Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question

Nancy E. Mayo, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Divisions of Clinical Epidemiology, Geriatrics, Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-Research Institute, Montreal, Canada. nancy.mayo@mcgill.ca.
Nikki Ow, Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Foundry Central Office, Vancouver, Canada.
Miho Asano, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Sorayya Askari, School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Ruth Barclay, Department of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Sabrina Figueiredo, Department of Clinical Research and Leadership, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Melanie Hawkins, Centre for Global Health and Equity, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Stanley Hum, Brain Health Outcomes Platform, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
Mehmet Inceer, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-Research Institute, Montreal, Canada.
Navaldeep Kaur, Department of Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Ayse Kuspinar, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kedar K. Mate, Centre for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
Ana Maria Moga, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-Research Institute, Montreal, Canada.
Maryam Mozafarinia, Division of Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE) McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)-Research Institute, Montreal, Canada.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

3-21-2022

Journal

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation

DOI

10.1007/s11136-022-03117-y

Keywords

Methodology; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality of life; Research question; Research wastage

Abstract

PURPOSE: Strongly framed research questions are clear as to the population (P), the exposures or interventions (E/I), comparison groups (C), outcomes (O), time when relevant (T), and what the investigator wants to know. A solid framework sets up the measurement model, analysis, and anticipated results. The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which research questions in journals that focused on patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and quality of life (QOL) are clear. METHODS: All 440 research articles published in four PROM journals in 2020. excluding reviews, psychometric, and qualitative papers, were reviewed. Research questions were classified as: (i) adequately framed (ii) poorly framed; or (iii) unframed based on clarity criteria. Examples from each journal were presented and reframed to match results in the article. RESULTS: Of 440 articles, 195 (44.3%) were classified as adequately framed; 230 (52.2%) as poorly framed; and 15 (3.4%) as unframed. There was heterogeneity across journals (Chi-square: 20.8; 6 df; p = 0.002). Only 29% were framed according to what the investigators wanted to know; 72% were framed like a "to do" list; and 6% were framed as a research agenda. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the questions were poorly framed or unframed a practice that could contribute to research wastage. Even "adequately framed" questions rarely stated what they wanted to know a priori, increasing the risk of biased reporting. Researchers, reviewers, and editors should encourage the use established frameworks for research questions.

Department

Clinical Research and Leadership

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS