 lockdown and mandated social distancing created numerous impediments for participants in accessing not only COVID-19 services but also HIV and other medical care. Financial strain due to diminished income made it especially difficult to meet the medical and transportation costs of accessing medication for HIV. A transgender woman described the difficulties that she faced in accessing the ARV medication that she needed:

One of my barriers to services is the cost constraint. I often borrow from friends for [the necessary clinic] registration fee. I also don’t have the money to go. That’s why I want money from the government or from PLHIV health services agencies [in the form of] transport compensation or something like that for people like us. There are so many people like me. (06, TGW, Bali)

Similar financial and practical challenges could hinder access and the use of mental health services needed to counter the effects of severe stress, anxiety, sleeplessness, and other debilitating conditions due to COVID-19. While participants who suffered from these disorders expressed the desire to access mental health services, few knew how to do so. One participant explained, “We don’t know about mental health services, so we’re confused.” (10, MSM, Jakarta) “And it’s expensive,” complained another informant who didn’t know about the availability of community free services. (11, MSM, Bali). In addition, the value of psychological counseling and mental health services were sometimes questioned or not seen as being needed. “In my opinion, it’s not that convincing.” (01, MSM, Bali] “I have my own healing system,” another participant explained. (14, MSM, Jakarta).

Participants were well-aware of the social stigma surrounding HIV and their PLWH status. They feared that contracting COVID-19 would become an additional source of social censure should they acquire it. One participant mused, “The stigma of getting the coronavirus is harsher than getting HIV.” (14, PWID, Bali). Another asked quizzically:

If I died because of COVID, what would happen? It’s a sin to die because of COVID and my family would be isolated by the neighborhood. And if I get COVID, I am afraid I will be evicted or something like that. (08, TGW, Jakarta)

In seeking medical and mental health services for COVID, informants feared that they would encounter negative judgements by medical staff because of their HIV status, sexual behavior, drug use, and/or livelihood as a sex worker. Transgender women, for example, uniformly reported great difficulty identifying mental health providers who were sensitive to transgender issues. Engaging in same sex behavior also was seen to potentially evoke provider condemnation. One male participant who has sex with men reported a past instance of negative counseling about his sexuality that continued to hurt him:

When I was in Jakarta, I was exposed for the first time to information about sexuality. So, I tried to see a psychologist for consultation about why I am gay. [I asked] why am I in conflict with myself? Instead of helping me to understand, she judged me instead by saying, “Remember that God created men and women. Your nature is as a man, and yes, you must carry out nature. You can’t violate nature like that.” I felt judged and a bit traumatized by that.” (17, MSM, Jakarta)

As a result of this experience, he was reluctant to seek both HIV and COVID-19 medical services out of fear of a similar emotionally painful occurrence.

Yet not all informant encounters with mental health and counseling services during the COVID-19 pandemic turned out bad as participants sometimes anticipated. A female participant who sold sex for a living reported that, “I feel quite satisfied with the services that I received. The doctor seemed familiar, friendly, and liked to ask and answer questions.” (15, FSW, Bali) Another informant who overcame his initial reluctance acknowledged that receiving counselling for depression from a professional psychologist during the COVID-19 pandemic helped him to overcome internalized negative judgements about being HIV-positive that drove him to contemplate taking his own life.

It’s fun! I now know my weaknesses and what I should do. I skipped counseling when I found out I had HIV. I would wake up every Saturday morning wanting to kill myself over all kinds of things. I came to know [through counseling during COVID-19] what made me sabotage myself like that. So far, I’m very satisfied. (11, MSM, Bali)

This study is one of the few to examine the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on the lived experiences of PLWH in Southeast Asia. Its results add to a growing body of findings similarly reported by other COVID-19 studies throughout the globe [ 3 ], which are now confirmed as similar for Indonesia. The COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly has exerted a strong negative impact on the general populace of all countries, including individuals coping with a chronic illness within them, but its syndemic effects on PLWH add an additional psychosocial, economic, and clinical burden on the health and well-being of an already socially and often financially compromised vulnerable population [ 16 ]. The study’s sample of participants drawn from Indonesia’s four HIV key populations represents a broad set of voices recounting a plethora of COVID-19 consequences for this marginalized group.

From a public policy standpoint, the study’s findings point to the many latent consequences of government policies to curb the outbreak of an emerging pandemic through enforced social distancing and stay-at-home orders. Legal bans against traveling freely and policy restrictions against in-person meetings disrupted most regular social activities and employment practices. As reported by study participants, such prohibitions could result in personal stress, anxiety, and symptoms of depression further triggered by loss of connectedness to others and uncertainty as to the future. Before the pandemic, HIV key populations in Indonesia were found to be highly vulnerable to mental health problems associated with their HIV status [ 17 ], frequent lack of a social support system [ 18 ] poor quality of life [ 19 ] and the effects of both enacted [ 21 ] and internalized stigma related to societal disapproval of their sexual behavior and/or gender identity [ 20 ]. The impact of COVID-19 on their life could further exacerbate these existing mental health challenges [ 21 ], worsen mental health outcomes[ 22 ], and increase their vulnerability to mental illness [ 23 ]. Coping with the pandemic’s challenges also could motivate detrimental health practices such as increased smoking behavior, unhealthy eating habits, and adoption or increase in illicit drug use. Yet when their accounts are viewed overall, participants showed evidence of considerable fortitude and resourcefulness in meeting the many challenges of living within the financial, psychosocial, and physical constraints of a deadly epidemic. Going around the system to get ARVs when unavailable and tapping into informal social support from family, friends, and HIV-positive peers proved essential in assisting them to persevere as did formal support when available through government subsidies and NGO assistance.

Recognizing from the start of the pandemic that a public health lockdown could prove psychosocially devastating to its population, the Indonesian government instituted a free online counseling initiative (SEJIWA) to assist individuals experiencing severe mental health distress. Few participants in this study, however, knew of this resource and none had used it. Possibly this lack of help-seeking can be traced to wanting to avoid being negatively judged by health care workers for their HIV status and/or sexual practices. Studies conducted in Indonesia, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom [ 5 , 24 , 25 ] that admitting to health workers of being HIV seropositive can translate into lesser COVID-related medical care [ 25 , 26 , 27 ].

In addition to offering online counseling, the government also instituted a series of cash and food subsidy programs for the poor and recently unemployed due to COVID-19. While the pandemic triggered an economic crisis for multiple individuals and families across Indonesia [ 26 , 27 ], as a socially marginalized and largely disadvantaged group, PLHA were among the more financially impacted and severely impoverished populations [ 27 , 28 ] Meanwhile, difficulties in amassing and completing the documentation and paperwork required to successfully apply for government assistance left some of the study’s participants without this formal help. This finding is consistent with other research showing that key populations in Indonesia often are excluded from access to social protection programs for numerous reasons including not having a personal ID card, a family card, and/or a reference letter from a civil office [ 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Participants reported that NGOs could prove highly valuable in helping to successfully meet such government requirements for assistance.

The country’s lockdown and travel restrictions during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic posed multiple challenges for participants in obtaining ART medication. While all ART procurement and societal distribution is handled by the Indonesian Ministry of Health, the drugs themselves are imported from countries outside of Indonesia [ 31 ]. Indonesia’s national COVID travel restrictions and isolation policies resulted in major disruptions of ARV supply chains into the country and across its vast archipelago [ 32 ]. As a result, HIV clinics struggled to deliver quality HIV treatment while coping with spotty medication deliveries and dwindling ARV supplies. Out of necessity, providers found themselves forced to ration dosages or switch to less preferred treatment regimens [ 33 ], and possibly even to dispense dated medications as one of our respondents found. Yet, as also recounted, some participants found ways to go around the system to obtain the mediation they needed.

Fortunately for the study’s participants, finding money to purchase ARVs was not a problem. The Indonesian government provides free ARV medication for PLWH, and participants reported fair to good adherence in taking it. Yet maintaining consistent adherence could prove highly challenging for Indonesia’s PLWH due to clinics’ limited supplies at the start of the pandemic, medical registration costs that had to be paid to receive free government treatment, and the expenses and added burden of regular clinic visits during the lockdown. Not unlike the experience common with individuals living with HIV prior to COVID-19 [ 34 ], medication fatigue also could exert a toll on consistent HIV medication use. Similar challenges to maintaining ARV adherence in Indonesia during the pandemic have been reported in multiple countries including China [ 35 ], Mexico [ 36 ], Vietnam [ 1 , 37 ]; and much of Asia [ 38 ].

The scientific literature contains numerous recommendations and effective strategies for adoption by countries, health systems, and providers to help support ARV adherence during a disease pandemic or period of national crisis. These include instituting access to refills by mail and drive‐through refill booths, providing patients with extra medication and extended ARV refills to obviate transportation problems and to tide them over during periods of shortage, heightened coordination between local CDC clinics and hospitals to expand existing refill sites, and mental health online counselling to remove psychological barriers to accessing ARV services [ 1 , 35 , 39 , 40 ]. In Indonesia, motorcycle ARV home delivery proved a successful distribution strategy as private motorcycle transportation companies were legally exempt from the country’s large-scale social restrictions because their general services were seen as essential [ 41 ].

Much of the current body of HIV COVID-19 research reports on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during its first year. Since then, other variations of the virus have emerged, public health policies in many countries have shifted, and vaccines and other medications have been developed to prevent or reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity. Additional research is needed to study the impact of the pandemic on PLWH under such evolving circumstances, and studies also are needed that investigate and identify factors that predict successful resilience to its effects. Clinical research shows that people who contract COVID-19 are subject to a possible post-infection sequalae of mental and/or physical health disorders. Sometimes referred to as the pandemic’s “long haulers”[ 42 ], the long-term effects of post-COVID-19 infection on the health, behavior, and well-being of PLWH beg to be investigated. Participants also spoke of the potentially stigmatizing effects of testing positive for COVID-19 as members of a HIV key population. Both research and effective interventions are needed that mitigate the intersectional stigma for PLWH of having contracted both HIV and COVID-19. Finally, in addition to government subsidies, formal support through NGOs and informal support from family, friends, and peers proved an essential source of help for PLWH during the pandemic. Yet from the paucity of studies reported in the scientific literature, little is known of the impact of providing such support on these key providers.

Limitations of the study

The results of this research are based on data gained from a convenience sample of 22 HIV-positive participants recruited from 9 HIV NGOs approximately 9 months after the government instituted its lockdown policy. Its findings may not fully generalize to PLWH whom this recruitment method failed to reach or who chose not to participate in the study. Neither do the study’s results necessarily represent what these same participants or other PLWH may have experienced over time as the pandemic unfolded and its effects possibly changed. Also without a comparison sample of people not infected with HIV, it is impossible to know to what extent the study’s findings are unique to the syndemic of living with HIV while confronting the health and psychosocial demands of COVID-19 as an intersecting pandemic. In addition, the study’s participant recruitment efforts solely targeted urban areas whereas a recent study found that PLWH residing in rural areas tend to experience a poorer quality of life when compared to those living in urban settings [ 5 ].

Finally, the analytic categorization of participants according to membership within a particular HIV key population was based on how they self-identified when seeking NGO services. Eligibility for PLWH benefits as established by government and most NGO regulations typically assign clients as being solely members of one of four HIV risk groups: FSW, TGW, MSM, or PWUD. The study’s initial data analysis sought to compare similarities and differences in COVID-19 experience between the four key populations. While potentially informative, such comparative analyses proved impossible as self-identifying as a member of one key population did not rule out engaging in the same sex or drug behavior that defined another. For example, engaging in illicit drug use and/or transactional sex was not uncommon among members of all four key populations, and same sex behavior was not solely confined to men who self-identified as MSM. Such instances of similar sex and/or drug behavior across PLWH key populations speak to the need for caution when seeking analytically to compare individuals defined as members of one HIV and/or COVID-19 vulnerable key population as being experientially and/or behaviorally different in sex, drug use, or other possible critical factors from members of another.

Conclusions

In May 2023, the World Health Organization announced that COVID-19 no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern although remaining a global health threat [ 43 ]. As with numerous other countries, the pandemic in Indonesia appears to be substantially waning as newly developed vaccines against infection exert their effects [ 6 ]. Nonetheless, mutations of dangerous new variations of COVID-19 remain a constant threat. Also, over the last 50 years, the world increasingly has seen the emergence and reemergence of viral and bacterial pandemics that pose serious mortality and morbidity threats [ 44 ]. In addition to HIV, these include ZIKA, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), Ebola, and Disease X (a yet unknown future pathogen). Although seemingly effective epidemiologically, the results of this study point to the latent consequences of government attempts to curb the spread of a pandemic through public health lockdowns and enforced policies of physical separation between citizens. The participants’ experiences are vivid reminders of the importance of ensuring that public safety nets for PLWH are available if needed that supplement and assist more informal sources of instrumental and psychosocial support provided by family, friends, and others in the community.

Availability of data and materials

To maintain research confidentiality and protect the privacy of the HIV key population members who participated in its in-depth interviews, the study’s data set will not be made publicly available.

Tran NK, Vu BN, DeSilva MB. Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on people living with hiv who are members of vulnerable groups in Vietnam. AIDS Behav. 2022;26:2855–65.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stylianou T, Ntelas K. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on mental health and socioeconomic aspects in Greece. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20:1843.

Kalichman SC, El-Krab R. Social and behavioral impacts of COVID-19 on people living with HIV: review of the first year of research. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2022;19(1):54–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-021-00593-8 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vicknasingam B, Mohd Salleh NA, Chooi WT, Singh D, Mohd Zaharim N, Kamarulzaman A, Chawarski MC. COVID-19 impact on healthcare and supportive services for people who use drugs (PWUDs) in Malaysia. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:630730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.630730 .

Najmah N, Davies SG, Kusnan K, Davies TG. 'It's better to treat a COVID patient than a HIV patient': using feminist participatory research to assess women's challenges to access HIV care in Indonesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2021;8:20499361211064191. https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361211064191 .

WHO. WHO COVID-19 Dashboard. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2023. Available from: https://covid19.who.int/ . Cited 2023 Jul 17

WHO. Indonesian HIV Country Profile. 2022. Available from: https://www.aidsdatahub.org/sites/default/files/resource/indonesia-country-fact-sheet.pdf . Cited 2023 Jun 11

Gedela K, Januraga PP, Luis H, Wignall FS, Irwanto I. COVID-19 lockdown in indonesia: greater investment will be needed to mitigate the impact on people living with HIV. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2020;32:461–2.

Statista Research Department. Total number of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths in the Asia-Pacific region as of June, 2023, by country or territory. 2023. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104268/apac-covid-19-deaths-by-country/ . Cited 2023 Jul 9

Aritenang AF. Evaluating city-scale urban mobility restriction in Jakarta due to the COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on subjective wellbeing. Urban Plan Transp Res. 2021;9:519–33.

Article   Google Scholar  

Desdiani D, Sutarto AP. Impact of the restrictions on community activities policy during the COVID-19 on psychological health in Indonesia's urban and rural residents: a cross sectional study. Health Sci Rep. 2022;5(5):e725. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.725 .

Kaligis F, Indraswari MT, Ismail RI. Stress during COVID-19 pandemic: mental health condition in indonesia. Med J Indonesia. 2020;29:436–41.

Mahendradhata Y, Lestari T, Djalante R. Strengthening government's response to COVID-19 in Indonesia: a modified Delphi study of medical and health academics. PLoS One. 2022;17(9):e0275153. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275153 .

Namey E, Guest G, O’Regan A, Godwin CL, Taylor J, Martinez A. How does mode of qualitative data collection affect data and cost? findings from a quasi-experimental study. Field Methods. 2020;32:58–74.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing; 1967.

Google Scholar  

Waterfield KC, Shah GH, Etheredge GD, Ikhile O. Consequences of COVID-19 crisis for persons with HIV: the impact of social determinants of health. BioMed Central Ltd: BMC Public Health; 2021.

Purnamawati D, Nurfadhilah, Zamzam R, Larasati SA. Kesehatan mental orang dengan HIV (ODHIV) untuk Kesetaraan Akhiri AIDS. Prosiding Forum Ilmiah Tahunan IAKMI (Ikatan Ahli Kesehatan Masyarakat Indonesia). 2023;1–7. Available from: https://jurnal.iakmi.id/index.php/FITIAKMI . Cited 2024 Feb 17

Andriyani L, Arina A, Widihastuti A, Nugroho A. Challenges and support to hiv care and treatment of female sex workers living with hiv in indonesia: a mixed method study. Unnes J Pub Health. 2021;10:169–79.

Handayani S, Sitorus R, Novrikasari. Hubungan dukungan keluarga dengan terjadinya gangguan kesehatan mental pada penderita HIV/AIDS di Kota Jambi. Jambi Medical Journal:Jurnal Kedokteran dan Kesehatan. 2022;10:515–25. Available from: https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/kedokteran/article/view/20811 . Cited 2024 Feb 17

Firman F, Wulandari Y. Self-stigma based on the sexual orientation in PLWHA (People Living with HIV/AIDS) in Surabaya, Indonesia. 2023. p. 195–203.  https://www.atlantispress.com/proceedings/micon-21/125986565 .

Sitorus RJ, Antara NY, Sangalang RV, Panjaitan MN, Fauk NK. Understanding the health-related quality of life of peopleliving with hiv based on sexual orientation. Kesmas. 2023;18:73–9.

Parisi C, Varma D, Wang Y, Vaddiparti K, Ibanez G, Cruz L, et al. Changes in mental health among people with hiv during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative and quantitative perspectives. AIDS Behav. 2022;26:1980–91.

Newman PA, Prabhu SM, Akkakanjanasupar P, Tepjan S. HIV and mental health among young people in low-resource contexts in Southeast Asia: a qualitative investigation. Glob Public Health. 2022;17:1200–14.

Ahmed A, Dujaili JA, Jabeen M, Umair MM, Chuah LH, Hashmi FK, et al. Barriers and enablers for adherence to antiretroviral therapy among people living with HIV/AIDS in the era of COVID-19: a qualitative study from Pakistan. Front Pharmacol. 2022;12:807446. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.807446 .

Pantelic M, Martin K, Fitzpatrick C, Nixon E, Tweed M, Spice W, et al. “I have the strength to get through this using my past experiences with HIV”: findings from a mixed-method survey of health outcomes, service accessibility, and psychosocial wellbeing among people living with HIV during the Covid-19 pandemic. AIDS Care - Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV. 2022;34:821–7.

Fauk NK, Gesesew HA, Mwanri L, Hawke K, Ward PR. Understanding the quality of life of people living with HIV in rural and urban areas in Indonesia. PLoS One. 2023;18(7):e0280087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280087 .

UNICEF, UNDP, Prospera, SMERU Research Institute. The social and economic impact of covid-19 on households in indonesia: a second round of surveys in 2022. 2022. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/reports/social-and-economic-impact-covid-19-households-indonesia

Jaringan Indonesia Positive. Civil Society Priorities for inclusion into Indonesia’s application for a C19RM grant from the Global Fund. 2021. Available from: https://gate.ngo/knowledge-portal/publication/indonesian-civil-society-priorities-for-inclusion-in-c19rm-country-grant/

UNFPA Indonesia. cva_unfpa_indonesia. UNFPA Indonesia. 2023. Available from: https://indonesia.unfpa.org/en/publications/scaling-up-cva-people-living-hiv

International Labor Organization. Socio economic impact of COVID-19 towards people living with HIV and key population rapid assessment report. 2021. Available from: www.ilo.org/publns

Luis H, Fridayantara WD, Mahariski P, Wignall FS, Irwanto I, Gedela K. Evolving ART crisis for people living with HIV in Indonesia. Lancet HIV. 2020;7:384–5.

Fauk NK, Gesesew HA, Seran AL, Ward PR. Barriers to access to antiretroviral therapy by people living with HIV in an Indonesian remote district during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23(1):296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08221-z .

Gedela K, Rajus N, Luis H, Fridayantara WD, Irwanto I, Sukmaningrum E, et al. Antiretroviral drug switches to zidovudine-based regimens and loss to follow-up during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Bali, Indonesia. HIV Med. 2022;23(9):1025–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/hiv.13298 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Claborn KR, Meier E, Miller MB, Leffingwell TR. A systematic review of treatment fatigue among HIV-infected patients prescribed antiretroviral therapy. Psychol Health Med. 2015;20(3):255–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2014.945601 .

Sun Y, Zhan Y, Li H, Yuan T, Gao Y, Liang B, et al. Stakeholder efforts to mitigate antiretroviral therapy interruption among people living with HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: a qualitative study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2021;24:25781. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25781

Gutiérrez-Velilla E, Barrientos-Casarrubias V, Gómez-Palacio Schjetnan M, Perrusquia-Ortiz LE, Cruz-Maycott R, Alvarado-de la Barrera C, et al. Mental health and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among Mexican people living with HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic. AIDS Res Ther. 2023;20(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12981-023-00532-0 .

Nguyen T, Nguyen Q, Khuat H, Le T, Nguyen TH. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on provision of HIV/AIDS services for key populations. Int J Health Plann Manag. 2022;37:2852–68.

Hung CC, Banerjee S, Gilada I, Green K, Inoue Y, Kamarulzaman A, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on the HIV care continuum in Asia: Insights from people living with HIV, key populations, and HIV healthcare providers. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0270831. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270831 .

Wilkinson L, Grimsrud A. V I E W P O I N T. 2020; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25503/full

Nitpolprasert C, Anand T, Phanuphak N, Reiss P, Ananworanich J, Peay HL. A qualitative study of the impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on psychological and financial wellbeing and engagement in care among men who have sex with men living with HIV in Thailand. HIV Med. 2022;23:227–36.

Hoke T, Bateganya M, Toyo O, Francis C, Shrestha B, Philakone P, et al. How home delivery of antiretroviral drugs ensured uninterrupted HIV treatment during COVID-19: experiences from Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, and Nigeria. 2020. Available from: www.ghspjournal.org

Mendelson M, Nel J, Blumberg L, Madhi SA, Dryden M, Stevens W, et al. Long-COVID : an evolving problem with an extensive impact. S Afr Med J. 2021;111:10–2.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lenharo M. WHO declares end to COVID-19's emergency phase. Nature. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01559-z . Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37147368.

Tabish SA, Nabil S. An age of emerging and reemerging pandemic threats. Health N Hav. 2022;14:1021–37.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express our gratitude to our community partners who participated in this study.

This research was funded by WHO Indonesia, grant number 2020/1047017–0 and through post-doctoral support to the first author (ES) by The Fogarty UIC/AJCU Training Program in Advanced Research Methods and Translational Science (1 D43 TW010935).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Psychology, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, 12930, Indonesia

Evi Sukmaningrum

AIDS Research Centre Health Policy and Social Innovation, University Centre of Excellence, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, 12930, Indonesia

Evi Sukmaningrum, Made Diah Negara & Devika Devika

University of Illinois at Chicago, Illinois, 60302, USA

Judith Levy

Center for Public Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University, Denpasar, 80113, Indonesia

Brigitta Dhyah K. Wardhani & Pande Putu Januraga

Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2033, Australia

Luh Putu Lila Wulandari

Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University, Denpasar, 80113, Indonesia

Pande Putu Januraga

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: ES., L.P.L.W., and P.P.J; Methodology: E.S., P.P.J.; Software: D. and M.D.N.; Validation: J.L and L.P.L.W., Formal Analysis: ES. and J.L.; Investigation: B.D.K.W., D.,M.D.N.; Resources: B.D.K.W.,; Data Curation: D., L.P.L.W., and M.D.N.; Writing- Original Draft Preparation, E.S.,; Review and Editing: J.L., L.P.L.W., P.P.J.; Supervision: J.L.; Project Administration: B.D.K.W.,; Funding Acquisition: J.L. and P.P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evi Sukmaningrum .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University/Sanglah Hospital with ethical clearance number 1806/UN14.2.2.VII.14/LT/2020. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All methods were carried out in strict accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sukmaningrum, E., Levy, J., Negara, M.D. et al. Lived experience, social support, and challenges to health service use during the COVID-19 pandemic among HIV key populations in Indonesia. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 774 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11227-1

Download citation

Received : 21 August 2023

Accepted : 20 June 2024

Published : 02 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11227-1

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

• COVID-19 Indonesia
• HIV key populations
• Effects of government COVID-19 policy
• Social support
• Health services experience
• Antiretroviral adherence

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• Image Library
• ESC Journals App
• ESC Content Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Why publish with EJPC?
• Open Access Options
• Read & Publish
• Author Resources
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
• Editorial Board
• ESC Publications
• About European Society of Cardiology
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Developing Countries Initiative
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Lay summary, parity, infertility, age at first birth and risk of atrial fibrillation: data from the hunt study.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Hikaru Morooka, Eirin B Haug, Vegard Malmo, Jan Pål Loennechen, Kenneth J Mukamal, Abhijit Sen, Imre Janszky, Julie Horn, Parity, infertility, age at first birth and risk of atrial fibrillation: data from the HUNT study, European Journal of Preventive Cardiology , 2024;, zwae215, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwae215

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Although parity, infertility, and age at first birth are important for later development of cardiovascular disease, research on their association with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited.

We linked data from the population-based HUNT study, the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN) and validated medical records from local hospitals. A total of 24,015 women aged 45 years or older were followed for verified incident AF. Parity and age at first birth were retrieved from the MBRN or from self-reported questionnaires in the HUNT. History of infertility was self-reported on the HUNT questionnaire. Cox-proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for the multivariable-adjusted associations of parity, infertility, and age at first birth with risk of AF.

During a median follow-up of 12.8 years, 1,448 (6.0%) participants developed AF. Women with higher parity (four or more births vs. two births) were at 21% higher risk of AF (HR 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-1.39). History of infertility was also associated with risk of AF (HR 1.20, 95% CI, 1.02-1.42). Among parous women, younger age at first birth (<20 years vs. 20-29 years) was associated with a 20% higher risk of AF (HR 1.20, 95% CI, 1.03-1.40).

Women with four or more births, or a history of infertility, or younger age at first birth have approximately a 20% higher risk of AF among women over 45 years old.

A higher number of births and younger age at first birth are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, there is limited evidence on the associations between parity, age at first birth and atrial fibrillation (AF). Moreover, the association between infertility and AF remains largely unexplored.

We have investigated the association between parity, infertility, age at first birth and AF in the population-based cohort from Norway (the HUNT study) among women over 45 years old.

Our findings reveal that women with four or more births, or a history of infertility, or younger age at first birth have approximately a 20% higher risk of AF.

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2047-4881
• Print ISSN 2047-4873
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Cardiology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Meet the psychological needs of your people—all your people

As record numbers of workers quit their jobs, companies are busy trying to figure out how to make working conditions at their organization more attractive and more sustainable. Many companies boast flexible hours, good benefits, and, of course, higher pay. And some go further, looking closely at how roles in the organization can fulfill people’s psychological needs.

Business leaders recognize these emotional needs—whether it is the sense of reward workers have when they accomplish something, the frustration they feel when being micromanaged, the anger they experience after being treated unfairly, the longing they feel to be part of a group, or the desire they have for their work to be interesting and meaningful.

Yet many leaders mistakenly believe that only other professionals who have enjoyed similar success—and the financial rewards that come with it—truly value the nonfinancial aspects of their work. As we show in this article, that is simply not true.

People in lower-paying jobs also want their psychological needs at work to be satisfied. Yet data show that those needs are typically going unmet, far more often than is the case for higher earners.

Some of this may be unavoidable: for example, there is only so much autonomy one can feasibly grant a production line worker, while the job of a truck driver may be inherently lacking in social contact. However, most jobs could be enhanced to provide a much greater degree of psychological satisfaction.

In this article, we share novel data and analysis that illustrate the premium placed by all workers on psychologically satisfying work and how current work practices appear to be exacerbating existing inequalities. We also look at what business leaders can do to address the psychological needs of their lower-earning employees.

The good news is that, for the most part, companies have direct control over actions that can improve matters. Moreover, many of the practices that are needed—while requiring some time and effort—do not typically call for direct cash outlays. In fact, better satisfying workers’ psychological needs tends to correlate with higher revenues and profits.

Most people, across all income levels, believe that having an interesting job is as important as having a solid income

For thousands of years, philosophers have argued about what constitutes a “good life”—a life with more progress, pleasure, or purpose. Now, modern sciences—neuroscience, endocrinology (hormones), psychology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology, among others—have caught up. All agree: there is much more to being a human than surviving and procreating. 1 Admittedly, the underlying motivators of human behavior—needs, desires, and preferences—may be evolutionary. In other words, they may be serving the goal of survival and procreation. Nevertheless, in modern societies, these needs, desires, and preferences include a large social and psychological component—for example, the need for belonging, friendship, and love. If these needs are not met, people’s reactions can be just as visceral as if their physical safety is threatened.

In a way, Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs 2 Abraham Maslow, “A theory of human motivation,” Psychological Review , July 1943, Volume 50, Number 4. was both right and wrong at the same time. On the one hand, it recognized that people have many desires in addition to basic bodily needs such as water, food, and shelter. On the other hand, it assumed a fixed hierarchy where psychological needs—such as belonging and self-esteem—became relevant only after basic physical and safety needs were met. However, modern research has shown that these needs exist in parallel and that a person’s well-being can be enhanced—for example, by good social relationships— even if their basic physical and safety needs are not completely fulfilled. 3 Ed Diener and Louis Tay, “Needs and subjective well-being around the world,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , August 2011, Volume 101, Number 2.

It is no longer a surprise that people seek more from their employers than just a paycheck and a safe place to work. A preponderance of evidence suggests that “good work” also means satisfying employees’ psychological needs.

At all levels of income, the most important drivers of people’s job satisfaction were interpersonal relationships and having an interesting job.

• McKinsey’s recent analysis of the reasons why employees are leaving their jobs in record numbers ( the Great Attrition , or what many call the Great Resignation) showed that the most important factors were social and psychological, including not feeling valued by their organization or manager or not having a sense of belonging at work.
• A quantitative analysis of more than 16,000 workers globally in 2015 showed that at all levels of income, the most important factors determining people’s job satisfaction were interpersonal relationships and having an interesting job—each accounting for around 20 percent of the explainable variation. In contrast, the level of pay accounted for only 4 percent of the variation in people’s job satisfaction. 4 Jan-Emmanuel de Neve et al., “Work and well-being: A global perspective,” in Global Happiness Policy Report , edited by Global Council for Happiness and Wellbeing, New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2018.
• In a representative global survey of nearly 50,000 people across 38 countries, more than 60 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money.” 5 ISSP Research Group (2017), “International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientations IV - ISSP 2015,” GESIS Data Archive, Cologne, ZA6770 data file version 2.1.0, doi.org/10.4232/1.12848. Percentages calculated using relevant weighting factors and excluding answers “can’t choose” and “no answer.” Only around 40 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “A job is just a way of earning money—no more.”
• In the same survey, across all occupations and income levels, only 16 percent of respondents rated “high income” as more important than having “an interesting job.” As shown in Exhibit 1, the average importance placed on “an interesting job” was on par with or higher than “high income” in all occupational groupings, including the lowest-paid ones .

Yet companies do a better job of addressing the psychological needs of higher-earning employees than lower-earning colleagues

One of the most prominent models of human motivation, extensively applied to organizational and employment research, is the self-determination theory by psychologists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci. 6 Delia O’Hara, “The intrinsic motivation of Richard Ryan and Edward Deci,” American Psychological Association, December 18, 2017. According to this theory, as well as a large body of empirical evidence, all employees have three basic psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—and satisfying these needs promotes high-quality performance and broader well-being. 7 Edward L. Deci et al., “Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science,” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 2017, Volume 4. Additional studies, including McKinsey’s own research, have also found a link between positive outcomes  (for both employer and employee) and employee engagement, 8 Jan-Emmanuel de Neve et al., “Employee well-being, productivity, and firm performance: Evidence and case studies,” in Global Happiness Policy Report , edited by Global Council for Happiness and Wellbeing, New York, NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2019. often embodied in questions about the degree to which employees consider their work to be interesting, and purposeful .

Drawing on this literature, as well as a large global data set generated by the International Social Survey Programme, 9 ISSP Research Group (2017), “International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientations IV - ISSP 2015.” we looked at how well employees’ psychological needs are satisfied in different types of occupations, ranging from managerial and professional jobs to lower-paid roles, such as those in customer service, cleaning, and waste disposal. Given the data available, we focused on five psychological needs: competence (related to the concept of mastery), autonomy (related to control and agency), relatedness (including positive relationships), meaning (proxied by how interesting individuals find their jobs), and purpose (proxied by how proud individuals are of their organizations).

The results are fascinating (Exhibit 2). First, the good news: on a net basis (deducting those who “disagree” or “strongly disagree” from those who “agree” or “strongly agree”) across all occupations, a greater proportion of workers feel that their psychological needs are satisfied. Even for those with the worst net score—plant and machine operators and assemblers who were asked about feelings of competence—around 48 percent said that they could use “almost all” or “a lot” of their past experience and skills, versus 23 percent who said that they could use “almost none” of their skills on the job. Similarly, while 23 percent of workers in elementary occupations (such as cleaners, couriers, and waiters) didn’t find their jobs to be interesting, more than half did.

In absolute terms, more global workers—whatever their role—feel more positive than negative about the degree to which their psychological needs are met.

The bad news, however, is that this is far less true for individuals employed in lower-paying, and often lower-skilled, jobs. The differences between, say, managers and people in elementary occupations are particularly large in terms of competence (the ability to use experience and skills) and meaning (how interesting the job is). In this sense, current work practices globally seem to be exacerbating inequalities rather than ameliorating them.

The data indicate that not all of this is inherent to, or directly determined by, the characteristics of each role. After all, some people in even the most manual, routine, repetitive, or poorly paid jobs still indicate that their work is meaningful, that they are proud of the organization they work for, and that their role enables them to express and satisfy their needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

Indeed, the potential for any job to inspire is illustrated powerfully by the classic story of the three bricklayers working at St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Christopher Wren, one of the most highly acclaimed English architects in history, had been commissioned in the late 17th century to rebuild the cathedral. One day, he noticed three bricklayers on a scaffold, each of whom appeared to have very different levels of motivation and speed. He asked each of them the same question: “What are you doing?”

The first bricklayer, seemingly the least satisfied with his position, said, “I’m a bricklayer. I’m working hard laying bricks to feed my family.” The second bricklayer, slightly more engaged, replied, “I’m a builder. I’m building a wall.” The third bricklayer, who seemed to be working with the greatest amount of purpose, said, “I’m a cathedral builder. I’m building a great cathedral to The Almighty.” 10 Jim Baker, “The story of three bricklayers—a parable about the power of purpose,” Sacred Structures, April 9, 2019. In the modern workplace, great managers and leaders can elicit a sense of meaning  by emphasizing, and reflecting with employees on, the ultimate contribution that their organization is making to society.

McKinsey research suggests that society is a key source of meaning for employees, along with company, customer, team, and individual. Together, they make up a collective, integrated whole that leaders can address. If average job satisfaction is weaker for lower-earning roles despite the many lower-paid individuals who do have their psychological needs met, organizations must be overlooking opportunities to do better. Luckily, they have many ways to refocus and improve their efforts.

Addressing the psychological needs of lower earners makes good business sense—here’s what leaders can do

Any organization claiming to be a good employer would want to address the imbalances highlighted above, as much as is operationally feasible. As we have written previously , positive and negative experiences at work—beyond pay and rations—have significant spillover consequences for people’s personal lives. 11 Diego Cortez et al., “Revisiting the link between job satisfaction and life satisfaction: The role of basic psychological needs,” Frontiers in Psychology , May 9, 2017, Volume 8, Article 680. For example, one study showed that a mother’s dissatisfaction with her job can contribute to her children’s behavioral problems. 12 Julian Barling and Karyl E. MacEwen, “Effects of maternal employment experiences on children’s behavior via mood, cognitive difficulties, and parenting behavior,” Journal of Marriage and Family , August 1991, Volume 53, Number 3.

However, in addition to the moral case for equalizing the scales on psychological well-being, there is also a strong business case. A comprehensive evidence base shows that higher employee satisfaction is associated with higher profitability 13 James K. Harter et al., “Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology , April 2002, Volume 87, Number 2. and that this phenomenon is not confined to a company’s higher-earning roles. Consider the case of frontline customer service staff: one experiment showed that weekly sales for call center operators increased by 13 percent when the operators’ happiness increased by one point on a scale of one to five. 14 Clement Bellet et al., “Does employee happiness have an impact on productivity?,” Saïd Business School working paper 2019-13, October 17, 2019. Worker satisfaction and customer satisfaction tend to go hand in hand. 15 “Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes,” April 2002.

Another direct link from employee satisfaction to the business bottom line is through employee turnover. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, more people than ever are leaving their jobs voluntarily , both in the United States and in other developed economies .

And while the competition for talent is heated among professionals such as software engineers and medics, vacancy rates in many low-paying jobs are also sky-high. Across the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, unfilled roles abound in the hospitality, entertainment, and logistics sectors, among others. 16 McKinsey analysis based on data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Eurostat, and the UK Office for National Statistics, accessed on May 11, 2022. For businesses, losing personnel means costly and time-consuming recruitment and retraining , not to mention lost output and productivity.

Psychological well-being at work  is one of the most important factors in employees’ decisions to stay or to go . Regardless of income level, workers who “strongly agreed” that they were proud of the organization they worked for were significantly more likely also to say that they would turn down a job at another organization, even if it offered higher pay. Granted, people in higher-earning roles tended to be more loyal, but the difference in loyalty between staff who felt proud and staff who did not was dramatic across all income categories.

Whether motivated by equity considerations or bottom-line benefits, employers would do well to consider ways they can improve the working experience for lower earners.

To get started, leaders can think of this as a journey with six steps:

• Appreciate that the majority of people, at all levels of the organization, are looking for more than just money from their job—that they would like to have their psychological needs satisfied.
• Recognize that workers’ circumstances vary significantly in different jobs and teams and are often very different from those of leaders themselves.
• Analyze how effectively psychological needs are being met in each type of job and each part of the organization, benchmarking performance to peers and best practice.
• Identify how psychological needs can be better satisfied—typically through changes in company culture, behaviors, and day-to-day working practices.
• Act by creating initiatives, projects, and processes to help make workers feel more masterful, in jobs that are, as much as possible, more skills-based, autonomous, connected, interesting, or purposeful.
• Monitor and evaluate the results, both in terms of how satisfied employees are with their psychological needs and in terms of commercial outcomes and employee well-being.

The best suggestions for how to redesign jobs or processes, or how to make the workplace more psychologically satisfying, will almost certainly come from workers themselves. Indeed, the process of discussing issues and opportunities and listening to employees’ daily experiences is itself a core part of creating positive change. Many businesses already routinely talk to their workers about employee engagement and satisfaction.

The best suggestions for how exactly to redesign jobs or processes, or make the workplace more psychologically satisfying, will almost certainly come from staff themselves.

However, it is vitally important to base these discussions on more than workers’ fundamental needs, such as physical safety and pay. The style of conversation should focus on both what people think about work and how they feel about work. Such discussions are likely to unleash a range of responses—both positive and negative—which leaders will need to harness both respectfully and skillfully.

In addition to intensive employee engagement processes, there are a number of practical behaviors that leaders can encourage through mindsets, communication, role modeling, training, and performance-management processes. For lower-earning employees, the actions and behaviors of immediate line managers can make an enormous difference. Some of the practices that have positive returns in almost every situation include the following:

Recognize competence: Frequently review a day’s work (with no judgment or blame) and ask what you as the manager or leader can do to make the next day easier. Thank and praise people for a job (well) done. Make the most of individuals’ skills through delegation. Provide regular, strength-based feedback oriented toward problem-solving.

For example, the plant and machine operators in Exhibit 2 who said that they were able to utilize their skills may still have had production line tasks that were fairly prescribed. But their factory organized short two-way briefings at every shift change, allowing workers to help make decisions about how operations are carried out.

Grant autonomy: Focus on the end goal of what is to be achieved and why and let employees decide—or at least give them a voice in—how to get there. Give frontline workers discretion over appropriate decisions. Ask employees how they feel about work and really listen to their answers.

For example, retail assistants who are given the discretion to accept customer returns or hand out vouchers in specific situations are more likely not only to make customers happier and more confident but also to feel better themselves.

Build connections: Set up regular (for example, daily) meetings at the beginning of each day (or shift) and allow time for socializing. Create regular breaks or events that help build social connections. Act decisively to eradicate any bullying or harassment. Praise and promote compassionate leaders .

For example, one skin care company whose sales agents work exclusively from home managed to maintain high levels of staff satisfaction by orchestrating regular one-on-one catch-ups, as well as virtual group get-togethers, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed people to feel more connected to their colleagues. 17 Tera Allas et al., “Lessons on resilience for small and midsize businesses,” Harvard Business Review , June 3, 2021.

Instill meaning: Always explain the “why” behind tasks and link the reason to goals that go beyond making money (for example, being proud of the organization’s product or service). Help make work more interesting by upskilling people to be able to perform more complex or varied tasks. Simply ask people what would make their jobs more interesting.

For example, the workers in elementary occupations in Exhibit 2 who said that they still found their jobs meaningful may well have benefited from the same attitude that met President John F. Kennedy when he visited NASA in 1962. When the president came across a janitor in the hallway and asked him what his role was, the janitor replied, “I’m helping put a man on the moon.”

Discuss purpose: Set aside time for teams to reflect on the impact the company has on the world. Use one-on-one conversations to better understand workers’ individual sense of purpose  and discuss how they can act on it in their work setting.

For example, for a worker at a clothing manufacturer, a manager can make the role more fulfilling by regularly sharing positive messages, photos, or videos from smiling customers wearing the company’s garments.

This advice may sound basic. We all know how to meet the psychological needs of the people in our lives—our children, our partners, our friends. We might even compliment, thank, and empathize with strangers.

We need to take these positive behaviors and apply them in the workplace as well—not only with peers but with employees at all levels of the organization. However routine their tasks, we can stop treating workers as cogs in a machine and start treating them as the wonderful human beings they are.

The authors wish to thank Jacqueline Brassey and Marino MB for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by Rick Tetzeli, an executive editor in the New York office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

‘Great Attrition’ or ‘Great Attraction’? The choice is yours

Help your employees find purpose—or watch them leave

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 07 July 2024

Risks of dairy derived excipients in medications for lactose intolerant and cow milk protein allergic patients

• Alexandra Figueiredo 1 , 2 ,
• Maria Deolinda Auxtero 1 , 2 ,
• Maria Santo 1 ,
• Andreia Casimiro 1 , 2 &
• Isabel Margarida Costa 1 , 2  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  15631 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Health care
• Risk factors

The use of lactose and cow milk protein (CMP) as potential allergens in pharmaceuticals and their ability to cause allergic reactions remains a significant concern in medicine. Lactose, a common pharmaceutical excipient due to its inert, inexpensive, and stable properties, is found in many prescription-only and over-the-counter medications. However, despite their widespread use, individuals with lactose intolerance (LI) or cow milk protein allergy (CMPA) may experience adverse reactions to these excipients. This study investigated the prevalence of lactose and other dairy-derived ingredients in pharmaceuticals marketed in Portugal. Using the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) from the INFOMED database, various medications, including analgesics, antipyretics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antiasthmatics, were analyzed. Results showed a high prevalence of dairy-derived excipients, particularly in antiasthmatic drugs (62.6%) and NSAIDs (39%). Although CMP are not explicitly mentioned in SmPCs, the presence of lactose as an ingredient poses a risk of cross-contamination. The findings emphasize the need for healthcare professionals to be aware of potential allergens in medications and the importance of developing lactose-free alternatives to ensure the safety of patients with LI and CMPA. Further research is required to assess the safety and implications of lactose in medicines for these populations.

Introduction

Currently, the use of lactose and cow milk protein (CMP) in medicine, and their potential to trigger allergic reactions, remains a topic of significant interest and concern in the medical field. Lactose is the predominant sugar in milk and is unique to dairy products. Owing to its characteristics—being inert, inexpensive, non-toxic, water-soluble and chemically stable 1 , 2 . This substance is one of the most widely used excipients in the pharmaceutical industry. It is found in 20% of prescription-only medicines and 65% of over-the-counter medicines 2 , 3 , 4 . Its role as an excipient varies, and it is a common constituent in several pharmaceutical dosage forms, such as tablets, capsules, dry powder inhalers, lyophilized products, sugar-coating solutions, and some liquid preparations 3 , 5 . Tablets represent the most common dosage form in which lactose is a diluent or filler. Lactose is often used as a carrier in dry powder inhaler (DPI) formulations 6 .

For absorption, lactose must be hydrolyzed by the lactase enzyme present on the surface of the mucosa of the small intestine 7 . In individuals with lactase deficiency, lactose is not properly digested and cannot be absorbed, remaining intact in the colon where bacteria convert it into gases and short-chain fatty acids. Fermentation products and unfermented lactose can cause gastrointestinal symptoms that make up the clinical picture of lactose intolerance (LI) 6 , 8 , 9 . Despite the widespread use of lactose, only 30% of the world’s adult population retains the ability to digest lactose effectively. High rates of lactase activity retention have been observed in Northern European populations (Scandinavia, Netherlands, United Kingdom), reaching up to 90%. Conversely, lactase deficiency is prevalent in 70–100% of African, South American and Asian populations 4 . For people with LI, lactose in medications can lead to digestive issues. Nevertheless, it is important for both healthcare providers and patients to know the amount of lactose that can cause symptoms in those who are lactose intolerant. Research indicates that it usually takes about 10 g of lactose per day to cause noticeable symptoms in most individuals who lack the enzyme lactase 10 . Since most formulations contain less than 1 g of lactose per dosage unit (capsule, tablet) 1 , 6 , medication is unlikely to cause significant lactose-related symptoms in lactase-deficient patients. However, some people with LI report experiencing symptoms even with small amounts of lactose, such as 100 to 200 mg, highlighting the significant variability in individual tolerance levels 1 , 2 , 11 . This variability can depend on numerous factors including genetic background, the specific composition of the gut microbiome, and the presence of other gastrointestinal conditions 12 . Moreover, the cumulative effect of multiple medications containing lactose should not be overlooked.

In addition to LI, the consumption of dairy products is also associated with other diseases, such as cow milk protein allergy (CMPA). CMP is the most common allergen in the pediatric population. Although the exact prevalence is challenging to monitor, it is estimated that approximately 0.5–6% of infants in developed countries are affected by this condition during their first year of life. While the incidence tends to decrease as children grow older, the onset of symptoms can occur at any age 13 , 14 . CMP, particularly casein and whey proteins, are commonly used as excipients in pharmaceutical formulations 15 . These proteins can serve various purposes in drug formulations, such as stabilizing agents, emulsifiers, or carriers 16 , 17 . Although the incidence of reactions to cow’s milk allergens in medications among sensitized patients has not been thoroughly studied, it seems to be low but increasing. Nonetheless, the potential for severe reactions warrants careful consideration when administering medications that might contain milk allergens to such children 17 . Additionally, inter-lot variability in DPIs shows clinically significant and seemingly random differences in milk protein contamination 18 . Therefore, patients with CMPA need to make every effort to avoid common food and non-food products containing the problematic proteins.

Confusion between LI and CMPA is common, primarily due to their shared source, milk, and overlapping symptoms, including diarrhea, colic, and other gastrointestinal, respiratory, and skin issues 15 . LI is a digestive issue caused by insufficient activity of the enzyme lactase. It can be primary (rarer and more severe) or more often congenital, making it necessary to exclude or eat only small quantities of products containing lactose (depending on the degree of intolerance) 19 . In contrast, CMPA results from an immunological response to CMP (caseins and whey proteins: alpha and beta lactalbumins, serum albumin, immunoglobulin, and lactoferrin) 20 . The two main subtypes of CMPA are IgE- and non-IgE-mediated allergies, although a mixed presentation caused by the activation of both immunological pathways also exists 14 . IgE-mediated sensitivity to milk proteins is commonly found in individuals who are lactose intolerant 21 .

Treatment focuses predominantly on dietary restriction of dairy products. Management of CMPA involves strict avoidance of CMP, including scrutiny of medication labels for hidden milk protein sources. Dietary modification and lactase enzyme supplementation are commonly recommended strategies to alleviate the symptoms triggered by lactose-containing medications and foods 22 .

These conditions present an ongoing challenge for healthcare providers, as they must carefully evaluate the risk–benefit balance of prescribing lactose-containing medications to patients with LI. This represents a significant socioeconomic burden and impacts the quality of life of affected individuals and their families.

Nevertheless, to the best of the authors knowledge, the assessments of dairy excipients’ presence in drug products are scarce, and those that exist have small sample sizes, underscoring the present survey’s relevance.

This study aimed to examine the prevalence of lactose and other dairy-derived ingredients used as excipients in pharmaceuticals authorized for marketing in Portugal.

Materials and methods

A search was conducted using the Summary of Product Characteristics for human medications authorized for marketing in Portugal to identify dairy-derived excipients in pharmaceutical products. These SmPCs were accessed through the online database INFOMED ( https://extranet.infarmed.pt/INFOMED-fo/ ). The pharmacotherapeutic groups were selected based on their therapeutic indications, focusing on conditions with high incidence rates in adults and children. The groups included antiasthmatics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics, and antipyretic drugs. The inclusion criteria comprised medicines from specific groups, such as analgesics and antipyretics containing paracetamol, NSAIDs based on ibuprofen (alone or in combination), and antiasthmatics/bronchodilators. All had to have marketing authorization in Portugal and an accompanying SmPC available on INFOMED. Generic and branded medications were included across all dosages and formulations except injectables. This encompassed both prescription-only and over-the-counter medicines and pediatric and adult formulations.

The presence of lactose, CMP or similar substances was determined by examining the complete list of excipients provided in each SmPC (refer to Table 1 ).

In addition to the excipients listed in Table 1 , several drugs mention flavors and essences (such as cream) in their SmPCs. Since there is no conclusive proof that these compounds are entirely safe for individuals with CMPA or LI, this study assumed, as a precautionary measure, that these excipients could contain dairy derivatives. Medications were categorized as either 'milk allergens present' (MAP) or 'milk allergens free' (MAF) based on the presence of components listed in Table 1 , as verified in the SmPC. However, it is essential to note that even if no milk allergens are mentioned in the SmPC, cross-contamination during production cannot be entirely ruled out without explicit assurance from the manufacturing laboratory. Therefore, the classification of medications as MAF in this study is based solely on the composition information provided in the SmPC.

Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics version 29.0 for Windows (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY). The statistical significance level was determined as a two-tailed p < 0.05.

Results and discussion

In this study, 397 drugs were analyzed, including 142 analgesics and antipyretics containing paracetamol, 100 NSAIDs containing ibuprofen and 155 antiasthmatic and bronchodilator medications. The findings are summarized in Table 2 .

Of the 397 medications reviewed, 143 (36%) were identified as MAP. The primary allergen was lactose, except in three analgesics and antipyretics, where the excipient was cream essence. However, because of the risk of cross-contamination, lactose may contain traces of CMP 18 . Reports of lactose contamination with CMP are rare and usually accidental, but they can lead to adverse reactions, posing significant risks.

The highest prevalence of MAP was found in antiasthmatic drugs with a rate of 62.6%, followed by NSAIDs at 39%. The relationship between pharmacotherapeutic groups and the presence of lactose was examined using the Chi-squared Pearson exact test, which revealed a strong and significant association ( p  < 0.001).

Regarding pharmaceutical forms, dairy-derived excipients were found in 97% of antiasthmatic powders for inhalation and 69.2% of film-coated tablet NSAIDs (see Table 2 ). Figures  1 , 2 , and 3 illustrate the prevalence of medicines containing milk allergen in each therapeutic group studied, based on drug dosage forms such as solid oral, liquid oral, rectal, or inhaled.

Milk allergens (N) in analgesic and antipyretic drugs by dosage form.

Milk allergens (N) in NSAIDs by dosage form.

Milk allergens (N) in antiasthmatic drugs.

Our finding that lactose is predominantly present in the pharmacotherapeutic group of antiasthmatics, particularly in dry powder inhaler (DPIs) formulations, aligns with Santoro et al. (2019), who identified dry powder inhalers as the formulation with the highest prevalence of lactose as an excipient.

The large lactose carrier particles in DPIs often get retained in the oropharynx and are likely swallowed, posing a risk of intolerance in sensitive individuals 6 . Literature indicates that DPIs have the highest number of hypersensitivity reports, likely due to lactose deposition in the oropharynx, occurring in about 98% of cases, leading to ingestion 23 .

In Brazil, a study analyzed the excipients in 181 drugs that induced allergic reactions across several pharmacotherapeutic groups, including NSAIDs, antibacterials, bronchodilators and anticonvulsants. Among these drugs, 28% contained lactose, as identified in the package insert, primarily in capsule and dry powder form and within the group of antiasthmatics and bronchodilators. These results are consistent with the data obtained in our study 24 .

Figure  4 shows the analysis of milk excipient prevalence within each therapeutic group, considering whether the drugs were generic or branded.

Prevalence (%) of MAP within therapeutic groups, categorized by the type of drug (generic versus branded).

Fisher’s exact test was applied to explore the association between the presence of lactose and the classification of drugs as generic or branded, irrespective of therapeutic group. The analysis revealed no statistically significant association ( p  > 0.05). However, when the analysis was conducted considering the therapeutic groups, a statistically significant association was observed for NSAIDs ( p  < 0.001).

The SmPCs do not provide information about the quantity of excipients in medications, leading to prescribers and pharmacists often being unaware of the exact content of dairy derivatives 6 . Additionally, several factors complicate predicting the real impact of lactose and CMP on sensitive individuals: actual lactose intake varies with pH, rate of gastric emptying, and intestinal motility 6 , and sensitivity to lactose varies widely, resulting in differing severities of symptoms 1 . Hence, the frequency of use of lactose does not provide any information in terms of actual degree of exposure, and therefore risk posed to individuals with LI or CMPA. However, the presence of dairy-derived excipients in medicines should always be considered a potential risk for LI individuals, especially those who are highly sensitive.

Our study underscores the importance of health professionals being aware of these risks and assists them in selecting safer alternatives when prescribing and dispensing medications.

Conclusions

This study revealed that lactose is predominantly used in solid forms of medication, suggesting that liquid or rectal forms may be safer options for patients with severe milk allergies or intolerance.

A significant number of NSAIDs and antiasthmatic drugs contain dairy-derived excipients.

The inclusion of lactose in medications is generally safe for most lactose-intolerant patients due to the minimal amounts used. Since our study focused on qualitative analysis, we could not determine the exact amount of excipients in the analyzed medications. Nevertheless, caution is essential for several reasons: the uncertain lactose content in many medications, highly variable and unpredictable lactose intake, patients' adherence to multi-dose therapeutic regimens, and the unpredictable effects of lactose consumption. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, it is advisable to carefully consider when prescribing medications containing dairy-derived ingredients to patients with LI or CMPA.

Moreover, health professionals must closely monitor lactose-intolerant or CMPA patients to prevent non-adherence issues arising from the fear of symptoms, which could potentially compromise treatment regimens.

Although the SmPCs of the studied medications did not mention any CMP, the presence of lactose can pose a serious risk for individuals with CMPA due to possible allergic reactions. Further research is needed to ascertain the safety of lactose in medicines and its implications for patients with CMPA and LI.

Given the potential impact of lactose on the health of lactose-intolerant individuals and those with CMPA, alongside its widespread use as an excipient in medicines, the pharmaceutical industry is urged to explore suitable alternatives for producing lactose-free medicines.

In summary, thoughtful evaluation, exploring alternative formulations, and diligent monitoring are crucial to minimize these risks and uphold patient safety.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Eadala, P., Waud, J. P., Matthews, S. B., Green, J. T. & Campbell, A. K. Quantifying the ‘hidden’ lactose in drugs used for the treatment of gastrointestinal conditions. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 29 , 677–687 (2009).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mill, D., Dawson, J. & Johnson, J. L. Managing acute pain in patients who report lactose intolerance: The safety of an old excipient re-examined. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf. 9 , 227–235 (2018).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Audicana Berasategui, M. T. et al. Potential hypersensitivity due to the food or food additive content of medicinal products in Spain. J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol. 21 , 496–506 (2011).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Zdrojewicz, Z., Zyskowska, K. & Wasiuk, S. Lactose in drugs and lactose intolerance—Realities and myths. Pediatr. i Med. Rodz. 14 , 261–266 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Robles, J. & Motheral, L. Hypersensitivity reaction after inhalation of a lactose-containing dry powder inhaler. J. Pediatr. Pharmacol. Ther. 19 , 206–211 (2014).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dominici, S. et al. Lactose: Characteristics, food and drug-related applications, and its possible substitutions in meeting the needs of people with lactose intolerance. Foods 11 , (2022).

Rangel, A. H. D. N. et al. Lactose intolerance and cow’s milk protein allergy. Food Sci. Technol. 36 , 179–187 (2016).

Storhaug, C. L., Fosse, S. K. & Fadnes, L. T. Country, regional, and global estimates for lactose malabsorption in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2 , 738–746 (2017).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Deng, Y., Misselwitz, B., Dai, N. & Fox, M. Lactose intolerance in adults: Biological mechanism and dietary management. Nutrients 7 , 8020–8035 (2015).

Misselwitz, B. et al. Lactose malabsorption and intolerance: pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 1 , 151–159 (2013).

Pawar, S. & Kumar, A. Issues in the formulation of drugs for oral use in children. Pediatr. Drugs 4 , 371–379 (2002).

Misselwitz, B., Butter, M., Verbeke, K. & Fox, M. R. Update on lactose malabsorption and intolerance: Pathogenesis, diagnosis and clinical management. Gut 68 , 2080–2091 (2019).

Arancibia, M. E. et al. Association of cow’s milk protein allergy prevalence with socioeconomic status in a cohort of Chilean infants. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 71 , E80–E83 (2020).

Emmert, V., Lendvai-Emmert, D., Eklics, K., Prémusz, V. & Tóth, G. P. Current practice in Pediatric cow’s milk protein allergy-immunological features and beyond. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24 (5), 5025 (2023).

Darma, A., Sumitro, K. R., Jo, J. & Sitorus, N. Lactose intolerance versus cow’s milk allergy in infants: A clinical dilemma. Nutrients 16 (3), 414 (2024).

Kaur, M. et al. Milk protein-based nanohydrogels: Current status and applications. Gels 8 , 432 (2022).

Santoro, A., Andreozzi, L., Ricci, G., Mastrorilli, C. & Caffarelli, C. Allergic reactions to cow’s milk proteins in medications in childhood. Acta Biomed. 90 , 91–93 (2019).

Nowak-Wegrzyn, A., Shapiro, G. & Beyer, K. Contamination of dry powder inhalers for. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 113 , 558–560 (2004).

Forsgård, R. A. Lactose digestion in humans: Intestinal lactase appears to be constitutive whereas the colonic microbiome is adaptable. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 110 , 273–279 (2019).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tang, R. et al. Four clinical phenotypes of cow’s milk protein allergy based on dairy product specific IgE antibody types in North China. Front. Immunol. 13 , 1–10 (2022).

Olivier, C. E. et al. Is it just lactose intolerance?. Allergy Asthma Proc. 33 , 432–436 (2012).

Cronin, C., Ramesh, Y., De Pieri, C., Velasco, R. & Trujillo, J. ‘Early introduction’ of cow’s milk for children with IgE-mediated cow’s milk protein allergy: A review of current and emerging approaches for CMPA management. Nutrients 15 (6), 1397 (2023).

European Medicines Agency. Science Medicines Health. Inf. Packag. Leafl. Regarding Proline Used as an Excip. Med. Prod. Hum. Use. Sci. Med. Heal. 1–24 (2018).

Stefani, G. P.; Higa, M.; Pastorino, A. C.; Castro, A. P. B. M.; Fomin, A. B. F.; & Jacob, C. M. A. Presença de corantes e lactose em medicamentos: avaliação de 181 produtos. Rev. Bras. Alerg. e Imunopatol. 18–26 (2009).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz (IUEM), Campus Universitário - Quinta da Granja, 2829-511, Monte de Caparica, Portugal

Alexandra Figueiredo, Maria Deolinda Auxtero, Maria Santo, Andreia Casimiro & Isabel Margarida Costa

PharmSci Lab/ Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Campus Universitário - Quinta da Granja, 2829-511, Monte de Caparica, Portugal

Alexandra Figueiredo, Maria Deolinda Auxtero, Andreia Casimiro & Isabel Margarida Costa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, A.F. and I.M.C.; methodology, M.S., A.C., A.F. and I.M.C.; formal analysis, A.F., M.D.A. and I.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F., M.D.A. and I.M.C.; writing—review and editing, A.F., M.D.A. and I.M.C.; supervision, A.F. and I.M.C.; project administration, I.M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Figueiredo .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

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.

Figueiredo, A., Auxtero, M.D., Santo, M. et al. Risks of dairy derived excipients in medications for lactose intolerant and cow milk protein allergic patients. Sci Rep 14 , 15631 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66380-8

Download citation

Received : 16 May 2024

Accepted : 01 July 2024

Published : 07 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66380-8

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

• Pharmaceutical excipients
• Lactose intolerance
• Cow milk protein allergy
• Dairy-derived ingredients
• Cross-contamination risk

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.