15–24.99
years) ( = 15)
Age mean (SD) = 49.7 (18.6).
Focus group and researcher interview data were recorded (either via audio recording and/or notes taken by research staff) and analyzed via a general inductive qualitative approach, a method appropriate for program evaluation studies and aimed at condensing large amounts of textual data into frameworks that describe the underlying process and experiences under study [ 12 ]. Data were analyzed by our team’s qualitative expert who read the textual data multiple times, developed a coding scheme to identify themes in the textual data, and used group consensus methods with other team members to identify unique, key themes.
Sixty-one of sixty-five PSP who volunteered to participate in the PSP survey were screened eligible, fifty were consented, and forty-eight completed the survey questionnaire. Of the 48 PSP completing the survey, 15 (32%) were AYA and 33 (68%) older adults. The mean age of survey respondents was 49.7 years, 23.5 for AYA, and 61.6 for older adults. Survey respondents were predominantly White, non-Hispanic/Latino, female, and with some college or a college degree (Table (Table1). 1 ). The percentage of participants in each group never or rarely needing any help with reading/interpreting written materials was above 93% in both groups.
Over 90% of PSP responded that they would participate in another research study, and more than 75% of PSP indicated that study participants should know about study results. Most (68.8%) respondents indicated that they did not receive any communications from study staff after they finished a study .
PSP preferences for communication channel are summarized in Table Table2 2 and based on responses to the question “How do you want to receive information?.” Both AYA and older adults agree or completely agree that they prefer email to other communication channels and that billboards did not apply to them. Older adult preferences for communication channels as indicated by agreeing or completely agreeing were in ranked order of highest to lowest: use of mailed letters/postcards, newsletter, and phone. A majority (over 50%) of older adults completely disagreed or disagreed on texting and social media as options and had only slight preference for mass media, public forum, and wellness fairs or expos.
Communication preference by group: AYA * , older adult ** , and ALL ( n = 48)
Communication format | Completely disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Completely agree | Don’t know | Not applicable |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Phone | |||||||
AYA | 4 (26.7) | 3 (20) | 6 (40.0) | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | - | - |
Older adult | 10 (30.3) | 1 (3) | 6 (18.2) | 2 (6.1) | 14 (42.4) | - | - |
ALL | 14 (29.2) | 4 (8.3) | 12 (25.0) | 3 (9.1) | 15 (31.3) | - | - |
Mailed letters, postcards | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 4 (26.7) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) | - | - |
Older adult | 3 (9.1) | 2 (6.1) | 5 (15.2) | 7 (21.2) | 16 (48.5) | - | - |
ALL | 8 (16.7) | 6 (12.5) | 7 (14.6) | 9 (18.8) | 18 (37.5) | - | - |
AYA | - | - | - | 3 (20) | 12 (80) | - | - |
Older adult | 5 (15.2) | 1 (3.0) | 2 (6.1) | 2 (6.1) | 21 (63.6) | - | - |
ALL | 5 (10.4) | 1 (2.1) | 2 (4.2) | 5 (10.4) | 33 (68.8) | - | - |
Texting | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (13.3) | 4 (26.7) | 2 (13.3) | - | - |
Older adult | 17 (51.5) | 1 (3.0) | 4 (12.1) | 3 (9.1) | 4 (12.1) | - | - |
ALL | 22 (45.8) | 3 (6.3) | 6 (12.5) | 7 (14.6) | 6 (12.5) | - | - |
Newsletter | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 3 (20.0) | 4 (26.7) | 1 (6.7) | 2 (13.3) | - | - |
Older adult | 4 (12.1) | 2 (6.1) | 8 (24.2) | 6 (18.2) | 13 (39.4) | - | - |
ALL | 9 (18.8) | 5 (10.4) | 12(25) | 7 (14.6) | 15 (31.3) | - | - |
Social media | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 5 (33.3) | 4 (26.7) | - | 1 (6.7) | - | - |
Older adult | 20 (60.6) | - | 4 (12.1) | 1 (3.0) | 6 (21.2) | - | - |
ALL | 25 (52.1) | 5 (10.4) | 8 (16.7) | 1 (2.1) | 7 (14.6) | - | - |
Mass media | |||||||
AYA | 3 (20.0) | 6 (40.0) | 6 (40.0) | - | - | - | |
Older adult | 14 (42.4) | 2 (6.1) | 7 (21.2) | 4 (12.1) | 6 (18.2) | - | |
ALL | 17 (35.4) | 8 (16.7) | 13 (27.1) | 4 (8.3) | 6 (12.5) | - | |
Public forum | |||||||
AYA | 5 (33.3) | 2 (13.3) | 6 (40.0) | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | ||
Older adult | 12 (36.4) | 4 (12.1) | 5 (15.2) | 6 (18.2) | 6 (18.2) | ||
ALL | 17 (35.4) | 6 (12.5) | 11 (22.9) | 7 (14.6) | 7 (14.6) | ||
Wellness fair/expo | |||||||
AYA | 4 (26.7) | 1 (6.7) | 5 (33.3) | 5 (33.3) | - | - | - |
Older adult | 12 (36.4) | 3 (9.1) | 9 (27.3) | 2 (6.1) | 7 (21.2) | ||
ALL | 16 (33.3) | 4 (8.3) | 14 (29.4) | 7 (14.6) | 7 (14.6) | - | - |
Other (billboard) | |||||||
AYA | - | - | - | - | 1 (1.67) | 3 (20.0) | 11 (73.3) |
Older adult | 2 (6.1) | - | 1(3.0) | - | 1 (3.0) | 8 (3) | - |
ALL | 2 (14.2) | - | - | 1 (2.1) | 1 (2.1) | 4 (8.3) | 39 (81.3) |
ALL, total per column.
While AYA preferred email over all other options, they completely disagreed/disagreed with mailed letters/postcards, social media, and mass media options.
When communication formats were ranked overall by each group and by both groups combined, the ranking from most to least preferred was written materials, opportunities to interact with study teams and ask questions, visual charts, graphs, pictures, and videos, audios, and podcasts.
PSP want to receive and share information on study findings for studies in which he/she participated. Furthermore, participants stated their desire to share study results across social networks and highlighted opportunities to share communicated study results with their health-care providers, family members, friends, and other acquaintances with similar medical conditions.
Because of the things I was in a study for, it’s a condition I knew three other people who had the same condition, so as soon as it worked for me, I put the word out, this is great stuff. I would forward the email with the link, this is where you can go to also get in on this study, or I’d also tell them, you know, for me, like the medication. Here’s the medication. Here’s the name of it. Tell your doctor. I would definitely share. I’d just tell everyone without a doubt. Right when I get home, as soon as I walk in the door, and say Renee-that’s my daughter-I’ve got to tell you this.
Communication of study information could happen through several channels including social media, verbal communication, sharing of written documents, and forwarding emails containing a range of content in a range of formats (e.g., reports and pamphlets).
Word of mouth and I have no shame in saying I had head to toe psoriasis, and I used the drug being studied, and so I would just go to people, hey, look. So, if you had it in paper form, like a pamphlet or something, yeah I’d pass it on to them.
PSP prefer clear, simple messaging and highlighted multiple, preferred communication modalities for receiving information on study findings including emails, letters, newsletters, social media, and websites.
The wording is really simple, which I like. It’s to the point and clear. I really like the bullet points, because it’s quick and to the point. I think the [long] paragraphs-you get lost, especially when you are reading on your phone.
They indicated a clear preference for colorful, simple, easy to read communication. PSP also expressed some concern about difficulty opening emails with pictures and dislike lengthy written text. “I don’t read long emails. I tend to delete them”
PSP indicated some confusion about common research language. For example, one participant indicated that using the word “estimate” indicates the research findings were an approximation, “When I hear those words, I just think you’re guessing, estimate, you know? It sounds like an estimate, not a definite answer.”
Twenty-three of thirty-two researchers volunteered to participate in the researcher survey, were screened eligible, and two declined to participate, resulting in 19 who provided consent to participate and completed the survey. The mean age of survey respondents was 51.8 years. Respondents were predominantly White, non-Hispanic/Latino, and female, and all were holders of either a professional school degree or a doctoral degree. When asked if it is important to inform study participants of study results, 94.8% of responding researchers agreed that it was extremely important or important. Most researchers have disseminated findings to study participants or plan to disseminate findings.
Researchers listed a variety of reasons for their rating of the importance of informing study participants of study results including “to promote feelings of inclusion by participants and other community members”, “maintaining participant interest and engagement in the subject study and in research generally”, “allowing participants to benefit somewhat from their participation in research and especially if personal health data are collected”, “increasing transparency and opportunities for learning”, and “helping in understanding the impact of the research on the health issue under study”.
Some researchers view sharing study findings as an “ethical responsibility and/or a tenet of volunteerism for a research study”. For example, “if we (researchers) are obligated to inform participants about anything that comes up during the conduct of the study, we should feel compelled to equally give the results at the end of the study”.
One researcher “thought it a good idea to ask participants if they would like an overview of findings at the end of the study that they could share with others who would like to see the information”.
Two researchers said that sharing research results “depends on the study” and that providing “general findings to the participants” might be “sufficient for a treatment outcome study”.
Researchers indicated that despite their willingness to share study results, they face resource challenges such as a lack of funding and/or staff to support communication and dissemination activities and need assistance in developing these materials. One researcher remarked “I would really like to learn what are (sic) the best ways to share research findings. I am truly ignorant about this other than what I have casually observed. I would enjoy attending a workshop on the topic with suggested templates and communication strategies that work best” and that this survey “reminds me how important this is and it is promising that our CTSA seems to plan to take this on and help researchers with this important study element.”
Another researcher commented on a list of potential types of assistance that could be made available to assist with communicating and disseminating results, that “Training on developing lay friendly messaging is especially critically important and would translate across so many different aspects of what we do, not just dissemination of findings. But I’ve noticed that it is a skill that very few people have, and some people never can seem to develop. For that reason, I find as a principal investigator that I am spending a lot of my time working on these types of materials when I’d really prefer research assistant level folks having the ability to get me 99% of the way there.”
Most researchers indicated that they provide participants with personal tests or assessments taken from the study (60% n = 6) and final study results (72.7%, n = 8) but no other information such as recruitment and retention updates, interim updates or results, information on the impact of the study on either the health topic of the study or the community, information on other studies or provide tips and resources related to the health topic and self-help. Sixty percent ( n = 6) of researcher respondents indicated sharing planned next steps for the study team and information on how the study results would be used.
When asked about how they communicated results, phone calls were mentioned most frequently followed by newsletters, email, webpages, public forums, journal article, mailed letter or postcard, mass media, wellness fairs/expos, texting, or social media.
Researchers used a variety of communication formats to communicate with study participants. Written descriptions of study findings were most frequently reported followed by visual depictions, opportunities to interact with study staff and ask questions or provide feedback, and videos/audio/podcasts.
Seventy-three percent of researchers reported that they made efforts to make study findings information available to those with low levels of literacy, health literacy, or other possible limitations such as non-English-speaking populations.
In open-ended responses, most researchers reported wanting to increase their awareness and use of on-campus training and other resources to support communication and dissemination of study results, including how to get resources and budgets to support their use.
One-on-one interviews with researchers identified two themes.
Some researchers indicated hesitancy in communicating preliminary findings, findings from small studies, or highly summarized information. In addition, in comparison to research participants, researchers seemed to place a higher value on specific details of the study.
“I probably wouldn’t put it up [on social media] until the actual manuscript was out with the graphs and the figures, because I think that’s what people ultimately would be interested in.”
Researchers expressed interest in communicating research results to study participants. However, they highlighted several challenges including difficulties in tracking current email and physical addresses for participants; compliance with literacy and visual impairment regulations; and the number of products already required in research that consume a considerable amount of a research team’s time. Researchers expressed a desire to have additional resources and templates to facilitate sharing study findings. According to one respondent, “For every grant there is (sic) 4-10 papers and 3-5 presentations, already doing 10-20 products.” Researchers do not want to “reinvent the wheel” and would like to pull from existing papers and presentations on how to share with participants and have boilerplate, writing templates, and other logistical information available for their use.
Researchers would also like training in the form of lunch-n-learns, podcasts, or easily accessible online tools on how to develop materials and approaches. Researchers are interested in understanding the “do’s and don’ts” of communicating and disseminating study findings and any regulatory requirements that should be considered when communicating with research participants following a completed study. For example, one researcher asked, “From beginning to end – the do’s and don’ts – are stamps allowed as a direct cost? or can indirect costs include paper for printing newsletters, how about designing a website, a checklist for pulling together a newsletter?”
The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the current experiences, expectations, concerns, preferences, and capacities of PSP including youth/young adult and older adult populations and researchers for sharing, receiving, and using information on research study findings. PSP and researchers agreed, as shown in earlier work [ 3 , 5 ], that sharing information upon study completion with participants was something that should be done and that had value for both PSP and researchers. As in prior studies [ 3 , 5 ], both groups also agreed that sharing study findings could improve ancillary outcomes such as participant recruitment and enrollment, use of research findings to improve health and health-care delivery, and build overall community support for research. In addition, communicating results acknowledges study participants’ contributions to research, a principle firmly rooted in respect for treating participants as not merely a means to further scientific investigation [ 5 ].
The majority of PSP indicated that they did not receive research findings from studies they participated in, that they would like to receive such information, and that they preferred specific communication methods for receipt of this information such as email and phone calls. While our sample was small, we did identify preferences for communication channels and for message format. Some differences and similarities in preferences for communication channels and message format were identified between AYA and older adults, thus reinforcing the best practice of customizing communication channel and messaging to each specific group. However, the preference for email and the similar rank ordering of messaging formats suggest that there are some overall communication preferences that may apply to most populations of PSP. It remains unclear whether participants prefer individual or aggregate results of study findings and depends on the type of study, for example, individual results of genotypes versus aggregate results of epidemiological studies [ 13 ]. A study by Miller et al suggests that the impact of receiving aggregate results, whether clinically relevant or not, may equal that of receiving individual results [ 14 ]. Further investigation warrants evaluation of whether, when, and how researchers should communicate types of results to study participants, considering multiple demographics of the populations such as age and ethnicity on preferences.
While researchers acknowledged that PSP would like to hear from them regarding research results and that they wanted to meet this expectation, they indicated needing specific training and/or time and resources to provide this information to PSP in a way that meets PSP needs and preferences. Costs associated with producing reports of findings were a concern of researchers in our study, similar to findings from a study conducted by Di Blasi and colleagues in which 15% (8 of 53 investigators) indicated that they wanted to avoid extra costs associated with the conduct of their studies and extra administrative work [ 15 ]. In this same study, the major reason for not informing participants about study results was that forty percent of investigators never considered this option. Researchers were unaware of resources available on existing platforms at their home institution or elsewhere to help them with communication and dissemination efforts [ 10 ].
Information from academic and other organizations on how to best communicate research findings in plain language is available and could be shared with researchers and their teams. The Cochrane Collaborative [ 16 ], the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [ 17 ], and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute [ 18 ] have resources to help researchers develop plain language summaries using proven approaches to overcome literacy and other issues that limit participant access to study findings. Some academic institutions have electronic systems in place to confidentially share templated laboratory and other personal study information with participants and, if appropriate, with their health-care providers.
Findings from the study are limited by several study and respondent characteristics. The sample was drawn from research records at one university engaging in research in a relatively defined geographic area and among two special populations: AYA and older adults. As such, participants were not representative of either the general population in the area, the population of PSP or researchers available in the area, or the racial and ethnic diversity of potential and/or actual participants in the geographic area. The small number of researcher participants did not represent the pool of researchers at the university, and the research studies from which participants were drawn were not representative of the broad range of clinical and translational research undertaken by our institution or within the geographic community it serves. The number of survey and focus group participants was insufficient to allow robust analysis of findings specific to participants’ race, ethnicity, gender, or membership in the target age groups of AYA or older adult. However, these data will inform a future trial with adequate representations from underrepresented and special population groups.
Since all PSP had participated in research, they may have been biased in favor of wanting to know more about study results and/or supportive/nonsupportive of the method of communication/dissemination they were exposed to through their participation in these studies.
Our findings provide information from PSP and researchers on their expectations about sharing study findings, preferences for how to communicate and disseminate study findings, and need for greater assistance in removing roadblocks to using proven communication and dissemination approaches. This information illustrates the potential to engage both PSP and researchers in the design and use of communication and dissemination strategies and materials to share research findings, engage in efforts to more broadly disseminate research findings, and inform our understanding of how to interpret and communicate research findings for members of special population groups. While several initial prototypes were developed in response to this feedback and shared for review by participants in this study, future research will focus on finalizing and testing specific communication and dissemination prototypes aimed at these special population groups.
Findings from our study support a major goal of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science Recruitment Innovation Center to engage and collaborate with patients and their communities to advance translation science. In response to the increased awareness of the importance of sharing results with study participants or the general public, a template for dissemination of research results is available in the Recruitment and Retention Toolbox through the CTSA Trial Innovation Network (TIN: trialinnovationnetwork.org ). We believe that our findings will inform resources for use in special populations through collaborations within the TIN.
This pilot project was supported, in part, by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH under Grant Number UL1 TR001450. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
This study was reviewed, approved, and continuously overseen by the IRB at the Medical University of South Carolina (ID: Pro00067659). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Science, health, and public trust.
September 8, 2021
We’ve heard “follow the science” a lot during the pandemic. But it seems science has taken us on a long and winding road filled with twists and turns, even changing directions at times. That’s led some people to feel they can’t trust science. But when what we know changes, it often means science is working.
Explaining the scientific process may be one way that science communicators can help maintain public trust in science. Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle.
Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels. For example, scientists can look at the different atoms in a molecule, cells in a tissue, or how different tissues or systems affect each other. Researchers often must choose one or a finite number of ways to investigate a question. It can take many different studies using different approaches to start piecing the whole picture together.
Sometimes it might seem like research results contradict each other. But often, studies are just looking at different aspects of the same problem. Researchers can also investigate a question using different techniques or timeframes. That may lead them to arrive at different conclusions from the same data.
Using the data available at the time of their study, scientists develop different explanations, or models. New information may mean that a novel model needs to be developed to account for it. The models that prevail are those that can withstand the test of time and incorporate new information. Science is a constantly evolving and self-correcting process.
Scientists gain more confidence about a model through the scientific process. They replicate each other’s work. They present at conferences. And papers undergo peer review, in which experts in the field review the work before it can be published in scientific journals. This helps ensure that the study is up to current scientific standards and maintains a level of integrity. Peer reviewers may find problems with the experiments or think different experiments are needed to justify the conclusions. They might even offer new ways to interpret the data.
It’s important for science communicators to consider which stage a study is at in the scientific process when deciding whether to cover it. Some studies are posted on preprint servers for other scientists to start weighing in on and haven’t yet been fully vetted. Results that haven't yet been subjected to scientific scrutiny should be reported on with care and context to avoid confusion or frustration from readers.
We’ve developed a one-page guide, "How Research Works: Understanding the Process of Science" to help communicators put the process of science into perspective. We hope it can serve as a useful resource to help explain why science changes—and why it’s important to expect that change. Please take a look and share your thoughts with us by sending an email to [email protected].
Below are some additional resources:
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Methodology
Research methods are specific procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Developing your research methods is an integral part of your research design . When planning your methods, there are two key decisions you will make.
First, decide how you will collect data . Your methods depend on what type of data you need to answer your research question :
Second, decide how you will analyze the data .
Methods for collecting data, examples of data collection methods, methods for analyzing data, examples of data analysis methods, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research methods.
Data is the information that you collect for the purposes of answering your research question . The type of data you need depends on the aims of your research.
Your choice of qualitative or quantitative data collection depends on the type of knowledge you want to develop.
For questions about ideas, experiences and meanings, or to study something that can’t be described numerically, collect qualitative data .
If you want to develop a more mechanistic understanding of a topic, or your research involves hypothesis testing , collect quantitative data .
Qualitative | to broader populations. . | |
---|---|---|
Quantitative | . |
You can also take a mixed methods approach , where you use both qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Primary research is any original data that you collect yourself for the purposes of answering your research question (e.g. through surveys , observations and experiments ). Secondary research is data that has already been collected by other researchers (e.g. in a government census or previous scientific studies).
If you are exploring a novel research question, you’ll probably need to collect primary data . But if you want to synthesize existing knowledge, analyze historical trends, or identify patterns on a large scale, secondary data might be a better choice.
Primary | . | methods. |
---|---|---|
Secondary |
In descriptive research , you collect data about your study subject without intervening. The validity of your research will depend on your sampling method .
In experimental research , you systematically intervene in a process and measure the outcome. The validity of your research will depend on your experimental design .
To conduct an experiment, you need to be able to vary your independent variable , precisely measure your dependent variable, and control for confounding variables . If it’s practically and ethically possible, this method is the best choice for answering questions about cause and effect.
Descriptive | . . | |
---|---|---|
Experimental |
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
See an example
Research method | Primary or secondary? | Qualitative or quantitative? | When to use |
---|---|---|---|
Primary | Quantitative | To test cause-and-effect relationships. | |
Primary | Quantitative | To understand general characteristics of a population. | |
Interview/focus group | Primary | Qualitative | To gain more in-depth understanding of a topic. |
Observation | Primary | Either | To understand how something occurs in its natural setting. |
Secondary | Either | To situate your research in an existing body of work, or to evaluate trends within a research topic. | |
Either | Either | To gain an in-depth understanding of a specific group or context, or when you don’t have the resources for a large study. |
Your data analysis methods will depend on the type of data you collect and how you prepare it for analysis.
Data can often be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For example, survey responses could be analyzed qualitatively by studying the meanings of responses or quantitatively by studying the frequencies of responses.
Qualitative analysis is used to understand words, ideas, and experiences. You can use it to interpret data that was collected:
Qualitative analysis tends to be quite flexible and relies on the researcher’s judgement, so you have to reflect carefully on your choices and assumptions and be careful to avoid research bias .
Quantitative analysis uses numbers and statistics to understand frequencies, averages and correlations (in descriptive studies) or cause-and-effect relationships (in experiments).
You can use quantitative analysis to interpret data that was collected either:
Because the data is collected and analyzed in a statistically valid way, the results of quantitative analysis can be easily standardized and shared among researchers.
Research method | Qualitative or quantitative? | When to use |
---|---|---|
Quantitative | To analyze data collected in a statistically valid manner (e.g. from experiments, surveys, and observations). | |
Meta-analysis | Quantitative | To statistically analyze the results of a large collection of studies. Can only be applied to studies that collected data in a statistically valid manner. |
Qualitative | To analyze data collected from interviews, , or textual sources. To understand general themes in the data and how they are communicated. | |
Either | To analyze large volumes of textual or visual data collected from surveys, literature reviews, or other sources. Can be quantitative (i.e. frequencies of words) or qualitative (i.e. meanings of words). |
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Research bias
Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.
Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.
In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .
A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population . Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research. For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.
In statistics, sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population.
The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .
Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.
Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyze data (for example, experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).
In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .
In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.
Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples.
BREAKING: Sean 'Diddy' Combs is arrested
A 10-month NBC News investigation laid out in stark detail how two of the country’s most populous counties sent unclaimed bodies to a Texas medical school, which used them for medical training and research — often without the consent of the deceased or their relatives’ knowledge.
Many of the bodies were cut up and shipped across the country to for-profit medical device makers, other universities and the Army. These recipients leased the body parts for hundreds of dollars apiece — $900 for a torso, $341 for a leg — so that doctors could practice medical procedures.
The use of such unclaimed bodies for research violates modern ethical standards and has traumatized many families who discovered that a loved one had been dissected and studied by strangers without anyone asking their permission. Still, it remains legal in Texas, as in most states.
NBC News’ investigation focused on Dallas and Tarrant counties, where elected officials have approved sending more than 2,350 unclaimed bodies to the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth since 2019. More than 830 of those were selected for dissection and study.
In response to reporters’ findings, the Health Science Center initially defended its work before announcing on Friday that it was suspending the body donation program, firing its leaders and hiring a consulting firm to investigate its practices.
Here are five takeaways from NBC News’ reporting:
NBC News found repeated failures by death investigators in Dallas and Tarrant counties — and by the Health Science Center — to contact family members who were reachable before declaring a body unclaimed and using it for research.
Reporters examined dozens of cases and identified 12 in which families learned weeks, months or even years later that a relative had been provided to the medical school, leaving many survivors angry and shattered. Five of those families found out what happened from NBC News.
Fran Moore cried as a reporter informed her that her father, Carl Yenner, had died in Dallas more than two years earlier and was sent to the center.
“If you could find us,“ she asked, “why didn’t they?”
Do you have a story to share about the use of unclaimed bodies for research? Contact us .
Some of the families were rebuffed when they tried to reclaim their loved ones’ bodies — told by the Health Science Center that they needed to wait months or years until the center was done using them.
In the case of Victor Honey — a homeless and mentally ill Army veteran whose unclaimed body was cut up and leased out to groups across the country — it took a year and a half for family members to discover what happened, and they found out the full details only after being contacted by NBC News.
“It’s like a hole in your soul that can never be filled,” said Brenda Cloud, one of Honey’s sisters. “We feel violated.”
On paper, the Health Science Center’s arrangements with Dallas and Tarrant counties offered a pragmatic solution to an expensive problem: Local medical examiners and coroners nationwide bear the considerable costs of burying or cremating tens of thousands of unclaimed bodies each year. Disproportionately Black, male, mentally ill and homeless, these are individuals whose family members often cannot be easily reached, or whose relatives cannot or will not pay for cremation or burial.
By sending these bodies to the Health Science Center, Dallas and Tarrant counties each saved a half-million dollars a year on burial and cremation. In return, the center got a free supply of what one program official called “valuable material” needed to educate future doctors.
The center used some of these bodies to teach medical students. Others were parceled out to medical training and technology companies, including a few industry giants, that rely on human remains to develop products and teach doctors how to use them.
The supply of unclaimed dead helped bring in about $2.5 million a year from outside groups, according to Health Science Center financial records.
Ten companies, teaching hospitals and medical schools that relied on the Health Science Center for human specimens told NBC News they didn’t know the center had given them unclaimed bodies. Some, including the U.S. Army, promised to review internal policies in response.
DePuy Synthes, which is owned by Johnson & Johnson, said it was pausing its relationship with the center after learning that it received body parts from four unclaimed people. Boston Scientific, whose company Relievant Medsystems used the torsos of more than two dozen unclaimed bodies, told NBC News it was reviewing its relationship with the center.
Some recipients — including the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences — said they had assumed that all of these bodies had been voluntarily willed to medical science because the University of North Texas office that provided specimens is called the Willed Body Program.
Dr. Douglas Hampers, the CEO of National Bioskills Laboratories — which had leased Honey’s torso — said he was disturbed to learn his company had received unclaimed bodies. He said his company would ensure that it no longer accepted unclaimed bodies and would adopt policies to make certain future specimens were donated with families’ permission.
“I don’t think you have to violate a family’s rights in order to train physicians,” he said.
The use of unclaimed bodies ties back to a dark history , long before voluntary body-donation programs, when U.S. medical schools turned to “resurrectionists,” or “body snatchers,” who dug up the graves of poor and formerly enslaved people.
To curb this ghastly 19th-century practice, states adopted laws giving schools authority to use unclaimed bodies for student training and experiments. Many of these laws remain on the books, but the medical community has largely moved beyond them.
The American Association for Anatomy released guidelines for human body donation last year stating that “programs should not accept unclaimed or unidentified individuals into their programs as a matter of justice.” In the absence of federal data on the use of unclaimed bodies, NBC News surveyed more than 50 major U.S. medical schools. Each of the 44 that answered said they don’t use unclaimed bodies — and some condemned doing so.
“Since these individuals did not consent, they should not be used in any form or fashion,” said Thomas Champney, an anatomy professor at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine who researches the ethical use of human bodies.
For months as NBC News investigated, Health Science Center officials defended their practices, arguing that using unclaimed bodies was essential for training future doctors. But on Friday, after reporters shared their detailed findings, the center announced it was immediately suspending its body donation program and firing the officials who led it.
The center said it was also hiring a consulting firm to investigate the program’s operations, noting that NBC News had uncovered its “failures” to live up to “the standards of respect, care and professionalism that we demand.”
Before the Health Science Center announced it was suspending the program, officials in Dallas and Tarrant counties said they were reconsidering their agreements to send unclaimed bodies to the center in light of the reporters’ findings. Dallas County commissioners recently postponed a vote on whether to extend their contract. The top elected official in Tarrant County, Judge Tim O’Hare, said he planned to explore legal options “to end any and all immoral, unethical, and irresponsible practices stemming from this program.”
“No individual’s remains should be used for medical research, nor sold for profit, without their pre-death consent, or the consent of their next of kin,” O’Hare’s office said .
Both counties are scheduled to discuss the matter on Tuesday.
Mike Hixenbaugh is a senior investigative reporter for NBC News, based in Maryland, and author of "They Came for the Schools."
Jon Schuppe is an enterprise reporter for NBC News, based in New York.
Susan Carroll was a senior enterprise editor for NBC News, based in Houston.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Research findings can be used in a variety of situations, depending on the context and the purpose. Here are some examples of when research findings may be useful: Decision-making: Research findings can be used to inform decisions in various fields, such as business, education, healthcare, and public policy.
Step 1: Consult the guidelines or instructions that the target journal or publisher provides authors and read research papers it has published, especially those with similar topics, methods, or results to your study. The guidelines will generally outline specific requirements for the results or findings section, and the published articles will ...
Checklist: Research results 0 / 7. I have completed my data collection and analyzed the results. I have included all results that are relevant to my research questions. I have concisely and objectively reported each result, including relevant descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. I have stated whether each hypothesis was supported ...
This section aims to answer the research questions or hypotheses formulated earlier in the paper and provide evidence to support or refute them. In the findings section, researchers typically present the data clearly and organized. They may use tables, graphs, charts, or other visual aids to illustrate the patterns, trends, or relationships ...
Research results refer to the findings and conclusions derived from a systematic investigation or study conducted to answer a specific question or hypothesis. These results are typically presented in a written report or paper and can include various forms of data such as numerical data, qualitative data, statistics, charts, graphs, and visual aids.
Reporting Research Results in APA Style | Tips & Examples. Published on December 21, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari.Revised on January 17, 2024. The results section of a quantitative research paper is where you summarize your data and report the findings of any relevant statistical analyses.. The APA manual provides rigorous guidelines for what to report in quantitative research papers in the fields ...
The results section should state the findings of the research arranged in a logical sequence without bias or interpretation. A section describing results should be particularly detailed if your paper includes data generated from your own research. Annesley, Thomas M. "Show Your Cards: The Results Section and the Poker Game." ...
The Results (also sometimes called Findings) section in an empirical research paper describes what the researcher(s) found when they analyzed their data. Its primary purpose is to use the data collected to answer the research question(s) posed in the introduction, even if the findings challenge the hypothesis.
A research study can be very good, but if it is not clearly described so that others can see how the results were determined or obtained, then the quality of the study and its potential contributions are lost. Results: After you completed your study, your findings will be listed in the results section.
Research is a scholarship activity and a collective endeavor, and as such, its finding should be disseminated. Research findings, often called research outputs, can be disseminated in many forms including peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g., original research, case reports, and review articles) Meyers and conference presentations (oral and poster presentations).
Step 4: Write your findings section in a factual and objective manner. The goal is to communicate information - in some cases a great deal of complex information - as clearly, accurately and precisely as possible, so well-constructed sentences that maintain a simple structure will be far more effective than convoluted phrasing and expressions.
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
The results chapter in a dissertation or thesis (or any formal academic research piece) is where you objectively and neutrally present the findings of your qualitative analysis (or analyses if you used multiple qualitative analysis methods). This chapter can sometimes be combined with the discussion chapter (where you interpret the data and ...
Research Summary. Definition: A research summary is a brief and concise overview of a research project or study that highlights its key findings, main points, and conclusions. It typically includes a description of the research problem, the research methods used, the results obtained, and the implications or significance of the findings.
Developing a well-written research paper is an important step in completing a scientific study. This paper is where the principle investigator and co-authors report the purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions of the study. A key element of writing a research paper is to clearly and objectively report the study's findings in the Results section.
The interpretation of results in research requires multiple steps, including checking, cleaning, and editing data to ensure its accuracy, and properly organizing it in order to simplify interpretation. To examine data and derive reliable findings, researchers must employ suitable statistical methods.
The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your research paper because it: Most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem under investigation;
Implementing knowledge. Research findings can influence decisions at many levels—in caring for individual patients, in developing practice guidelines, in commissioning health care, in developing prevention and health promotion strategies, in developing policy, in designing educational programmes, and in performing clinical audit—but only if clinicians know how to translate knowledge into ...
Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. Most researchers want to let ...
Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle. Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels.
Research methods are specific procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Developing your research methods is an integral part of your research design. When planning your methods, there are two key decisions you will make. First, decide how you will collect data. Your methods depend on what type of data you need to answer your research question:
Research is defined as a meticulous and systematic inquiry process designed to explore and unravel specific subjects or issues with precision. This methodical approach encompasses the thorough collection, rigorous analysis, and insightful interpretation of information, aiming to delve deep into the nuances of a chosen field of study.
3). Research Questions as Headings . You can also present your findings using your research questions as the headings in the findings section. This is a useful strategy that ensures you're answering your research questions and also allows the reader to quickly ascertain where the answers to your research questions are.
Explore a concise overview of the key research findings, and hear from the editors and authors themselves on why this research is crucial for mental health communities, and how it has the potential to transform the future of mental health on a global scale. Psychopathy, psychological distress, and treatment history among perpetrators of ...
The findings, published September 5 in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, come on the heels of a study released in August that pointed to northeastern Scotland as the likely origin ...
In response to reporters' findings, the University of North Texas Health Science Center announced it was suspending its body donation program and firing the officials who led it.
ABINGDON, Md., Sept. 16, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- In honor of National Working Parents Day today, Kiddie Academy ® Educational Child Care is releasing its research findings on the habits, behaviors ...
Second, we organize and integrate extant research findings using a 2 × 2 framework that incorporates the two main theoretical perspectives used to explain the effects of accents—stereotypes and processing fluency—and the two primary categories of workplace outcomes examined—interpersonal (i.e., others' evaluations of speakers with non ...
Scientific research has suggested that maize spread from Mexico and arrived in lowland South America in a state of partial domestication. ... These findings draw our attention and make us wonder what environmental and human/cultural components led to the maintenance of these primitive characteristics over such a long distance and for such a ...