the importance of a research question

Ingham Institute

click here to donate please

Home / Why the research question is so important

Why the research question is so important

04/05/2018 at 5:42 am

A research question is a sentence that defines what you will examine, within which population, and what the outcome of interest will be. Defining a clear research question is the first and most important part of the project. Though it sounds simple, writing a research question is tricky even for experienced researchers. This video will build your understanding of where to start looking for research questions, how to write them, and why it is important to work with a solid research question from the beginning of the project.

Share this post

CALD clinical clinical data clinical practice clinical trials clinicians conducting surveys data database degree degrees diverse communities engagement guidelines linguistic masters PhD question research research journey research project statistical statistics study design support survey SWSLHD

Additional Content

Links to useful research papers.

Farrugia P, Petrisor BA, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2010;53(4):278-281. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912019/

Aslam, S., & Emmanuel, P. (2010). Formulating a researchable question: A critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian J Sex Transm Dis, 31(1), 47-50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808439

Beitz, J. M. (2006). Writing the researchable question. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs, 33(2), 122-124. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16572009

Links to useful websites

Centre for Clinical Effectivenbess

http://www.monashhealth.org/page/Resources

Centre for Evidence Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/category/ebm-resources/tools/

Libraries in SWSLHD

https://www.swslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/liverpool/library/default.html

https://www.swslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/ccq/library/

https://www.swslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/Fairfield/library/

https://www.swslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/bankstown/library/

Useful Information

Research questions examples

Useful resources to download

Help us improve!

Would you please take a moment to answer these 2 quick questions, to what extent did this resource increase your understanding of the topic, to what extent did this resource help you find further information on this topic , wow this is awesome.

Many people are getting problem in using bootstrap modal, so here I'm with custom modal which you can use anywhere.

100% of your donation goes to medical research

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.1: The Purpose of Research Questions

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 81161

• Cheryl Lowry
• The Ohio State University via Ohio State University Libraries

The Purpose of Research Questions

Research questions are very important.

Both professional researchers and successful student researchers develop research questions. That’s because research questions are more than handy tools; they are essential to the research process.

By defining exactly what the researcher is trying to find out, these questions influence most of the rest of the steps taken to conduct the research. That’s true even if the research is not for academic purposes but for other areas of our lives.

For instance, if you’re seeking information about a health problem in order to learn whether you have anything to worry about, research questions will make it possible for you to more effectively decide whether to seek medical help–and how quickly.

Or, if you’re researching a potential employer, having developed and used research questions will mean you’re able to more confidently decide whether to apply for an internship or job there.

The confidence you’ll have when making such decisions will come from knowing that the information they’re based on was gathered by conscious thought rather than serendipity and whim.

• News & Highlights

• Publications and Documents
• Postgraduate Education
• Browse Our Courses
• C/T Research Academy
• K12 Investigator Training
• Translational Innovator
• SMART IRB Reliance Request
• Biostatistics Consulting
• Regulatory Support
• Pilot Funding
• Informatics Program
• Community Engagement
• Diversity Inclusion
• Research Enrollment and Diversity
• Harvard Catalyst Profiles

Creating a Good Research Question

• Advice & Growth
• Process in Practice

Successful translation of research begins with a strong question. How do you get started? How do good research questions evolve? And where do you find inspiration to generate good questions in the first place?  It’s helpful to understand existing frameworks, guidelines, and standards, as well as hear from researchers who utilize these strategies in their own work.

In the fall and winter of 2020, Naomi Fisher, MD, conducted 10 interviews with clinical and translational researchers at Harvard University and affiliated academic healthcare centers, with the purpose of capturing their experiences developing good research questions. The researchers featured in this project represent various specialties, drawn from every stage of their careers. Below you will find clips from their interviews and additional resources that highlight how to get started, as well as helpful frameworks and factors to consider. Additionally, visit the Advice & Growth section to hear candid advice and explore the Process in Practice section to hear how researchers have applied these recommendations to their published research.

• Naomi Fisher, MD , is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS), and clinical staff at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH). Fisher is founder and director of Hypertension Services and the Hypertension Specialty Clinic at the BWH, where she is a renowned endocrinologist. She serves as a faculty director for communication-related Boundary-Crossing Skills for Research Careers webinar sessions and the Writing and Communication Center .
• Christopher Gibbons, MD , is associate professor of neurology at HMS, and clinical staff at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Joslin Diabetes Center. Gibbons’ research focus is on peripheral and autonomic neuropathies.
• Clare Tempany-Afdhal, MD , is professor of radiology at HMS and the Ferenc Jolesz Chair of Research, Radiology at BWH. Her major areas of research are MR imaging of the pelvis and image- guided therapy.
• David Sykes, MD, PhD , is assistant professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), he is also principal investigator at the Sykes Lab at MGH. His special interest area is rare hematologic conditions.
• Elliot Israel, MD , is professor of medicine at HMS, director of the Respiratory Therapy Department, the director of clinical research in the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medical Division and associate physician at BWH. Israel’s research interests include therapeutic interventions to alter asthmatic airway hyperactivity and the role of arachidonic acid metabolites in airway narrowing.
• Jonathan Williams, MD, MMSc , is assistant professor of medicine at HMS, and associate physician at BWH. He focuses on endocrinology, specifically unravelling the intricate relationship between genetics and environment with respect to susceptibility to cardiometabolic disease.
• Junichi Tokuda, PhD , is associate professor of radiology at HMS, and is a research scientist at the Department of Radiology, BWH. Tokuda is particularly interested in technologies to support image-guided “closed-loop” interventions. He also serves as a principal investigator leading several projects funded by the National Institutes of Health and industry.
• Osama Rahma, MD , is assistant professor of medicine at HMS and clinical staff member in medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). Rhama is currently a principal investigator at the Center for Immuno-Oncology and Gastroenterology Cancer Center at DFCI. His research focus is on drug development of combinational immune therapeutics.
• Sharmila Dorbala, MD, MPH , is professor of radiology at HMS and clinical staff at BWH in cardiovascular medicine and radiology. She is also the president of the American Society of Nuclear Medicine. Dorbala’s specialty is using nuclear medicine for cardiovascular discoveries.
• Subha Ramani, PhD, MBBS, MMed , is associate professor of medicine at HMS, as well as associate physician in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at BWH. Ramani’s scholarly interests focus on innovative approaches to teaching, learning and assessment of clinical trainees, faculty development in teaching, and qualitative research methods in medical education.
• Ursula Kaiser, MD , is professor at HMS and chief of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Hypertension, and senior physician at BWH. Kaiser’s research focuses on understanding the molecular mechanisms by which pulsatile gonadotropin-releasing hormone regulates the expression of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone genes.

Insights on Creating a Good Research Question

Play Junichi Tokuda video

Play Ursula Kaiser video

Start Successfully: Build the Foundation of a Good Research Question

Start Successfully Resources

Ideation in Device Development: Finding Clinical Need Josh Tolkoff, MS A lecture explaining the critical importance of identifying a compelling clinical need before embarking on a research project. Play Ideation in Device Development video .

Radical Innovation Jeff Karp, PhD This ThinkResearch podcast episode focuses on one researcher’s approach using radical simplicity to break down big problems and questions. Play Radical Innovation .

Using Healthcare Data: How can Researchers Come up with Interesting Questions? Anupam Jena, MD, PhD Another ThinkResearch podcast episode addresses how to discover good research questions by using a backward design approach which involves analyzing big data and allowing the research question to unfold from findings. Play Using Healthcare Data .

Important Factors: Consider Feasibility and Novelty

Refining Your Research Question 

Play video of Clare Tempany-Afdhal

Play Elliott Israel video

Frameworks and Structure: Evaluate Research Questions Using Tools and Techniques

Frameworks and Structure Resources

Designing Clinical Research Hulley et al. A comprehensive and practical guide to clinical research, including the FINER framework for evaluating research questions. Learn more about the book .

Translational Medicine Library Guide Queens University Library An introduction to popular frameworks for research questions, including FINER and PICO. Review translational medicine guide .

Asking a Good T3/T4 Question  Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD This video explains the PICO framework in practice as participants in a workshop propose research questions that compare interventions. Play Asking a Good T3/T4 Question video

Introduction to Designing & Conducting Mixed Methods Research An online course that provides a deeper dive into mixed methods’ research questions and methodologies. Learn more about the course

Network and Support: Find the Collaborators and Stakeholders to Help Evaluate Research Questions

Network & Support Resource

Bench-to-bedside, Bedside-to-bench Christopher Gibbons, MD In this lecture, Gibbons shares his experience of bringing research from bench to bedside, and from bedside to bench. His talk highlights the formation and evolution of research questions based on clinical need. Play Bench-to-bedside. 

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

1-Research Questions

1. The Purpose of Research Questions

Both professional researchers and successful student researchers develop research questions. That’s because research questions are more than handy tools; they are essential to the research process.

By defining exactly what the researcher is trying to find out, these questions influence most of the rest of the steps taken to conduct the research. That’s true even if the research is not for academic purposes but for other areas of our lives.

For instance, if you’re seeking information about a health problem in order to learn whether you have anything to worry about, research questions will make it possible for you to more effectively decide whether to seek medical help–and how quickly.

Or, if you’re researching a potential employer, having developed and used research questions will mean you’re able to more confidently decide whether to apply for an internship or job there.

The confidence you’ll have when making such decisions will come from knowing that the information they’re based on was gathered by conscious thought rather than serendipity and whim.

Choosing & Using Sources: A Guide to Academic Research Copyright © 2015 by Teaching & Learning, Ohio State University Libraries is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• 10 Research Question Examples to Guide Your Research Project

10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project

Published on October 30, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on October 19, 2023.

The research question is one of the most important parts of your research paper , thesis or dissertation . It’s important to spend some time assessing and refining your question before you get started.

The exact form of your question will depend on a few things, such as the length of your project, the type of research you’re conducting, the topic , and the research problem . However, all research questions should be focused, specific, and relevant to a timely social or scholarly issue.

Once you’ve read our guide on how to write a research question , you can use these examples to craft your own.

Note that the design of your research question can depend on what method you are pursuing. Here are a few options for qualitative, quantitative, and statistical research questions.

Other interesting articles

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

Methodology

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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, October 19). 10 Research Question Examples to Guide your Research Project. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-question-examples/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to choose a dissertation topic | 8 steps to follow, evaluating sources | methods & 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”

Research Aims, Objectives & Questions

The “Golden Thread” Explained Simply (+ Examples)

By: David Phair (PhD) and Alexandra Shaeffer (PhD) | June 2022

The research aims , objectives and research questions (collectively called the “golden thread”) are arguably the most important thing you need to get right when you’re crafting a research proposal , dissertation or thesis . We receive questions almost every day about this “holy trinity” of research and there’s certainly a lot of confusion out there, so we’ve crafted this post to help you navigate your way through the fog.

Overview: The Golden Thread

• What is the golden thread
• What are research aims ( examples )
• What are research objectives ( examples )
• What are research questions ( examples )
• The importance of alignment in the golden thread

What is the “golden thread”?  

The golden thread simply refers to the collective research aims , research objectives , and research questions for any given project (i.e., a dissertation, thesis, or research paper ). These three elements are bundled together because it’s extremely important that they align with each other, and that the entire research project aligns with them.

Importantly, the golden thread needs to weave its way through the entirety of any research project , from start to end. In other words, it needs to be very clearly defined right at the beginning of the project (the topic ideation and proposal stage) and it needs to inform almost every decision throughout the rest of the project. For example, your research design and methodology will be heavily influenced by the golden thread (we’ll explain this in more detail later), as well as your literature review.

The research aims, objectives and research questions (the golden thread) define the focus and scope ( the delimitations ) of your research project. In other words, they help ringfence your dissertation or thesis to a relatively narrow domain, so that you can “go deep” and really dig into a specific problem or opportunity. They also help keep you on track , as they act as a litmus test for relevance. In other words, if you’re ever unsure whether to include something in your document, simply ask yourself the question, “does this contribute toward my research aims, objectives or questions?”. If it doesn’t, chances are you can drop it.

Alright, enough of the fluffy, conceptual stuff. Let’s get down to business and look at what exactly the research aims, objectives and questions are and outline a few examples to bring these concepts to life.

Research Aims: What are they?

Simply put, the research aim(s) is a statement that reflects the broad overarching goal (s) of the research project. Research aims are fairly high-level (low resolution) as they outline the general direction of the research and what it’s trying to achieve .

Research Aims: Examples  

True to the name, research aims usually start with the wording “this research aims to…”, “this research seeks to…”, and so on. For example:

“This research aims to explore employee experiences of digital transformation in retail HR.”   “This study sets out to assess the interaction between student support and self-care on well-being in engineering graduate students”  

As you can see, these research aims provide a high-level description of what the study is about and what it seeks to achieve. They’re not hyper-specific or action-oriented, but they’re clear about what the study’s focus is and what is being investigated.

Need a helping hand?

Research Objectives: What are they?

The research objectives take the research aims and make them more practical and actionable . In other words, the research objectives showcase the steps that the researcher will take to achieve the research aims.

The research objectives need to be far more specific (higher resolution) and actionable than the research aims. In fact, it’s always a good idea to craft your research objectives using the “SMART” criteria. In other words, they should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound”.

Research Objectives: Examples  

Let’s look at two examples of research objectives. We’ll stick with the topic and research aims we mentioned previously.  

For the digital transformation topic:

To observe the retail HR employees throughout the digital transformation. To assess employee perceptions of digital transformation in retail HR. To identify the barriers and facilitators of digital transformation in retail HR.

And for the student wellness topic:

To determine whether student self-care predicts the well-being score of engineering graduate students. To determine whether student support predicts the well-being score of engineering students. To assess the interaction between student self-care and student support when predicting well-being in engineering graduate students.

  As you can see, these research objectives clearly align with the previously mentioned research aims and effectively translate the low-resolution aims into (comparatively) higher-resolution objectives and action points . They give the research project a clear focus and present something that resembles a research-based “to-do” list.

Research Questions: What are they?

Finally, we arrive at the all-important research questions. The research questions are, as the name suggests, the key questions that your study will seek to answer . Simply put, they are the core purpose of your dissertation, thesis, or research project. You’ll present them at the beginning of your document (either in the introduction chapter or literature review chapter) and you’ll answer them at the end of your document (typically in the discussion and conclusion chapters).  

The research questions will be the driving force throughout the research process. For example, in the literature review chapter, you’ll assess the relevance of any given resource based on whether it helps you move towards answering your research questions. Similarly, your methodology and research design will be heavily influenced by the nature of your research questions. For instance, research questions that are exploratory in nature will usually make use of a qualitative approach, whereas questions that relate to measurement or relationship testing will make use of a quantitative approach.  

Let’s look at some examples of research questions to make this more tangible.

Research Questions: Examples  

Again, we’ll stick with the research aims and research objectives we mentioned previously.  

For the digital transformation topic (which would be qualitative in nature):

How do employees perceive digital transformation in retail HR? What are the barriers and facilitators of digital transformation in retail HR?  

And for the student wellness topic (which would be quantitative in nature):

Does student self-care predict the well-being scores of engineering graduate students? Does student support predict the well-being scores of engineering students? Do student self-care and student support interact when predicting well-being in engineering graduate students?  

You’ll probably notice that there’s quite a formulaic approach to this. In other words, the research questions are basically the research objectives “converted” into question format. While that is true most of the time, it’s not always the case. For example, the first research objective for the digital transformation topic was more or less a step on the path toward the other objectives, and as such, it didn’t warrant its own research question.  

So, don’t rush your research questions and sloppily reword your objectives as questions. Carefully think about what exactly you’re trying to achieve (i.e. your research aim) and the objectives you’ve set out, then craft a set of well-aligned research questions . Also, keep in mind that this can be a somewhat iterative process , where you go back and tweak research objectives and aims to ensure tight alignment throughout the golden thread.

The importance of strong alignment 

Alignment is the keyword here and we have to stress its importance . Simply put, you need to make sure that there is a very tight alignment between all three pieces of the golden thread. If your research aims and research questions don’t align, for example, your project will be pulling in different directions and will lack focus . This is a common problem students face and can cause many headaches (and tears), so be warned.

Take the time to carefully craft your research aims, objectives and research questions before you run off down the research path. Ideally, get your research supervisor/advisor to review and comment on your golden thread before you invest significant time into your project, and certainly before you start collecting data .  

Recap: The golden thread

In this post, we unpacked the golden thread of research, consisting of the research aims , research objectives and research questions . You can jump back to any section using the links below.

As always, feel free to leave a comment below – we always love to hear from you. Also, if you’re interested in 1-on-1 support, take a look at our private coaching service here.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much for your great effort put. As an Undergraduate taking Demographic Research & Methodology, I’ve been trying so hard to understand clearly what is a Research Question, Research Aim and the Objectives in a research and the relationship between them etc. But as for now I’m thankful that you’ve solved my problem.

Well appreciated. This has helped me greatly in doing my dissertation.

An so delighted with this wonderful information thank you a lot.

so impressive i have benefited a lot looking forward to learn more on research.

I am very happy to have carefully gone through this well researched article.

Infact,I used to be phobia about anything research, because of my poor understanding of the concepts.

Now,I get to know that my research question is the same as my research objective(s) rephrased in question format.

I please I would need a follow up on the subject,as I intends to join the team of researchers. Thanks once again.

Thanks so much. This was really helpful.

I know you pepole have tried to break things into more understandable and easy format. And God bless you. Keep it up

i found this document so useful towards my study in research methods. thanks so much.

This is my 2nd read topic in your course and I should commend the simplified explanations of each part. I’m beginning to understand and absorb the use of each part of a dissertation/thesis. I’ll keep on reading your free course and might be able to avail the training course! Kudos!

Thank you! Better put that my lecture and helped to easily understand the basics which I feel often get brushed over when beginning dissertation work.

This is quite helpful. I like how the Golden thread has been explained and the needed alignment.

This is quite helpful. I really appreciate!

The article made it simple for researcher students to differentiate between three concepts.

Very innovative and educational in approach to conducting research.

I am very impressed with all these terminology, as I am a fresh student for post graduate, I am highly guided and I promised to continue making consultation when the need arise. Thanks a lot.

A very helpful piece. thanks, I really appreciate it .

Very well explained, and it might be helpful to many people like me.

Wish i had found this (and other) resource(s) at the beginning of my PhD journey… not in my writing up year… 😩 Anyways… just a quick question as i’m having some issues ordering my “golden thread”…. does it matter in what order you mention them? i.e., is it always first aims, then objectives, and finally the questions? or can you first mention the research questions and then the aims and objectives?

Thank you for a very simple explanation that builds upon the concepts in a very logical manner. Just prior to this, I read the research hypothesis article, which was equally very good. This met my primary objective.

My secondary objective was to understand the difference between research questions and research hypothesis, and in which context to use which one. However, I am still not clear on this. Can you kindly please guide?

In research, a research question is a clear and specific inquiry that the researcher wants to answer, while a research hypothesis is a tentative statement or prediction about the relationship between variables or the expected outcome of the study. Research questions are broader and guide the overall study, while hypotheses are specific and testable statements used in quantitative research. Research questions identify the problem, while hypotheses provide a focus for testing in the study.

Exactly what I need in this research journey, I look forward to more of your coaching videos.

This helped a lot. Thanks so much for the effort put into explaining it.

What data source in writing dissertation/Thesis requires?

What is data source covers when writing dessertation/thesis

This is quite useful thanks

I’m excited and thankful. I got so much value which will help me progress in my thesis.

where are the locations of the reserch statement, research objective and research question in a reserach paper? Can you write an ouline that defines their places in the researh paper?

Very helpful and important tips on Aims, Objectives and Questions.

Thank you so much for making research aim, research objectives and research question so clear. This will be helpful to me as i continue with my thesis.

Thanks much for this content. I learned a lot. And I am inspired to learn more. I am still struggling with my preparation for dissertation outline/proposal. But I consistently follow contents and tutorials and the new FB of GRAD Coach. Hope to really become confident in writing my dissertation and successfully defend it.

As a researcher and lecturer, I find splitting research goals into research aims, objectives, and questions is unnecessarily bureaucratic and confusing for students. For most biomedical research projects, including ‘real research’, 1-3 research questions will suffice (numbers may differ by discipline).

Awesome! Very important resources and presented in an informative way to easily understand the golden thread. Indeed, thank you so much.

Well explained

The blog article on research aims, objectives, and questions by Grad Coach is a clear and insightful guide that aligns with my experiences in academic research. The article effectively breaks down the often complex concepts of research aims and objectives, providing a straightforward and accessible explanation. Drawing from my own research endeavors, I appreciate the practical tips offered, such as the need for specificity and clarity when formulating research questions. The article serves as a valuable resource for students and researchers, offering a concise roadmap for crafting well-defined research goals and objectives. Whether you’re a novice or an experienced researcher, this article provides practical insights that contribute to the foundational aspects of a successful research endeavor.

A great thanks for you. it is really amazing explanation. I grasp a lot and one step up to research knowledge.

I really found these tips helpful. Thank you very much Grad Coach.

I found this article helpful. Thanks for sharing this.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Questions – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Questions

Definition:

Research questions are the specific questions that guide a research study or inquiry. These questions help to define the scope of the research and provide a clear focus for the study. Research questions are usually developed at the beginning of a research project and are designed to address a particular research problem or objective.

Types of Research Questions

Types of Research Questions are as follows:

Descriptive Research Questions

These aim to describe a particular phenomenon, group, or situation. For example:

• What are the characteristics of the target population?
• What is the prevalence of a particular disease in a specific region?

Exploratory Research Questions

These aim to explore a new area of research or generate new ideas or hypotheses. For example:

• What are the potential causes of a particular phenomenon?
• What are the possible outcomes of a specific intervention?

Explanatory Research Questions

These aim to understand the relationship between two or more variables or to explain why a particular phenomenon occurs. For example:

• What is the effect of a specific drug on the symptoms of a particular disease?
• What are the factors that contribute to employee turnover in a particular industry?

Predictive Research Questions

These aim to predict a future outcome or trend based on existing data or trends. For example :

• What will be the future demand for a particular product or service?
• What will be the future prevalence of a particular disease?

Evaluative Research Questions

These aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular intervention or program. For example:

• What is the impact of a specific educational program on student learning outcomes?
• What is the effectiveness of a particular policy or program in achieving its intended goals?

How to Choose Research Questions

Choosing research questions is an essential part of the research process and involves careful consideration of the research problem, objectives, and design. Here are some steps to consider when choosing research questions:

• Identify the research problem: Start by identifying the problem or issue that you want to study. This could be a gap in the literature, a social or economic issue, or a practical problem that needs to be addressed.
• Conduct a literature review: Conducting a literature review can help you identify existing research in your area of interest and can help you formulate research questions that address gaps or limitations in the existing literature.
• Define the research objectives : Clearly define the objectives of your research. What do you want to achieve with your study? What specific questions do you want to answer?
• Consider the research design : Consider the research design that you plan to use. This will help you determine the appropriate types of research questions to ask. For example, if you plan to use a qualitative approach, you may want to focus on exploratory or descriptive research questions.
• Ensure that the research questions are clear and answerable: Your research questions should be clear and specific, and should be answerable with the data that you plan to collect. Avoid asking questions that are too broad or vague.
• Get feedback : Get feedback from your supervisor, colleagues, or peers to ensure that your research questions are relevant, feasible, and meaningful.

How to Write Research Questions

Guide for Writing Research Questions:

• Start with a clear statement of the research problem: Begin by stating the problem or issue that your research aims to address. This will help you to formulate focused research questions.
• Use clear language : Write your research questions in clear and concise language that is easy to understand. Avoid using jargon or technical terms that may be unfamiliar to your readers.
• Be specific: Your research questions should be specific and focused. Avoid broad questions that are difficult to answer. For example, instead of asking “What is the impact of climate change on the environment?” ask “What are the effects of rising sea levels on coastal ecosystems?”
• Use appropriate question types: Choose the appropriate question types based on the research design and objectives. For example, if you are conducting a qualitative study, you may want to use open-ended questions that allow participants to provide detailed responses.
• Consider the feasibility of your questions : Ensure that your research questions are feasible and can be answered with the resources available. Consider the data sources and methods of data collection when writing your questions.
• Seek feedback: Get feedback from your supervisor, colleagues, or peers to ensure that your research questions are relevant, appropriate, and meaningful.

Examples of Research Questions

Some Examples of Research Questions with Research Titles:

Research Title: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health

• Research Question : What is the relationship between social media use and mental health, and how does this impact individuals’ well-being?

Research Title: Factors Influencing Academic Success in High School

• Research Question: What are the primary factors that influence academic success in high school, and how do they contribute to student achievement?

Research Title: The Effects of Exercise on Physical and Mental Health

• Research Question: What is the relationship between exercise and physical and mental health, and how can exercise be used as a tool to improve overall well-being?

Research Title: Understanding the Factors that Influence Consumer Purchasing Decisions

• Research Question : What are the key factors that influence consumer purchasing decisions, and how do these factors vary across different demographics and products?

Research Title: The Impact of Technology on Communication

• Research Question : How has technology impacted communication patterns, and what are the effects of these changes on interpersonal relationships and society as a whole?

Research Title: Investigating the Relationship between Parenting Styles and Child Development

• Research Question: What is the relationship between different parenting styles and child development outcomes, and how do these outcomes vary across different ages and developmental stages?

Research Title: The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Treating Anxiety Disorders

• Research Question: How effective is cognitive-behavioral therapy in treating anxiety disorders, and what factors contribute to its success or failure in different patients?

Research Title: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity

• Research Question : How is climate change affecting global biodiversity, and what can be done to mitigate the negative effects on natural ecosystems?

Research Title: Exploring the Relationship between Cultural Diversity and Workplace Productivity

• Research Question : How does cultural diversity impact workplace productivity, and what strategies can be employed to maximize the benefits of a diverse workforce?

Research Title: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare

• Research Question: How can artificial intelligence be leveraged to improve healthcare outcomes, and what are the potential risks and ethical concerns associated with its use?

Applications of Research Questions

Here are some of the key applications of research questions:

• Defining the scope of the study : Research questions help researchers to narrow down the scope of their study and identify the specific issues they want to investigate.
• Developing hypotheses: Research questions often lead to the development of hypotheses, which are testable predictions about the relationship between variables. Hypotheses provide a clear and focused direction for the study.
• Designing the study : Research questions guide the design of the study, including the selection of participants, the collection of data, and the analysis of results.
• Collecting data : Research questions inform the selection of appropriate methods for collecting data, such as surveys, interviews, or experiments.
• Analyzing data : Research questions guide the analysis of data, including the selection of appropriate statistical tests and the interpretation of results.
• Communicating results : Research questions help researchers to communicate the results of their study in a clear and concise manner. The research questions provide a framework for discussing the findings and drawing conclusions.

Characteristics of Research Questions

Characteristics of Research Questions are as follows:

• Clear and Specific : A good research question should be clear and specific. It should clearly state what the research is trying to investigate and what kind of data is required.
• Relevant : The research question should be relevant to the study and should address a current issue or problem in the field of research.
• Testable : The research question should be testable through empirical evidence. It should be possible to collect data to answer the research question.
• Concise : The research question should be concise and focused. It should not be too broad or too narrow.
• Feasible : The research question should be feasible to answer within the constraints of the research design, time frame, and available resources.
• Original : The research question should be original and should contribute to the existing knowledge in the field of research.
• Significant : The research question should have significance and importance to the field of research. It should have the potential to provide new insights and knowledge to the field.
• Ethical : The research question should be ethical and should not cause harm to any individuals or groups involved in the study.

Purpose of Research Questions

Research questions are the foundation of any research study as they guide the research process and provide a clear direction to the researcher. The purpose of research questions is to identify the scope and boundaries of the study, and to establish the goals and objectives of the research.

The main purpose of research questions is to help the researcher to focus on the specific area or problem that needs to be investigated. They enable the researcher to develop a research design, select the appropriate methods and tools for data collection and analysis, and to organize the results in a meaningful way.

Research questions also help to establish the relevance and significance of the study. They define the research problem, and determine the research methodology that will be used to address the problem. Research questions also help to determine the type of data that will be collected, and how it will be analyzed and interpreted.

Finally, research questions provide a framework for evaluating the results of the research. They help to establish the validity and reliability of the data, and provide a basis for drawing conclusions and making recommendations based on the findings of the study.

Advantages of Research Questions

There are several advantages of research questions in the research process, including:

• Focus : Research questions help to focus the research by providing a clear direction for the study. They define the specific area of investigation and provide a framework for the research design.
• Clarity : Research questions help to clarify the purpose and objectives of the study, which can make it easier for the researcher to communicate the research aims to others.
• Relevance : Research questions help to ensure that the study is relevant and meaningful. By asking relevant and important questions, the researcher can ensure that the study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge and address important issues.
• Consistency : Research questions help to ensure consistency in the research process by providing a framework for the development of the research design, data collection, and analysis.
• Measurability : Research questions help to ensure that the study is measurable by defining the specific variables and outcomes that will be measured.
• Replication : Research questions help to ensure that the study can be replicated by providing a clear and detailed description of the research aims, methods, and outcomes. This makes it easier for other researchers to replicate the study and verify the results.

Limitations of Research Questions

Limitations of Research Questions are as follows:

• Subjectivity : Research questions are often subjective and can be influenced by personal biases and perspectives of the researcher. This can lead to a limited understanding of the research problem and may affect the validity and reliability of the study.
• Inadequate scope : Research questions that are too narrow in scope may limit the breadth of the study, while questions that are too broad may make it difficult to focus on specific research objectives.
• Unanswerable questions : Some research questions may not be answerable due to the lack of available data or limitations in research methods. In such cases, the research question may need to be rephrased or modified to make it more answerable.
• Lack of clarity : Research questions that are poorly worded or ambiguous can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. This can result in incomplete or inaccurate data, which may compromise the validity of the study.
• Difficulty in measuring variables : Some research questions may involve variables that are difficult to measure or quantify, making it challenging to draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
• Lack of generalizability: Research questions that are too specific or limited in scope may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations. This can limit the applicability of the study’s findings and restrict its broader implications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Setting a research question, aim and objective

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Limerick, Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
• 2 Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
• PMID: 26997231
• DOI: 10.7748/nr.23.4.19.s5

Aim: To describe the development of a research question, aim and objective.

Background: The first steps of any study are developing the research question, aim and objective. Subsequent steps develop from these and they govern the researchers' choice of population, setting, data to be collected and time period for the study. Clear, succinctly posed research questions, aims and objectives are essential if studies are to be successful.

Discussion: Researchers developing their research questions, aims and objectives generally experience difficulties. They are often overwhelmed trying to convert what they see as a relevant issue from practice into research. This necessitates engaging with the relevant published literature and knowledgeable people.

Conclusion: This paper identifies the issues to be considered when developing a research question, aim and objective. Understanding these considerations will enable researchers to effectively present their research question, aim and objective.

Implications for practice: To conduct successful studies, researchers should develop clear research questions, aims and objectives.

Keywords: novice researchers; nursing research; research aim; research objective; research question; study development.

• Nursing Research / methods
• Nursing Research / organization & administration*
• Organizational Objectives

Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia

• Original Research Article
• Open access
• Published: 06 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Christel Hendrieckx   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0075-828X 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Sienna Russell-Green 1 , 2 ,
• Timothy Skinner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-6963 2 , 4 ,
• Ashley H. Ng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8261-6006 5 ,
• Chris Lee 6 ,
• Siobhan Barlow 7 ,
• Alan Davey 7 ,
• Caitlin Rogers   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-0816-0287 7 ,
• Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9139-4663 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Jane Speight   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1204-6896 1 , 2 , 3  

2 Altmetric

We aimed to identify the health and quality-of-life research priorities of Australians with diabetes or family members.

Through an iterative, three-step, online survey process we (1) qualitatively generated research topics (long list) in response to one question “What research is needed to support people with diabetes to live a better life?”; (2) determined the most important research questions (short list); and (3) ranked research questions in order of importance (priorities). We aimed to recruit N = 800 participants, with approximate equal representation of diabetes type and family members.

Participants ( N = 661) were adults (aged 18+ years) in Australia with a self-reporting diagnosis of diabetes (type 1, n = 302; type 2, n = 204; prior/current gestational, n = 58; less common types, n = 22, or a family member, n = 75). Retention rates for Surveys 2 and 3 were 47% ( n = 295) and 50% ( n = 316), respectively. From 1549 open-text responses, 25 topics and 125 research questions were identified thematically. Research priorities differed by cohort, resulting in specific lists developed and ranked by each cohort. The top-ranked research question for the type 1 diabetes cohort was “How can diabetes technology be improved …?” and for the type 2 diabetes cohort: “How can insulin resistance be reversed …?”. One question was common to the final lists of all cohorts: “What are the causes or triggers of diabetes?” Within cohorts, the top priorities were perceived as being of similar importance.

Conclusions

The research priorities differ substantially by diabetes type and for family members. These findings should inform funding bodies and researchers, to align future research and its communication with community needs.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Diabetes is a global health priority, presenting a significant challenge to the health and well-being of individuals living with the condition, their families and societies [ 1 , 2 ]. In Australia, more than 1.5 million people have diabetes, with around 9% with type 1 diabetes (T1D), 85% with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and 3% with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) [ 3 ]. In 2018–19, the direct diabetes costs to the Australian health system were estimated at $3 billion, with 40% spent on hospital services [ 4 ]. Australian diabetes research is funded mostly by government bodies (e.g. National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund [ 5 ]) and peak organisations (e.g. Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Diabetes Australia). Over the past decade, the National Health and Medical Research Council funding for diabetes research exceeded AUD$500 million (~9% total funding) [ 6 ]. To date, the Medical Research Future Fund has invested more than AUD$100 million in diabetes research projects [ 7 ]. However, in Australia [ 8 , 9 ] and worldwide, diabetes research remains underfunded, relative to some other conditions [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], and particularly so for behavioural and psychosocial research [ 13 ]. Thus, it is imperative that limited research funding responds directly to the needs and interests of the community living with diabetes. In contrast, a disparity may exist between funded research and the priorities of those with the condition [ 14 ].

Traditionally, health research agendas are set by policy makers, informed by ‘experts’ (researchers, clinicians, funding bodies, peak bodies, industry), based on gaps in scientific evidence, established through evidence reviews. However, the past two decades have seen a growing recognition of the importance of including the views of those with lived experience of a condition, in defining research agendas and improving health services. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council 2016 statement on ‘consumer and community involvement’ (CCI) recognises that the community can “add value to health and medical research, and they have the right and responsibility to do so” [ 15 ]. Similar guidance has been published by funding bodies and health organisations elsewhere, and a key consideration for CCI includes the provision of input into the formulation and development of research questions [ 16 ].

People with diabetes and family members or carers can make a significant contribution to identify and prioritise relevant research topics, as well as how the research is conducted [ 17 , 18 ]. Their involvement may lead to a more appropriate allocation of limited research funding, enhanced research engagement and participant retention, as well as the development, implementation and uptake of more relevant, effective and acceptable interventions. A review exploring the benefits of CCI in diabetes research found that the lived experiences of people with diabetes were instrumental in developing and conducting relevant and accessible interventions for diabetes self-management [ 17 ]. Shared ownership (i.e. reciprocal relationships between researchers, people with diabetes and the wider community) was associated with high retention and stakeholder engagement.

While several diabetes research priority-setting activities have been undertaken to date, and outcomes published, the level of CCI is variable [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. In the UK, the James Lind Alliance (JLA) has established the research priorities of people with T1D [ 20 ], T2D [ 23 ] and women experiencing diabetes (T1D, T2D or GDM) during pregnancy [ 19 ]. These studies have drawn on large samples of the community with lived experience as well as carers to inform and prioritise research questions, in addition to inviting clinician input and agreement, and the validation of priorities against the existing literature. Identified priorities (across cohorts) relate to the prevention and successful management of diabetes (including treatments and technologies), prevention of complications and the role of emotional well-being. These stakeholder initiatives have informed the Diabetes UK research strategy, including dedicated research funding calls [ 26 ]. However, findings from consultations in the UK cannot be assumed to be relevant to the Australian (nor other international) contexts owing, for example, to differences in the healthcare systems, access to and subsidies for treatments, diversity in population ethnicities and underserved groups. In Australia, limited prioritisation of diabetes research questions has been conducted. For example, one study established a list of the top ten research questions to improve diabetes-related foot health utilising a Delphi method inviting both community and clinician perspectives [ 25 ]. Thus, there remains a need for a comprehensive view of community perspectives on diabetes research priorities. Further, it is likely that priority research questions differ between clinicians and those with lived experience [ 24 ], and a greater focus on CCI in the elicitation of research priorities, without required agreement with clinicians or other stakeholders, is warranted.

Thus, to shape the Australian diabetes research agenda for the next decade, it is crucial to engage people living with diabetes and their family members to identify salient and applied research questions. Understanding what matters to Australians with diabetes has the potential to influence recommendations for future impactful research to address unmet needs. Through stakeholder consultations with adults with diabetes and family members, we aimed to identify research priorities they consider important for improving the health and quality of life of Australians with diabetes.

2.1 Study Design

We used an iterative three-step survey process to: (1) qualitatively generate research topics (long list); (2) determine important research questions (short list); and (3) rank research questions in order of importance (priorities). Surveys took place between November 2021 and July 2022 (Fig. 1 ). The study design was informed by a review of existing diabetes research priority-setting publications [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], and methods to achieve to a priority-setting consensus [ 27 ]. Consistent with the JLA method [ 28 ], the current study involved establishing a steering group, generating a long list of research questions, summarisation of questions into a short list and the identification of priority questions for publication. However, the study-specific approach employed, which responds to the aims of the study and project resourcing, differs from JLA in several notable ways: (1) participants are limited to those with lived experience of diabetes or family members. Unlike the JLA approach, we did not aim to achieve agreement in priorities between the community and health professionals or any other stakeholders; (2) community priorities were not informed by, nor validated against, gaps in the existing literature; and (3) the generation and prioritisation of research questions was conducted entirely via an online survey, without further workshops or discussion with participants. The research received ethics approval from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2021-268).

Iterative three-step survey process and analyses

2.2 Steering Group

A steering group was established, with expressions of interest invited via diabetes-related social media and websites. A member of the research team (SRG) contacted the n = 25 respondents to provide more detailed information about the project and the role of the steering group, and also to clarify the respondents understanding and expectations. With the intention to establish a diverse group, seven members were selected, with reasonable representation across: gender ( n = 3 women), age (27–61 years); cohort (T1D: n = 2; T2D: n = 2, GDM: n = 1; latent autoimmune diabetes in adults: n = 1; family member [FM]: n = 1); geographical location (metro, regional and rural areas; limited to Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland); and prior experience in advisory boards or stakeholder consultation roles ( n = 3). The group met on three occasions via Zoom, and provided further feedback via e-mail or telephone throughout the project to guide study design, survey development, and the interpretation and dissemination of findings. Specifically, the steering group reviewed all recruitment and study materials with refinements made based on their feedback; collaboratively developed, together with the researchers, the open-ended question employed in Survey 1 (see below); piloted all surveys; supported interpretation and reporting with involvement in the drafting of a lay report for community dissemination; and were invited to co-author the current article. As a token of appreciation, stakeholders received an AUD$50 voucher each, per meeting attended.

2.3 Survey Participants

Inclusion criteria were self-reporting a diabetes diagnosis (any type, including prior/current experience of GDM), or being a FM/carer of someone with diabetes, aged 18+ years and living in Australia. We aimed to recruit N = 800 participants, with approximate equal representation of people with T1D, T2D, current/prior GDM and FM, as well as representation (across participant groups) of First Nations people ( n > 50). Conservatively, we allowed for ≥ 60% attrition by Survey 3 [ 23 ].

2.4 Recruitment

Recruitment was primarily via the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS); an initiative of the Australian Government administered by Diabetes Australia providing >1.4 million registrants with diabetes access to services, support and subsidised diabetes products. E-mail invitations were sent to a random sample of N = 23,250 adult registrants who had consented to receive research invitations, based on an anticipated 8% response rate [ 29 ], and subsequent boosting because of the observed lower response rate. The sample was stratified by cohort (and over-sampled young adults with T2D), and by state/territory ( Electronic Supplementary Material [ESM] ). The survey was also promoted via diabetes-related websites and social media (Twitter/Facebook), and through the researchers’ affiliated e-newsletters and participant distribution lists, as relevant. Social media and online promotions included open calls as well as tailored messaging for specific populations of interest (e.g. people with GDM; FM). Finally, to engage with First Nations people, culturally appropriate advertising and materials were developed and disseminated (e.g. via Koori mail). Promotions directed participants to the study website for further information.

2.5 Data Collection and Analysis

Potential participants were directed to complete eligibility screening items, access a plain language statement and provide informed consent, all online via Qualtrics™. Eligible consenting participants were then immediately directed to complete Survey 1, with subsequent e-mail invitations to complete Surveys 2 and 3 (hosted via Qualtrics™) (Fig. 1 ), with an estimated completion time of <15 minutes each. Consent was reconfirmed before entering each of the online surveys. Survey data were linked via e-mail address. Survey content is provided in the ESM . After completing each survey, participants were eligible for a prize draw to win one of two AUD$100 vouchers.

2.5.1 Survey 1: Generating Research Topics (Long List)

Participants were invited to provide up to three qualitative responses to the open-ended question: ‘Whilst researchers are working hard to find a cure, what other research do you think is needed to support people with diabetes to live a better life?’ In addition, demographic data (including age, sex, Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander origin, education, employment, country of birth, language spoken at home, state and location) and information about diabetes (diabetes type, age at onset, treatment) were collected. Participants were asked for their e-mail address, to allow sending invitations for the next two surveys and to enter a prize draw.

Analysis: An inductive analysis was undertaken in QSR NVivo 12 employing a thematic template approach [ 30 ]. Based on the first 100 responses, SRG developed the initial coding framework and reviewed and refined it together with CH and EHT (all with expertise in qualitative analysis). Through a consensus, the framework was finalised and applied independently to all responses by SRG, and double coded by CH or EHT. Identified topics were the basis to formulate research topics/questions, with direct quotes used where possible. Content and phrasing were reviewed and agreed by the steering group and researchers.

2.5.2 Survey 2: Determining Most Important Research Questions (Short List)

Participants providing an e-mail address in Survey 1 were invited to complete Survey 2, in which the long list of identified research questions was presented. They were asked to select up to ten questions most important to them. Respondents could add additional questions in an open-text field. Participants were provided the opportunity to view their short-listed questions prior to submission and were prompted to consider refining should they have selected more than ten questions. However, survey logic did not allow for forced selection of ten questions and participants who selected (or qualitatively reported) fewer or greater than ten questions were maintained.

Analysis: Descriptive statistics were calculated for the whole group and by cohort (i.e. T1D, T2D, GDM, less common diabetes types, FM). The ten questions (or more in the case of equal percentages) with the highest proportion of participants indicating these questions as important were included in the short list presented in Survey 3. Free-text responses were considered against existing research questions to identify where they overlap or present unique suggestions. Where overlapping, the Survey 1-generated research question was selected for that participant (if not already done, and regardless of the number of original selected items). Unique questions were added to the long list of questions generated but not taken forward in Survey 3.

2.5.3 Survey 3: Ranking Research Questions (Priorities)

Participants were invited to rank the short list of approximately ten research questions in descending order of importance to them. Prior to Survey 3, minor textual refinements were made to some questions presented to improve readability (see Table 3 and the ESM ) and consideration was given to the merging of research questions where repetition occurred within the top approximately ten lists (i.e. multiple highly endorsed items within a single research topic on conceptually related questions).

Analysis: Each participant’s rankings were allocated weighted scores (1–10), where most important = 10 points and least important = 1 point. Weighted scores were summed for each question per cohort, to determine overall rankings.

In total, 661 participants completed Survey 1 (83% of target sample; ESM ), including 302 participants with T1D (46% using insulin pump or commercial/self-built closed loop; living with diabetes for a mean ± standard deviation of 23 ± 17 years), 204 participants with T2D (29% insulin-treated; diabetes duration: 14 ± 9 years), 58 women with experience of GDM (77% not currently pregnant with GDM; among those with a current GDM diagnosis, 53% insulin treated), 22 participants with less common diabetes types (64% insulin treated, diabetes duration: 13 ± 13 years) and 75 FM (69% a parent to someone with diabetes; 87% a FM to person with T1D). All states and territories were represented (Table 1 ). Most participants ( n = 434; 66%) reported accessing the survey via an NDSS direct invitation (~ 2% response rate).

3.1 Generating Research Questions

Survey 1 generated 1549 unique responses, in various formats; phrased as questions, statements or short paragraphs. A thematic analysis resulted in 25 unique topics (Table 2 ), comprising 125 research questions. A full list of the research questions is provided in the ESM . The research topic with the highest number of discrete questions generated was ‘food and physical activity’ ( n = 17), with all other research topics incorporating between two and nine research questions.

3.2 Determining the Most Important Research Questions

In Survey 2, 295 (47%) participants responded (Table 1 ). A third of participants endorsed either greater ( n = 35; 12%) or fewer ( n = 65;22%) than ten research questions (range: 1–44). Additional question(s) were qualitatively reported by n = 51 participants, for which the vast majority ( n = 49) reported questions that were consistent with one or more of the 125 existing question(s). Two new questions were identified: (1) ‘How can we involve people with diabetes and improve respect for the lived experience in research, including the development of new treatments and technologies?’ and (2) ‘What is the impact of diabetes on sexual health and desire?’.

Each of the 125 questions generated from Survey 1 was prioritised by at least one participant. The ESM displays the proportion of participants who selected each question by cohort. As research priorities differed by cohort, unique lists were developed for T1D, T2D, GDM, less common types and FM. Short lists for GDM, less common diabetes types and FM consisted of 11 or 12 research questions, as two or three questions shared the same proportion of endorsements. To reduce repetition within the final short lists, four highly related questions on the topic of ‘glucose monitoring & insulin delivery technologies’ were merged for the T1D and FM cohorts, and two questions on the topic of ‘food & physical activity’ topic were merged for the T2D cohort. The final short-listed research priorities are detailed in Table 3 and the ESM .

Of the 125 questions, 37 were included in one or more of the short lists, representing 20 of the 25 original topics (Table 2 ). The number of research topics represented within short lists, per cohort, ranged from seven (T2D) to ten (FM). One research topic (‘causes’) and question (‘What are the causes or triggers of diabetes?’) was consistently short-listed across all cohorts. Other research topics with short-listed questions observed across most cohorts included ‘cure, advanced treatments & clinical research’ (T1D, T2D, less common types and FM); ‘food and physical activity’ (T2D, GDM, less common types and FM); ‘glucose monitoring & insulin delivery technologies’ (T1D, GDM and FM), and ‘preventing diabetes’ (T1D, GDM and FM). Three research questions on the topics of ‘government funding & financial costs’, ‘food & physical activity’ and ‘reproductive health & diabetes in pregnancy’ were each short-listed for participants with T1D, T2D and GDM, respectively. All other topics were represented by two or fewer questions per cohort.

3.3 Ranking Research Questions

In Survey 3, 316 (50%) participants responded (Table 1 ). The highest ranked research questions for participants with T1D was ‘How can diabetes technology be improved …?’, and for T2D ‘How can insulin resistance be reversed …?’ (Table 3 ). Research priorities for other diabetes types and FM, where sample sizes were smaller, are shown in the ESM . For women with GDM ( n = 15), the most important question was ‘What are the short- and long-term impacts of gestational diabetes on the baby/child?’. For people with less common diabetes types ( n = 9), the most common reported research question was ‘What is the link between diabetes and other health conditions?’. For FM, the most important question was ‘How can diabetes technologies be improved …?’, similar to the highest priority for adults with T1D.

4 Discussion

Through a rigorous and iterative research design, involving guidance from a community steering group, this study identified the research priorities of adults living with (all types of) diabetes and their FM in Australia. This study generated 127 unique research questions (125 from Survey 1, plus two further identified in Survey 2), covering 25 broad research topic areas, considered important by the community for a better life with diabetes. The volume of research questions and topics identified (all prioritised by at least one participant in Survey 2), as well as the relatively small observed differences in rankings (weighted scores in Survey 3) suggest diverse research interests and unmet needs. Taken together, these findings indicate that people living with or affected by diabetes in Australia believe that better health and quality of life could be achieved through research designed to reduce the everyday burden of living with diabetes. Substantial divergence in the prioritised research questions of adults with T1D, T2D and GDM, and their FM, supports the need for cohort-specific research agendas (with exceptions discussed below).

For participants with T1D (and FM), the highest ranked research priority focused on investigating how glucose monitoring and insulin-delivery technologies can be improved to reduce the burden of managing diabetes. In addition to effectiveness, participants suggested that research should focus on how technologies can make diabetes management easier and how technologies can be better integrated, more environmentally friendly and/or more accessible. Similar findings were observed in the UK JLA process, whereby the top three T1D research priorities referred to the availability of discrete continuous glucose monitors and the effectiveness of insulin pump devices and closed loop systems [ 20 ]. However, Australians with T1D also prioritised research to reduce the financial burden of diabetes through increased, timely and affordable access to advanced technologies, likely reflecting the local health system. Relatedly, the International Diabetes Federation have highlighted universal access to insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors as one of four key interventions that could reduce the negative impacts of T1D worldwide [ 31 ]. Alongside mounting scientific evidence for the clinical and psychosocial benefits of advanced technologies in the management of T1D [ 32 , 33 ], the research priority setting illustrates strong community interest in continued research efforts to improve device effectiveness, convenience, acceptability and accessibility.

Commonality was observed between priorities for those with T1D and FM, with six consistently reported priorities across the two cohorts. This might be expected given that the latter cohort largely reported being parents to someone with T1D. For example, both cohorts prioritised research into raising the public awareness of diabetes, including the differences in diabetes types, their causes, symptoms and treatments. This is consistent with the findings of a recent World Health Organization key informant survey, which identified perceived needs for the media to differentiate between diabetes types, and for an increased awareness of the signs and symptoms of T1D [ 34 ]. Current study participants with T1D and FM suggested that a greater public awareness could also enable improved first-aid response to those experiencing severe hypoglycaemia. In contrast to those with T1D, FM also prioritised, for example, research aimed at increasing support in schools for children with T1D, as well as improvements to early diabetes screening.

Among participants with T2D, the highest ranked research priority focused on the reversal of insulin resistance, with several other priorities seeking to identify the most effective diets, exercise plans and supports to achieve T2D remission and/or weight loss consistent with the research priorities of adults with T2D in the UK [ 23 ]. Increasing evidence suggests T2D remission (i.e. reduction in HbA1c to ≤ 6.5% without the use of glucose-lowering medications) is possible for some when adopting an intensive weight management programme following diagnosis [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Such findings have garnered widespread scientific, health and media attention, as well as apparent interest from the broader T2D community. Qualitative responses to Survey 1 suggested some participants did not understand what T2D remission is or involves. Further, average T2D duration and medication status (29% insulin treated) indicate remission may not be achievable or sustainable for most participants with T2D in the current study [ 38 ]. Thus, there is a clear need for and interest in greater communication and education about T2D remission, in addition to research on this topic.

Participants with GDM prioritised research that seeks to better understand the impacts of diabetes on their child (during pregnancy and in the long term). Prior qualitative research among those with GDM has commonly identified heightened fear and health concerns for their child [ 39 , 40 ]. However, investigation and minimisation of risks to the child were ranked 4th and 11th, respectively, in previous Canadian and UK priority-setting exercises. [ 19 , 22 ] This point of difference in research priority ranking may be because of the small Australian sample from which GDM research priorities are drawn, the different methods used and/or stakeholders consulted. Consistencies in GDM research priorities across the current Australian, UK and Canadian research priorities include: prevention of future T2D diabetes, mental health and emotional well-being, as well as diet and physical activity [ 19 , 22 ]. Among the small cohort of participants with less common types of diabetes, prioritised research related to the association of diabetes with other conditions (also prioritised by T1D cohort), as well as the need for improved screening, diagnosis and management of latent autoimmune diabetes in adults and maturity onset diabetes of the young, including increased awareness among health professionals of these types of diabetes.

Investigation of ‘the causes or triggers of diabetes …’ was the only consistently prioritised research question across all cohorts, though not ranked first for any cohort. Despite differing aetiologies, this may reflect the shared complexity, and still limited understanding of the causes, of all types of diabetes. Qualitative responses in Survey 1 indicated that such knowledge gains would ultimately assist in finding a cure for or enable prevention of diabetes. Indeed, research focused on a diabetes cure was also a priority for all cohorts (except GDM), despite Survey 1 question wording specifically asking for research questions beyond that of a cure. Research relating to either prevention or remission was also prioritised across cohorts. Some participants reported seeking a better understanding of the extent to which their diabetes may have been caused by their behaviours (vs factors such as genetics, ageing and the environment). Other research demonstrates that beliefs and attributions about the causes of diabetes (e.g. perceived control/personal responsibility) [ 41 ] are associated with internalisation of diabetes stigma by people living with T2D and GDM [ 42 ], and has a detrimental impact on public support for funding diabetes healthcare and research [ 43 ]. Thus, there is need for careful consideration of how evidence about the causes of diabetes is communicated to support optimal self-management and raise awareness of diabetes risk factors, without perpetuating stigma and its harmful effects [ 44 ].

Researchers may use the current study findings to drive a community-informed research programme. It is also hoped that these findings would inform future research funding calls in Australia, as has been seen in the UK following community research priority setting [ 26 ]. While some commonality in priorities is observed [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], the relevance of these research questions to community needs and interests within other countries (as well as under-represented sub-populations within Australia and the UK) warrants investigation, with consideration given to the value and appropriateness of a global community-informed diabetes research agenda.

For many of the identified research priorities, published evidence exists. Prioritisation of such research questions among the diabetes community suggests that this evidence may not be disseminated clearly or implemented appropriately (e.g. within healthcare services). Thus, in addition to addressing the community-identified evidence gaps, processes are needed to improve the dissemination and implementation of research findings. Broad public communication of research findings is an ethical responsibility of researchers [ 45 ] and a strategic priority of peak bodies [ 46 ]. Together, there is opportunity for researchers and diabetes organisations to deliver effective communications tailored to the research questions prioritised by the community. To commence this work, a lay report has been published to communicate findings with the community and be used for further consultations with diabetes organisations and funding bodies. The report can be accessed via the study-specific website (diabetesresearchmatters.com), where future dissemination initiatives will be posted. Beyond this study, and the Australian context, there remains a need for greater attention to investment and CCI in the communication and implementation of diabetes research.

4.1 Strengths and Limitations

While the target sample was exceeded for T1D and achieved for T2D, other target samples (e.g. GDM, First Nations people) were not met and the targeted total sample of 800 participants completing Survey 1 was not achieved. Further, a low response rate for NDSS direct invitations was observed: 2% compared with the expected 8% (informed by a national online survey of adults with T1D or T2D conducted in 2015 [ 29 ]). However, the rate of response is consistent with more recent online research studies utilising NDSS recruitment and requiring multi-stage participation (e.g. [ 47 ]), which may suggest an overall reduction in research participation by registrants.

Guidelines for the minimum number of unique responses or participants in such consultations are limited [ 28 , 48 ], and previous diabetes research priority-setting initiatives have established priorities based on samples that range from n = 39 to [ 24 ] n > 2000 participants [ 23 ]. In the current study, we generated 1549 unique responses from more than 600 participants. However, because we treated each cohort’s responses separately to generate cohort-specific lists, the sample size per cohort was effectively reduced. Nonetheless, this data separation was important in acknowledging the unique experiences of each cohort, and the limited potential for the views of any one cohort to be over-represented or under-represented because of unequal samples. Further, the significant similarities between the Australian and UK priorities support the validity of our findings.

Despite the low response rate, our sample included diverse representation of age, gender, states/territories and education levels, though most participants were Australian born with English as their primary language (i.e. not reflecting the cultural diversity of Australian society). Translation of the questions in the most common languages spoken in Australia could have resulted in a more diverse cultural representation and should be considered for future consultations. Despite indigenous representation within the research team, and tailoring recruitment materials and strategies, we did not reach the target sample. Thus, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the research priorities of First Nations people with diabetes in Australia. Additional consultations with culturally diverse groups should be undertaken using appropriate techniques (e.g. using in-language surveys or qualitative community-led approaches), and results compared to the learnings of this initial national consultation. With increasing recognition of the importance of CCI in research worldwide, it is anticipated that the methods employed in the current study may inform priority setting elsewhere, as the current results cannot speak to community interests outside of Australia, nor specific sub-populations within Australia.

The amount and diversity of qualitative data collected in Survey 1 are strengths of the current approach, but the analysis process was time intensive. The time lapse between surveys likely contributed to the observed attrition rate (though at 53%, this was lower than the anticipated 60%), along with the participant burden of the subsequent surveys. To respect the variety of research topics raised, the task for participants in Survey 2 was complex and time consuming, as they were asked to select from a list of 125 questions (categorised into 25 topics). To reduce the burden, a pragmatic decision was taken to ask participants to select the ten most important questions rather than rating the importance of all 125 questions. A ranking was then obtained in the last survey only, limiting data insights beyond the selected approximately top ten per cohort. The long list of research questions generated may have been significantly shorter, and task complexity reduced, if stakeholders were consulted separately per cohort. Our aim to include participants with different types of diabetes as well as FM was ambitious. However, we did not believe it ethical to prioritise one cohort over others, and a strength of this study is its inclusivity, with separate reporting of research priorities for each cohort. This includes FM, whose priorities have previously been combined within diabetes cohorts to reach a consensus, at a consistent moment in time [ 20 , 23 ].

5 Conclusions

Through a systematic iterative consultation process, we report the cohort-specific research priorities of adults with T1D, T2D, GDM, less common diabetes types and FM in Australia, with only one common priority identified across groups. Within cohorts, the differences in perceived importance between the top priorities are minimal, supporting the need for investment in diverse research programmes to reduce the diabetes burden. Respecting the needs and interests of community, these findings can be used to shape the future research agenda of Australian funding bodies and researchers, and to inform community-focused research dissemination strategies. Further, given the consistency of results with similar priority-setting initiatives in the UK, study findings may have broader relevance with the opportunity to inform international diabetes research funding calls and collaborations.

International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas. 10th ed. Brussels, Belgium. 2021. https://www.diabetesatlas.org . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute. Diabetes: the silent pandemic and its impact on Australia. 2014. https://baker.edu.au/-/media/documents/impact/diabetes-the-silent-pandemic.pdf . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

National Diabetes Services Scheme. Diabetes data snapshots: all types of diabetes (September 2023). 2022. https://www.ndss.com.au/about-diabetes/diabetes-facts-and-figures/diabetes-data-snapshots/ . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health system expenditure. 2021. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/diabetes/diabetes/contents/impact-of-diabetes/health-system-expenditure . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Gilbert SE, Buchbinder R, Harris IA, Maher CG. A comparison of the distribution of Medical Research Future Fund grants with disease burden in Australia. Med J Aust. 2021;214(3):111-3.e1. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50916 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

National Health and Medical Research Council. Research funding statistics and data. 2022. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/data-research/research-funding-statistics-and-data . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Diabetes: Australian facts. 2023. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/diabetes/diabetes/contents/data-gaps-and-opportunities . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Speight J. Behavioural innovation is key to improving the health of one million Australians living with type 2 diabetes. Med J Aust. 2016;205(4):149–51. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja16.00556 .

Diabetes Australia. Diabetes research changing lives. Canberra, Australia. 2023. https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/mediarelease/diabetes-research-changing-lives/ . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Begum M, Lewison G, Sommariva S, Ciani O, Tarricone R, Sullivan R. European diabetes research and its funding, 2002–2013. Diabet Med. 2017;34(10):1354–60.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Holt R. A crisis in diabetes research funding. Diabet Med. 2017;34(10):1331.

Moses H, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA. 2015;313(2):174–89.

Jones A, Vallis M, Cooke D, Pouwer F. Review of research grant allocation to psychosocial studies in diabetes research. Diabet Med. 2016;33(12):1673–6.

Boddy K, Cowan K, Gibson A, Britten N. Does funded research reflect the priorities of people living with type 1 diabetes? A secondary analysis of research questions. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e016540.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

National Health and Medical Research Council. Statement on consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. 2016. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/file/5091/download?token=c4S6ZKnw . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Aiyegbusi OL, McMullan C, Hughes SE, Turner GM, Subramanian A, Hotham R, et al. Considerations for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research. Nat Med. 2023;29(8):1922–9.

Harris J, Haltbakk J, Dunning T, Austrheim G, Kirkevold M, Johnson M, et al. How patient and community involvement in diabetes research influences health outcomes: a realist review. Health Expect. 2019;22(5):907–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12935 .

Ng AH, Quigley M, Benson T, Cusack L, Hicks R, Nash B, et al. Living between two worlds: lessons for community involvement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2024;12:155–7.

Ayman G, Strachan JA, McLennan N, Malouf R, Lowe-Zinola J, Magdi F, et al. The top 10 research priorities in diabetes and pregnancy according to women, support networks and healthcare professionals. Diabet Med. 2021;38(8):e14588. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14588 .

Gadsby R, Snow R, Daly AC, Crowe S, Matyka K, Hall B, et al. Setting research priorities for type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2012;29(10):1321–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03755.x .

Bennett WL, Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, Wilson LM, Nicholson WK. High priority research needs for gestational diabetes mellitus. J Womens Health. 2012;21(9):925–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Rees SE, Chadha R, Donovan LE, Guitard AL, Koppula S, Laupacis A, et al. Engaging patients and clinicians in establishing research priorities for gestational diabetes mellitus. Can J Diabetes. 2017;41(2):156–63.

Finer S, Robb P, Cowan K, Daly A, Shah K, Farmer A. Setting the top 10 research priorities to improve the health of people with type 2 diabetes: a Diabetes UK-James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership. Diabet Med. 2018;35(7):862–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13613 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brown K, Dyas J, Chahal P, Khalil Y, Riaz P, Cummings-Jones J. Discovering the research priorities of people with diabetes in a multicultural community: a focus group study. Br J Gen Pract. 2006;56(524):206–13.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Perrin BM, Raspovic A, Williams CM, Twigg SM, Golledge J, Hamilton EJ, et al. Establishing the national top 10 priority research questions to improve diabetes-related foot health and disease: a Delphi study of Australian stakeholders. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9(2):e002570.

Diabetes UK. New research strategy for the UK aims to transform diabetes care. 2016. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-us/news-and-views/new-research-strategy-uk-aims-transform-diabetes-care . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):1–12.

James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance guidebook V10. 2021. https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/downloads/JLA-Guidebook-Version-10-March-2021.pdf . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Browne JL, Holmes-Truscott E, Ventura AD, Hendrieckx C, Pouwer F, Speight J. Cohort profiles of the cross-sectional and prospective participant groups in the second Diabetes MILES: Australia (MILES-2) study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012926.

Brooks J, McCluskey S, Turley E, King N. The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qual Res Psychol. 2015;12(2):202–22.

Federation ID. New global Type 1 Diabetes Index highlights the unmet need of people living with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;192:110123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2022.110123 .

Speight J, Choudhary P, Wilmot EG, Hendrieckx C, Forde H, Cheung WY, et al. Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: a narrative review. Diabet Med. 2023;40(1):e14944.

Choudhary P, Campbell F, Joule N, Kar P, Diabetes UK. A Type 1 diabetes technology pathway: consensus statement for the use of technology in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2019;36(5):531–8.

Hunt D, Lamb K, Elliott J, Hemmingsen B, Slama S, Scibilia R, et al. A WHO key informant language survey of people with lived experiences of diabetes: media misconceptions, values-based messaging, stigma, framings and communications considerations. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;193:110109.

Lean ME, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, Brosnahan N, Thom G, McCombie L, et al. Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10120):541–51.

Lean ME, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, Brosnahan N, Thom G, McCombie L, et al. Durability of a primary care-led weight-management intervention for remission of type 2 diabetes: 2-year results of the DiRECT open-label, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(5):344–55.

Lean ME, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, Brosnahan N, Thom G, McCombie L, et al. 5-Year follow-up of the randomised Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT) of continued support for weight loss maintenance in the UK: an extension study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2024;12(4):233–46.

Thom G, Messow CM, Leslie W, Barnes A, Brosnahan N, McCombie L, et al. Predictors of type 2 diabetes remission in the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT). Diabet Med. 2021;38(8):e14395.

He J, Wang Y, Liu Y, Chen X, Bai J. Experiences of pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2):e034126.

Morrison MK, Lowe JM, Collins CE. Australian women’s experiences of living with gestational diabetes. Women Birth. 2014;27(1):52–7.

Rose MK, Costabile KA, Boland SE, Cohen RW, Persky S. Diabetes causal attributions among affected and unaffected individuals. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2019;7(1):e000708.

Persky S, Costabile KA, Telaak SH. Diabetes causal attributions: pathways to stigma and health. Stigma Health. 2021;2021:896.

Google Scholar  

Hildebrandt T, Bode L, Ng JS. Effect of ‘lifestyle stigma’on public support for NHS-provisioned pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and preventative interventions for HPV and type 2 diabetes: a nationwide UK survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e029747.

Speight J, Holmes-Truscott E, Garza M, Scibilia R, Wagner S, Kato A, et al. Bringing an end to diabetes stigma and discrimination: an international consensus statement on evidence and recommendations. Lancet Diabet Endocrinol. 2024;12(1):61–82.

National Health and Medical Research Council. Publication and dissemination of research: a guide supporting the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. 2020. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018#download . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Diabetes Australia. Diabetes Australia strategic plan 2020-25. 2020. https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Strategic-Plan-2020-25.pdf . Accessed 4 Dec 2023.

Holmes-Truscott E, Holloway EE, Lam B, Baptista S, Furler J, Hagger V, et al. ‘Is Insulin Right for Me?’: web-based intervention to reduce psychological barriers to insulin therapy among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2023;40(7):e15117.

The James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance guidebook. 2021. www.jla.nihr.ac.uk . Accessed 14 Dec 2023.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the people with diabetes and family members who participated in the consultation. We thank the Steering Group for their input in the project. Participants were recruited via the National Diabetes Services Scheme. The National Diabetes Services Scheme is an initiative of the Australian Government administered by Diabetes Australia.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, Deakin University, 1-11 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

Christel Hendrieckx, Sienna Russell-Green, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott & Jane Speight

The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes, Diabetes Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Christel Hendrieckx, Sienna Russell-Green, Timothy Skinner, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott & Jane Speight

Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

Christel Hendrieckx, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott & Jane Speight

Department of Psychology, Counselling and Therapy, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Timothy Skinner

Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Ashley H. Ng

National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Diabetes Research Matters Steering Group, Melbourne, Australia

Siobhan Barlow, Alan Davey & Caitlin Rogers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott .

Ethics declarations

This research was funded by a General Grant awarded by the Diabetes Australia Research Program (DARP). Christel Hendrieckx, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott and Jane Speight are supported by the core funding to the Australian Centre for Behavioural Research in Diabetes provided by the collaboration between Diabetes Victoria and Deakin University.

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

Christel Hendrieckx, Sienna Russell-Green, Timothy Skinner, Ashley H. Ng, Chris Lee, Siobhan Barlow, Alan Davey, Caitlin Rogers, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott and Jane Speight have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics Approval

This research study received ethics approval from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2021-268).

Consent to Participate and Consent for Publication

All study participants provided informed consent prior to taking part, including consent for de-identified study findings to be published.

Availability of Data and Material and Code Availability

Supplementary files detail all research topics and themes generated with example quotes. Further de-identified data may be available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Authors’ Contributions

CH, JS, EHT and TK contributed to the study conception and design. CH, EHT, SRG, SB, AD and CR developed the survey questions, SRG collected the data and performed data cleaning and analysis with support from CH and EHT. All authors discussed the findings at each step of the iterative project, which informed the next step of the iterative process. The first draft and subsequent revisions of the paper were written by CH and EHT, all authors commented on the draft versions of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 60 kb)

Supplementary file2 (docx 38 kb), supplementary file3 (doc 251 kb), supplementary file4 (docx 22 kb), rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial 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-nc/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hendrieckx, C., Russell-Green, S., Skinner, T. et al. Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia. Patient (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00688-5

Download citation

Accepted : 07 March 2024

Published : 06 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00688-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Summer Training on Awareness and Readiness for Semiconductors (STARS) - Research - College of Engineering - Purdue University

Summer Training on Awareness and Readiness for Semiconductors (STARS)

Student Application Portal for STARS 2024 is closed Apply Here

Announcement

All initial acceptances have gone out - if you have not yet heard from us, you are either on our waitlist or will be receiving a rejection email shortly. We will send a status update to all applicants by April 7th.

The Purdue Summer Training, Awareness, and Readiness for Semiconductors (STARS) is an eight-week program designed to equip students with deep-tech skills in IC design, fabrication, packaging, and semiconductor device and materials characterization. The program offers two specialized tracks: chip design and semiconductor manufacturing, providing an experience equivalent to a summer internship.

Participants will receive up to a $10,000 stipend. Students intending to earn up to 6 credit hours will use the stipend to cover tuition costs.

STARS 2024 Overview of Important Dates

Program Application Window

Program Period

December 14, 2023 - February 1, 2024

May 20, 2024 - July 12, 2024

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

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
• Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS
• v.31(1); Jan-Jun 2010

Formulating a researchable question: A critical step for facilitating good clinical research

Sadaf aslam.

Clinical and Translational Science Institute and Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Patricia Emmanuel

Developing a researchable question is one of the challenging tasks a researcher encounters when initiating a project. Both, unanswered issues in current clinical practice or when experiences dictate alternative therapies may provoke an investigator to formulate a clinical research question. This article will assist researchers by providing step-by-step guidance on the formulation of a research question. This paper also describes PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) criteria in framing a research question. Finally, we also assess the characteristics of a research question in the context of initiating a research project.

INTRODUCTION

A researchable question is an uncertainty about a problem that can be challenged, examined, and analyzed to provide useful information.[ 1 ] A successful research project depends upon how well an investigator formulates the research question based on the problems faced in day-to-day research activities and clinical practice. The underlying questions of a research project provide important information to decide whether the topic is relevant, researchable, and significant. A well-formulated research question needs extreme specificity and preciseness which guides the implementation of the project keeping in mind the identification of variables and population of interest. Here we will present a clinical scenario and see how clinical questions arise and help us in finding the evidence to answer our question.

FORMULATING THE RESEARCH QUESTION

A 2-year-old boy presents in an outpatient clinic with fever and severe pain in his right ear. He has a history of recurrent ear infections, and his mother expresses a concern that he has been on the antibiotic amoxicillin for the past few weeks. She is worried about the consequences of the long-term antibiotic use. She is also concerned about the outcome associated with recurrent ear infections. She wants to know if the prescribed amoxicillin is effective, or it can be substituted with another antibiotic because of its side effects such as frequent diarrhea.

Several questions arise from this case which can be broadly classified into background and foreground questions. The general questions about a clinical problem or a disease are called “Background Questions.”[ 2 ] These questions generally ask what, when, how, and where about the disease, disorder, or treatment for instance, “What is otitis media?” or “How does amoxicillin work?” etc. These types of questions can be answered by going through review articles or text books.

The patient-oriented questions involving interpretation of a therapy or disease and consideration of risk vs. benefit for a patient or a group of patient are called “Foreground Questions.”[ 2 ] These types of complex clinical questions are best answered by primary or pre-assessed studies in the literature. These questions mostly compare the two, either two drugs or treatments or two diagnostic methods, etc.

The PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) format [ Table 1 ] is considered a widely known strategy for framing a “foreground” research question.[ 3 ] Sackett et al . pointed out that breaking the question into four components will facilitate the identification of relevant information.

Considering PICO and FINER criteria for developing a research question[ 3 , 5 ]

Population or problem - addressing a specific population, its important characteristics and demographic information. From the above case, you can identify pediatric population with otitis media, the age range, sex, presenting complaint, and history.

Intervention or treatment of interest - the intervention can be a treatment, procedure, diagnostic test, and risk or prognostic factors. In this case, the intervention will be your plan to treat the patient which can be a new therapy, a diagnostic test, prognostic factor, or a procedure. For example, based on your observation in clinic, cefuroxime is another better treatment option as compared to amoxicillin in treating otitis media but you are not sure about its efficacy in pediatric population with otitis media.

Comparator or control -when a new therapy is compared with the existing one.

Outcome - is the effect of the intervention. For example, its effectiveness in controlling pain. Therefore, the outcome in the above case can be the relief of pain, the resolution of infection, or decreasing the risk of developing resistance. A good primary outcome should be easily quantifiable, specific, valid, reproducible, and appropriate to your research question.[ 4 ]

In a typical clinical setting, a clinician needs to know about background and foreground questions depending upon the experience about a particular disease and therapy. Once background questions are answered, more complex questions are addressed. The clinical questions arise from the central issues in a clinical work.[ 2 ] For example, identifying causes or risk factors (etiological questions), comparing diagnostic tests based on sensitivity and specificity (diagnostic query), identifying best treatment options (therapeutic question), and outcome of the treatment (prognostic question).

After determining a foreground question, the PICO approach is followed. Dissecting the question into parts makes it easy and searchable. As evident in this case, there are several relevant questions, for example: what are the outcomes associated with recurrent ear infection, what are the possible effects of long-term use of antibiotic, and what are the harms associated with current treatment? Now if you gather all the information from PICO approach, the following researchable questions can be formulated.

In children with acute otitis media (P), is cefuroxime (I) effective in reducing the duration of symptoms (O) as compared to amoxicillin (C)?

In children suffering from otitis media, will cefuroxime result in the improvement of symptoms and reduction in developing resistance?

Does treatment with amoxicillin increase the risk of developing resistance in children suffering from otitis media?

Does surgical procedure has better outcome for the treatment of otitis media in children after repeated antibiotic therapy?

From the above case, we have formulated multiple questions based on our patient’s illness and concerns. Now we can use the strategy of “selecting” the best question.[ 2 ] For example, which question has more significance for the patient’s well-being, which question is relevant to our knowledge needs and which question might lead to interesting answers for our patients and clinical query? Further, we need to consider the feasibility of finding the evidence in a short period.

ASSESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF A STUDY DESIGN

As proposed by Hulley et al . [ Table 1 ], a research question should be formulated keeping in mind the FINER (feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant) criteria[ 5 ] and that the answer should fill gaps in the existing knowledge. The following points should be considered while assessing a research question.

Determining the required resources

The feasibility of conducting a research project is based on the research question and should be considered early in the process in order to avoid waste of resources and intellectual energy. This is sometimes difficult for a new investigator and they need guidance from their mentors.[ 4 ]

• Consider doing a pilot or proof of concept study to asses the feasibility;
• Consult a biostatistician early in the project in order to choose less costly design and common outcomes;
• Consider feasibility of enrolling the intended number of subjects from the population of your interest. Also, consider expanding your inclusion criteria and modifying exclusion criteria if it is difficult to enroll the intended number; and
• Consider cost of each element of the study design, research staff, and resources.

Significance of making it interesting and relevant

An important question may not seem interesting the way it is presented. It is a challenge to present a research question clearly and engage the interest and attention of the reviewers. Research is too much work to not have a passion for what you are investigating. You will have more support for your study, and it will be easier to publish if the topic is novel and also interests your collaborators, colleagues, and the community at large. It is important to pursue a research question with a passion of getting the truth out of the matter.[ 5 ] This is how we all perceive research; commitment to a high-quality systematic and unbiased completion of an innovative project. If your question can explain a given problem while pointing toward a specific aspect which is missing then your project can get a great deal of support.

Conducting literature review

The innovation of any research question is determined by a thorough literature search. Any replication of the study already existing in the literature is not worth repeating as it is. Depending upon the research question, sometimes the study can be replicated if your question approaches an existing problem in a refreshing way. This can be achieved by using a different populations, different techniques, new conceptual approaches, or linking two different studies in which outcomes did not solve the problem.[ 5 ] Once a preliminary question has been formulated, literature search should be done to find out what is known or unknown about the topic. The goal of the literature review is to determine what research has been conducted on the topic of interest? and how has it been conducted? and what are the gaps in the knowledge?. It is recommended to use PubMed, MedlinePlus, CINAHL, or Web of Science as the main search databases, but other databases can be used as well. PubMed clinical query is an easy and user-friendly database to search for evidence related to clinical practice. This also provides information to search MEDLINE by doing categorical searches, for example, therapeutic, diagnostic, etiological, and prognostic. The American College of Physicians (ACP) and clinical evidence from BMJ Publishing Group are excellent systems to find evidence on therapeutic questions. Other search engines such as OVID has a large selection of texts and journals which provides access to other databases such as Cochrane library in getting full text articles and systematic reviews. Gray et al . suggested 4 Ss for literature review: Systems : use of comprehensive resources, Synopses : extracting high-quality studies and abstracts, Syntheses: systematic reviews, and Studies : original research studies.[ 6 ] In the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews are considered the best method for evidence. Systematic reviews are rigorous methods of collecting and synthesizing the results of many high-quality studies. Conducting a thorough literature search also helps in finding information on the methodology, calculating the sample size, and also the type of analysis as we are looking to find a difference. This information is necessary to help structure a new study and to identify gaps in the knowledge base of the scientific community.

Refining research question

A focused research question leads to a systematic planning of a research project. The difficulty in framing a research question is not due to the lack of ideas. The challenge is to transform a novel research question into a valid study design which is the next step in refining a research question.

Asking a well-formulated research question is a starting point in conducting a quality research project and in evidence-based clinical practice. The framework presented in this paper can be helpful for a clinician to formulate a question and search for an answer and for a researcher to develop a new research project. The classical approach is to identify a research question followed by a thorough literature search keeping in mind the PICO and FINER criteria. If it is a well-defined research question, it will lead to an appropriate study design and methodology. Discussing your research question with knowledgeable peers, department chair, mentor, and the biostatistician from the start will lead to the completion of a successful project. Other steps such as type and phase of the clinical trial, budget, informed consent, sites, resource constraints of both personnel and facilities, and timeline should also be considered while formulating a research question. We have introduced the concept of background and foreground questions and also the types of different questions that can arise (therapy, harm, diagnosis, and prognosis). We have described several strategies here while highlighting the major steps that will help investigators in framing a question with the goal of finding an answer based on evidence or initiation of a new research project. It is always good to focus on a single research question based on its relevance to patient’s health or one primary objective to drive the study design.[ 4 ] Once we have formulated our research question, we need to keep track of the progress toward finding an appropriate answer and then finally applying the results to a specific patient population. In short, a researchable question is what leads toward the facts rather than opinion[ 7 ] and is clearly linked to the overall research project goal.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. J.K Kosambiya, Dr. Eknath Naik, and Dr. Ambuj Kumar for their time in reviewing the paper and providing useful insights.

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Americans think a president’s power should be checked, AP-NORC poll finds — unless their side wins

A new Associated Press-NORC poll finds that while Americans say they respect the Constitution’s checks and balances and don’t want a president to have too much power, that view shifts if the candidate of their party wins the presidency.

FILE - President Joe Biden speaks at an event in Raleigh, N.C., March. 26, 2024. A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Opinion Research conducted March 21-25, finds that while Americans say they respect the Constitution’s checks and balances and don’t want a president to have too much power, that view shifts if the candidate of their party wins the presidency. It’s a view held by members of both parties, though it’s especially common among Republicans. (AP Photo/Matt Kelley, File)

• Copy Link copied

FILE - Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks April 2, 2024, at a rally in Green Bay, Wis. A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Opinion Research conducted March 21-25, finds that while Americans say they respect the Constitution’s checks and balances and don’t want a president to have too much power, that view shifts if the candidate of their party wins the presidency. It’s a view held by members of both parties, though it’s especially common among Republicans. (AP Photo/Mike Roemer, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Like many Americans, Richard Bidon says he’d like to see the U.S. government “go back to its original design” — a system of checks and balances developed nearly 240 years ago to prevent any branch, especially the presidency, from becoming too powerful.

But that’s mainly when Republicans are in power.

Bidon, an 84-year-old Democrat who lives near Los Angeles, said if President Joe Biden is reelected , he doesn’t want him to have to get the approval of a possibly Republican-controlled Congress to enact policies to slow climate change. He wants presidents to have the power to change policy unilaterally — as long as they’re from the right party.

“When a Democrat’s in, I support” a strong presidency, Bidon said. “When Republicans are in, I don’t support it that much. It’s sort of a wishy-washy thing.”

A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Opinion Research finds that Bidon’s view is common. Though Americans say don’t want a president to have too much power, that view shifts if the candidate of their party wins the presidency. It’s a view held by members of both parties, though it’s especially common among Republicans.

Overall, only about 2 in 10 Americans say it would be “a good thing” for the next president to be able to change policy without waiting on Congress or the courts. But nearly 6 in 10 Republicans say it would be good for a future President Donald Trump to take unilateral action, while about 4 in 10 Democrats say the same if Biden is reelected.

The sentiment comes amid escalating polarization and is a sign of the public’s willingness to push the boundaries of the political framework that has kept the U.S. a stable democracy for more than two centuries. In the poll, only 9% of Americans say the nation’s system of checks and balances is working extremely or very well. It also follows promises by Trump to “act as a dictator” on day one of a new administration to secure the border and expand oil and gas drilling.

Bob Connor, a former carpenter now on disability in Versailles, Missouri, wants that type of decisive action on the border. He’s given up hope on Congress taking action.

“From what I’ve seen, the Republicans are trying to get some stuff done, the Democrats are trying to get some other stuff done — they’re not mixing in the middle,” said Connor, 56. “We’re not getting anywhere.”

He blames the influx of migrants on Biden unilaterally revoking some of Trump’s own unilateral border security policies when he took office.

“I’m not a Trump fanatic, but what he’s saying has to get done is right,” Connor said.

Joe Titus, a 69-year-old Democrat from Austin, Texas, believes Republicans have destroyed Congress’ ability to act in its traditional legislative role and says Biden will have to step into the gap.

“There’s this so-called ‘majority’ in Congress, and they’re a bunch of whack-jobs,” Titus, a retired Air Force mechanic, said of the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. “It’s not the way this thing was set up.”

The current Congress is setting dubious records as the least productive one in the country’s history, with fewer than three dozen bills sent to Biden’s desk last year. At Trump’s urging, House Republicans have stalled aid to Ukraine and a bipartisan immigration bill .

Titus said that in general he opposes expanded presidential power but would support Biden funding more immigration judges and sending additional aid to Ukraine on his own.

“There’s certain things that it seems to me the public wants and the other party is blocking,” Titus said.

The presidency has steadily gained power in recent years as congressional deadlocks have become more common. Increasingly, the nation’s chief executive is moving to resolve issues through administrative policy or executive orders. The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule later this year on a case that could significantly weaken the ability of federal agencies — and thus a presidential administration — to issue regulations.

Meanwhile, conservatives are planning a takeover of the federal bureaucracy should they win the White House in November, a move that could increase the administration’s ability to make sweeping policy changes on its own.

The AP-NORC poll found that voters’ views of which institutions have too much power were colored by their own partisanship. Only 16% of Democrats, whose party currently controls the White House, say the presidency has too much power while nearly half of Republicans believe it does. In contrast, about 6 in 10 Democrats say the U.S. Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has too much power.

With Congress evenly divided between the two parties — the GOP has a narrow House majority, Democrats a narrow Senate one — Americans have similar views on its power regardless of party. About 4 in 10 from both major parties say it has too much power.

“I think Congress had too much power when the presidency and Congress were both ruled by Democrats, but now that Republicans are in the majority there’s an equal balance,” said John V. Mohr, a 62-year-old housecleaner in Wilmington, North Carolina.

In contrast, he complained that Biden is “sitting there writing executive orders left and right,” including his proclamation marking Transgender Day of Visibility , which fell on Easter Sunday this year.

The abstract idea of a president with nearly unchecked power remains unpopular.

Steven Otney, a retired trucker in Rock Hill, South Carolina, said major policies should be approved by Congress and gain approval from the courts. But he also said it depends on the topic. He wants to see prompt action on certain issues by the next president if he’s Trump.

“Some things need to be done immediately, like that border wall being finished,” said Otney, a Republican.

He said it’s just common sense.

“If Trump got in there and said ‘I want to bomb Iran,’ no, that’s crazy,” Otney said. “Within reason, not stupid stuff either way. Something to help the American people, not hurt us.”

The poll of 1,282 adults was conducted March 21-25, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Riccardi reported from Denver.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here . The AP is solely responsible for all content.