research findings gap

How To Find A Research Gap, Quickly

A step-by-step guide for new researchers

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewer: Eunice Rautenbach (DTech) | April 2023

If you’ve got a dissertation, thesis or research project coming up, one of the first (and most important) things you’ll need to do is find a suitable research gap . In this post, we’ll share a straightforward process to help you uncover high-quality, original research gaps in a very time-efficient manner.

Overview: Finding Research Gaps

• What exactly is a research gap?
• Research gap vs research topic
• How to find potential research gaps
• How to evaluate research gaps (and topics)
• Key takeaways

What is a research gap?

As a starting point, it’s useful to first define what we mean by research gap, to ensure we’re all on the same page. The term “research gap” gets thrown around quite loosely by students and academics alike, so let’s clear that up.

Simply put, a research gap is any space where there’s a lack of solid, agreed-upon research regarding a specific topic, issue or phenomenon. In other words, there’s a lack of established knowledge and, consequently, a need for further research.

Let’s look at a hypothetical example to illustrate a research gap.

Within the existing research regarding factors affect job satisfaction , there may be a wealth of established and agreed-upon empirical work within a US and UK context , but very little research within Eastern nations such as Japan or Korea . Given that these nations have distinctly different national cultures and workforce compositions compared to the West, it’s plausible that the factors that contribute toward job satisfaction may also be different. Therefore, a research gap emerges for studies that explore this matter.

This example is purely hypothetical (and there’s probably plenty of research covering this already), but it illustrates the core point that a research gap reflects a lack of firmly established knowledge regarding a specific matter . Given this lack, an opportunity exists for researchers (like you) to go on and fill the gap.

So, it’s the same as a research topic?

Not quite – but they are connected. A research gap refers to an area where there’s a lack of settled research , whereas a research topic outlines the focus of a specific study . Despite being different things, these two are related because research gaps are the birthplace of research topics. In other words, by identifying a clear research gap, you have a foundation from which you can build a research topic for your specific study. Your study is unlikely to resolve the entire research gap on it’s own, but it will contribute towards it .

If you’d like to learn more, we’ve got a comprehensive post that covers research gaps (including the different types of research gaps), as well as an explainer video below.

How to find a research gap

Now that we’ve defined what a research gap is, it’s time to get down to the process of finding potential research gaps that you can use as a basis for potential research topics. Importantly, it’s worth noting that this is just one way (of many) to find a research gap (and consequently a topic). We’re not proposing that it’s the only way or best way, but it’s certainly a relatively quick way to identify opportunities.

Step 1: Identify your broad area of interest

The very first step to finding a research gap is to decide on your general area of interest . For example, if you were undertaking a dissertation as part of an MBA degree, you may decide that you’re interested in corporate reputation, HR strategy, or leadership styles. As you can see, these are broad categories – there’s no need to get super specific just yet. Of course, if there is something very specific that you’re interested in, that’s great – but don’t feel pressured to narrow it down too much right now.

Equally important is to make sure that this area of interest is allowed by your university or whichever institution you’ll be proposing your research to. This might sound dead obvious, but you’ll be surprised how many times we’ve seen students run down a path with great excitement, only to later learn that their university wants a very specific area of focus in terms of topic (and their area of interest doesn’t qualify).

Step 2: Do an initial literature scan

Once you’ve pinned down your broad area (or areas) of interest, the next step is to head over to Google Scholar to undertake an initial literature scan . If you’re not familiar with this tool, Google Scholar is a great starting point for finding academic literature on pretty much any topic, as it uses Google’s powerful search capabilities to hunt down relevant academic literature. It’s certainly not the be-all and end-all of literature search tools, but it’s a useful starting point .

Within Google Scholar, you’ll want to do a few searches using keywords that are relevant to your area of interest. Sticking with our earlier example, we could use the key phrase “job satisfaction”, or we may want to get a little more specific – perhaps “job satisfaction for millennials” or “job satisfaction in Japan”.

It’s always a good idea to play around with as many keywords/phrases as you can think up.  Take an iterative approach here and see which keywords yield the most relevant results for you. Keep each search open in a new tab, as this will help keep things organised for the next steps.

Once you’ve searched for a few different keywords/phrases, you’ll need to do some refining for each of the searches you undertook. Specifically, you’ll need to filter the results down to the most recent papers . You can do this by selecting the time period in the top left corner (see the example below).

Filtering to the current year is typically a good choice (especially for fast-moving research areas), but in some cases, you may need to filter to the last two years . If you’re undertaking this task in January or February, for example, you’ll likely need to select a two-year period.

Need a helping hand?

Step 3: Review and shortlist articles that interest you

Once you’ve run a few searches using different keywords and phrases, you’ll need to scan through the results to see what looks most relevant and interesting to you. At this stage, you can just look at the titles and abstracts (the description provided by Google Scholar) – don’t worry about reading the actual article just yet.

Next, select 5 – 10 articles that interest you and open them up. Here, we’re making the assumption that your university has provided you with access to a decent range of academic databases. In some cases, Google Scholar will link you directly to a PDF of the article, but in most cases, you’ll need paid access. If you don’t have this (for example, if you’re still applying to a university), you can look at two options:

Open-access articles – these are free articles which you can access without any journal subscription. A quick Google search (the regular Google) will help you find open-access journals in your area of interest, but you can also have a look at DOAJ and Elsevier Open Access.

DeepDyve – this is a monthly subscription service that allows you to get access to a broad range of journals. At the time of shooting this video, their monthly subscription is around $50 and they do offer a free trial, which may be sufficient for your project.

Step 4: Skim-read your article shortlist

Now, it’s time to dig into your article shortlist and do some reading. But don’t worry, you don’t need to read the articles from start to finish – you just need to focus on a few key sections.

Specifically, you’ll need to pay attention to the following:

• The abstract (which you’ve probably already read a portion of in Google Scholar)
• The introduction – this will give you a bit more detail about the context and background of the study, as well as what the researchers were trying to achieve (their research aims)
• The discussion or conclusion – this will tell you what the researchers found

By skimming through these three sections for each journal article on your shortlist, you’ll gain a reasonable idea of what each study was about, without having to dig into the painful details. Generally, these sections are usually quite short, so it shouldn’t take you too long.

Step 5: Go “FRIN hunting”

This is where the magic happens. Within each of the articles on your shortlist, you’ll want to search for a few very specific phrases , namely:

• Future research
• Further research
• Research opportunities
• Research directions

All of these terms are commonly found in what we call the “FRIN” section . FRIN stands for “further research is needed”. The FRIN is where the researchers explain what other researchers could do to build on their study, or just on the research area in general. In other words, the FRIN section is where you can find fresh opportunities for novel research . Most empirical studies will either have a dedicated FRIN section or paragraph, or they’ll allude to the FRIN toward the very end of the article. You’ll need to do a little scanning, but it’s usually pretty easy to spot.

It’s worth mentioning that naturally, the FRIN doesn’t hand you a list of research gaps on a platter. It’s not a silver bullet for finding research gaps – but it’s the closest thing to it. Realistically, the FRIN section helps you shortcut the gap-hunting process  by highlighting novel research avenues that are worth exploring.

This probably sounds a little conceptual, so let’s have a look at a few examples:

The impact of overeducation on job outcomes: Evidence from Saudi Arabia (Alzubaidi, 2020)

If you scroll down to the bottom of this article, you’ll see there’s a dedicated section called “Limitations and directions for future research”. Here they talk about the limitations of the study and provide suggestions about how future researchers could improve upon their work and overcome the limitations.

Perceived organizational support and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of proactive personality and psychological empowerment (Maan et al, 2020)

In this article, within the limitations section, they provide a wonderfully systematic structure where they discuss each limitation, followed by a proposal as to how future studies can overcome the respective limitation. In doing so, they are providing very specific research opportunities for other researchers.

Medical professionals’ job satisfaction and telemedicine readiness during the COVID-19 pandemic: solutions to improve medical practice in Egypt (El-Mazahy et al, 2023)

In this article, they don’t have a dedicated section discussing the FRIN, but we can deduct it based on the limitations section. For example, they state that an evaluation of the knowledge about telemedicine and technology-related skills would have enabled studying their independent effect on the perception of telemedicine.

Follow this FRIN-seeking process for the articles you shortlisted and map out any potentially interesting research gaps . You may find that you need to look at a larger number of articles to find something interesting, or you might find that your area of interest shifts as you engage in the reading – this is perfectly natural. Take as much time as you need to develop a shortlist of potential research gaps that interest you.

Importantly, once you’ve developed a shortlist of potential research gaps, you need to return to Google Scholar to double-check that there aren’t fresh studies that have already addressed the gap. Remember, if you’re looking at papers from two years ago in a fast-moving field, someone else may have jumped on it . Nevertheless, there could still very well be a unique angle you could take – perhaps a contextual gap (e.g. a specific country, industry, etc.).

Ultimately, the need for originality will depend on your specific university’s requirements and the level of study. For example, if you’re doing an undergraduate research project, the originality requirements likely won’t be as gruelling as say a Masters or PhD project. So, make sure you have a clear understanding of what your university’s expectations are. A good way to do this is to look at past dissertations and theses for your specific programme. You can usually find these in the university library or by asking the faculty.

How to evaluate potential research gaps

Once you’ve developed a shortlist of potential research gaps (and resultant potential research topics) that interest you, you’ll need to systematically evaluate  them  to choose a winner. There are many factors to consider here, but some important ones include the following:

• Originality and value – is the topic sufficiently novel and will addressing it create value?
• Data access – will you be able to get access to the sample of interest?
• Costs – will there be additional costs involved for data collection and/or analysis?
• Timeframes – will you be able to collect and analyse the data within the timeframe required by your university?
• Supervisor support – is there a suitable supervisor available to support your project from start to finish?

To help you evaluate your options systematically, we’ve got a topic evaluation worksheet that allows you to score each potential topic against a comprehensive set of criteria. You can access the worksheet completely free of charge here .

Recap: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered quite a lot of ground in this post. Here are the key takeaways:

• A research gap is any space where there’s a lack of solid, agreed-upon research regarding a specific topic/issue/phenomenon.
• Unique research topics emerge from research gaps , so it’s essential to first identify high-quality research gaps before you attempt to define a topic.
• To find potential research gaps, start by seeking out recent journal articles on Google Scholar and pay particular attention to the FRIN section to identify novel opportunities.
• Once you have a shortlist of prospective research gaps and resultant topic ideas, evaluate them systematically using a comprehensive set of criteria.

If you’d like to get hands-on help finding a research gap and research topic, be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey, step by step.

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:

Very useful for me, but i am still confusing review of literature review, how to find out topic related previous research.

Powerful notes! Thanks a lot.

This is helpful. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much for this. It is really a great opportunity for me to learn the research journey.

Very Useful

It nice job

You have sharpened my articulations of these components to the core. Thanks so much.

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 Gap – Types, Examples and How to Identify

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to Identify

Table of Contents

Research Gap

Definition:

Research gap refers to an area or topic within a field of study that has not yet been extensively researched or is yet to be explored. It is a question, problem or issue that has not been addressed or resolved by previous research.

How to Identify Research Gap

Identifying a research gap is an essential step in conducting research that adds value and contributes to the existing body of knowledge. Research gap requires critical thinking, creativity, and a thorough understanding of the existing literature . It is an iterative process that may require revisiting and refining your research questions and ideas multiple times.

Here are some steps that can help you identify a research gap:

• Review existing literature: Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature in your research area. This will help you identify what has already been studied and what gaps still exist.
• Identify a research problem: Identify a specific research problem or question that you want to address.
• Analyze existing research: Analyze the existing research related to your research problem. This will help you identify areas that have not been studied, inconsistencies in the findings, or limitations of the previous research.
• Brainstorm potential research ideas : Based on your analysis, brainstorm potential research ideas that address the identified gaps.
• Consult with experts: Consult with experts in your research area to get their opinions on potential research ideas and to identify any additional gaps that you may have missed.
• Refine research questions: Refine your research questions and hypotheses based on the identified gaps and potential research ideas.
• Develop a research proposal: Develop a research proposal that outlines your research questions, objectives, and methods to address the identified research gap.

Types of Research Gap

There are different types of research gaps that can be identified, and each type is associated with a specific situation or problem. Here are the main types of research gaps and their explanations:

Theoretical Gap

This type of research gap refers to a lack of theoretical understanding or knowledge in a particular area. It can occur when there is a discrepancy between existing theories and empirical evidence or when there is no theory that can explain a particular phenomenon. Identifying theoretical gaps can lead to the development of new theories or the refinement of existing ones.

Empirical Gap

An empirical gap occurs when there is a lack of empirical evidence or data in a particular area. It can happen when there is a lack of research on a specific topic or when existing research is inadequate or inconclusive. Identifying empirical gaps can lead to the development of new research studies to collect data or the refinement of existing research methods to improve the quality of data collected.

Methodological Gap

This type of research gap refers to a lack of appropriate research methods or techniques to answer a research question. It can occur when existing methods are inadequate, outdated, or inappropriate for the research question. Identifying methodological gaps can lead to the development of new research methods or the modification of existing ones to better address the research question.

Practical Gap

A practical gap occurs when there is a lack of practical applications or implementation of research findings. It can occur when research findings are not implemented due to financial, political, or social constraints. Identifying practical gaps can lead to the development of strategies for the effective implementation of research findings in practice.

Knowledge Gap

This type of research gap occurs when there is a lack of knowledge or information on a particular topic. It can happen when a new area of research is emerging, or when research is conducted in a different context or population. Identifying knowledge gaps can lead to the development of new research studies or the extension of existing research to fill the gap.

Examples of Research Gap

Here are some examples of research gaps that researchers might identify:

• Theoretical Gap Example : In the field of psychology, there might be a theoretical gap related to the lack of understanding of the relationship between social media use and mental health. Although there is existing research on the topic, there might be a lack of consensus on the mechanisms that link social media use to mental health outcomes.
• Empirical Gap Example : In the field of environmental science, there might be an empirical gap related to the lack of data on the long-term effects of climate change on biodiversity in specific regions. Although there might be some studies on the topic, there might be a lack of data on the long-term effects of climate change on specific species or ecosystems.
• Methodological Gap Example : In the field of education, there might be a methodological gap related to the lack of appropriate research methods to assess the impact of online learning on student outcomes. Although there might be some studies on the topic, existing research methods might not be appropriate to assess the complex relationships between online learning and student outcomes.
• Practical Gap Example: In the field of healthcare, there might be a practical gap related to the lack of effective strategies to implement evidence-based practices in clinical settings. Although there might be existing research on the effectiveness of certain practices, they might not be implemented in practice due to various barriers, such as financial constraints or lack of resources.
• Knowledge Gap Example: In the field of anthropology, there might be a knowledge gap related to the lack of understanding of the cultural practices of indigenous communities in certain regions. Although there might be some research on the topic, there might be a lack of knowledge about specific cultural practices or beliefs that are unique to those communities.

Examples of Research Gap In Literature Review, Thesis, and Research Paper might be:

• Literature review : A literature review on the topic of machine learning and healthcare might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the use of machine learning for early detection of rare diseases.
• Thesis : A thesis on the topic of cybersecurity might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence in detecting and preventing cyber attacks.
• Research paper : A research paper on the topic of natural language processing might identify a research gap in the lack of studies that investigate the use of natural language processing techniques for sentiment analysis in non-English languages.

How to Write Research Gap

By following these steps, you can effectively write about research gaps in your paper and clearly articulate the contribution that your study will make to the existing body of knowledge.

Here are some steps to follow when writing about research gaps in your paper:

• Identify the research question : Before writing about research gaps, you need to identify your research question or problem. This will help you to understand the scope of your research and identify areas where additional research is needed.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the literature related to your research question. This will help you to identify the current state of knowledge in the field and the gaps that exist.
• Identify the research gap: Based on your review of the literature, identify the specific research gap that your study will address. This could be a theoretical, empirical, methodological, practical, or knowledge gap.
• Provide evidence: Provide evidence to support your claim that the research gap exists. This could include a summary of the existing literature, a discussion of the limitations of previous studies, or an analysis of the current state of knowledge in the field.
• Explain the importance: Explain why it is important to fill the research gap. This could include a discussion of the potential implications of filling the gap, the significance of the research for the field, or the potential benefits to society.
• State your research objectives: State your research objectives, which should be aligned with the research gap you have identified. This will help you to clearly articulate the purpose of your study and how it will address the research gap.

Importance of Research Gap

The importance of research gaps can be summarized as follows:

• Advancing knowledge: Identifying research gaps is crucial for advancing knowledge in a particular field. By identifying areas where additional research is needed, researchers can fill gaps in the existing body of knowledge and contribute to the development of new theories and practices.
• Guiding research: Research gaps can guide researchers in designing studies that fill those gaps. By identifying research gaps, researchers can develop research questions and objectives that are aligned with the needs of the field and contribute to the development of new knowledge.
• Enhancing research quality: By identifying research gaps, researchers can avoid duplicating previous research and instead focus on developing innovative research that fills gaps in the existing body of knowledge. This can lead to more impactful research and higher-quality research outputs.
• Informing policy and practice: Research gaps can inform policy and practice by highlighting areas where additional research is needed to inform decision-making. By filling research gaps, researchers can provide evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve policy and practice in a particular field.

Applications of Research Gap

Here are some potential applications of research gap:

• Informing research priorities: Research gaps can help guide research funding agencies and researchers to prioritize research areas that require more attention and resources.
• Identifying practical implications: Identifying gaps in knowledge can help identify practical applications of research that are still unexplored or underdeveloped.
• Stimulating innovation: Research gaps can encourage innovation and the development of new approaches or methodologies to address unexplored areas.
• Improving policy-making: Research gaps can inform policy-making decisions by highlighting areas where more research is needed to make informed policy decisions.
• Enhancing academic discourse: Research gaps can lead to new and constructive debates and discussions within academic communities, leading to more robust and comprehensive research.

Advantages of Research Gap

Here are some of the advantages of research gap:

• Identifies new research opportunities: Identifying research gaps can help researchers identify areas that require further exploration, which can lead to new research opportunities.
• Improves the quality of research: By identifying gaps in current research, researchers can focus their efforts on addressing unanswered questions, which can improve the overall quality of research.
• Enhances the relevance of research: Research that addresses existing gaps can have significant implications for the development of theories, policies, and practices, and can therefore increase the relevance and impact of research.
• Helps avoid duplication of effort: Identifying existing research can help researchers avoid duplicating efforts, saving time and resources.
• Helps to refine research questions: Research gaps can help researchers refine their research questions, making them more focused and relevant to the needs of the field.
• Promotes collaboration: By identifying areas of research that require further investigation, researchers can collaborate with others to conduct research that addresses these gaps, which can lead to more comprehensive and impactful research outcomes.

Disadvantages of Research Gap

While research gaps can be advantageous, there are also some potential disadvantages that should be considered:

• Difficulty in identifying gaps: Identifying gaps in existing research can be challenging, particularly in fields where there is a large volume of research or where research findings are scattered across different disciplines.
• Lack of funding: Addressing research gaps may require significant resources, and researchers may struggle to secure funding for their work if it is perceived as too risky or uncertain.
• Time-consuming: Conducting research to address gaps can be time-consuming, particularly if the research involves collecting new data or developing new methods.
• Risk of oversimplification: Addressing research gaps may require researchers to simplify complex problems, which can lead to oversimplification and a failure to capture the complexity of the issues.
• Bias : Identifying research gaps can be influenced by researchers’ personal biases or perspectives, which can lead to a skewed understanding of the field.
• Potential for disagreement: Identifying research gaps can be subjective, and different researchers may have different views on what constitutes a gap in the field, leading to disagreements and debate.

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...

Identifying Research Gaps to Pursue Innovative Research

This article is an excerpt from a lecture given by my Ph.D. guide, a researcher in public health. She advised us on how to identify research gaps to pursue innovative research in our fields.

What is a Research Gap?

Today we are talking about the research gap: what is it, how to identify it, and how to make use of it so that you can pursue innovative research. Now, how many of you have ever felt you had discovered a new and exciting research question , only to find that it had already been written about? I have experienced this more times than I can count. Graduate studies come with pressure to add new knowledge to the field. We can contribute to the progress and knowledge of humanity. To do this, we need to first learn to identify research gaps in the existing literature.

A research gap is, simply, a topic or area for which missing or insufficient information limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question. It should not be confused with a research question, however. For example, if we ask the research question of what the healthiest diet for humans is, we would find many studies and possible answers to this question. On the other hand, if we were to ask the research question of what are the effects of antidepressants on pregnant women, we would not find much-existing data. This is a research gap. When we identify a research gap, we identify a direction for potentially new and exciting research.

How to Identify Research Gap?

Considering the volume of existing research, identifying research gaps can seem overwhelming or even impossible. I don’t have time to read every paper published on public health. Similarly, you guys don’t have time to read every paper. So how can you identify a research gap?

There are different techniques in various disciplines, but we can reduce most of them down to a few steps, which are:

• Identify your key motivating issue/question
• Identify key terms associated with this issue
• Review the literature, searching for these key terms and identifying relevant publications
• Review the literature cited by the key publications which you located in the above step
• Identify issues not addressed by  the literature relating to your critical  motivating issue

It is the last step which we all find the most challenging. It can be difficult to figure out what an article is  not  saying. I like to keep a list of notes of biased or inconsistent information. You could also track what authors write as “directions for future research,” which often can point us towards the existing gaps.

Different Types of Research Gaps

Identifying research gaps is an essential step in conducting research, as it helps researchers to refine their research questions and to focus their research efforts on areas where there is a need for more knowledge or understanding.

1. Knowledge gaps

These are gaps in knowledge or understanding of a subject, where more research is needed to fill the gaps. For example, there may be a lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind a particular disease or how a specific technology works.

2. Conceptual gaps

These are gaps in the conceptual framework or theoretical understanding of a subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to understand the relationship between two concepts or to refine a theoretical framework.

3. Methodological gaps

These are gaps in the methods used to study a particular subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to develop new research methods or to refine existing methods to address specific research questions.

4. Data gaps

These are gaps in the data available on a particular subject. For example, there may be a need for more research to collect data on a specific population or to develop new measures to collect data on a particular construct.

5. Practical gaps

These are gaps in the application of research findings to practical situations. For example, there may be a need for more research to understand how to implement evidence-based practices in real-world settings or to identify barriers to implementing such practices.

Examples of Research Gap

Limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms of a disease:.

Despite significant research on a particular disease, there may be a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the disease. For example, although much research has been done on Alzheimer’s disease, the exact mechanisms that lead to the disease are not yet fully understood.

Inconsistencies in the findings of previous research:

When previous research on a particular topic has inconsistent findings, there may be a need for further research to clarify or resolve these inconsistencies. For example, previous research on the effectiveness of a particular treatment for a medical condition may have produced inconsistent findings, indicating a need for further research to determine the true effectiveness of the treatment.

Limited research on emerging technologies:

As new technologies emerge, there may be limited research on their applications, benefits, and potential drawbacks. For example, with the increasing use of artificial intelligence in various industries, there is a need for further research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of AI.

How to Deal with Literature Gap?

Once you have identified the literature gaps, it is critical to prioritize. You may find many questions which remain to be answered in the literature. Often one question must be answered before the next can be addressed. In prioritizing the gaps, you have identified, you should consider your funding agency or stakeholders, the needs of the field, and the relevance of your questions to what is currently being studied. Also, consider your own resources and ability to conduct the research you’re considering. Once you have done this, you can narrow your search down to an appropriate question.

Tools to Help Your Search

There are thousands of new articles published every day, and staying up to date on the literature can be overwhelming. You should take advantage of the technology that is available. Some services include  PubCrawler ,  Feedly ,  Google Scholar , and PubMed updates. Stay up to date on social media forums where scholars share new discoveries, such as Twitter. Reference managers such as  Mendeley  can help you keep your references well-organized. I personally have had success using Google Scholar and PubMed to stay current on new developments and track which gaps remain in my personal areas of interest.

The most important thing I want to impress upon you today is that you will struggle to  choose a research topic  that is innovative and exciting if you don’t know the existing literature well. This is why identifying research gaps starts with an extensive and thorough  literature review . But give yourself some boundaries.  You don’t need to read every paper that has ever been written on a topic. You may find yourself thinking you’re on the right track and then suddenly coming across a paper that you had intended to write! It happens to everyone- it happens to me quite often. Don’t give up- keep reading and you’ll find what you’re looking for.

Class dismissed!

How do you identify research gaps? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Frequently Asked Questions

A research gap can be identified by looking for a topic or area with missing or insufficient information that limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question.

Identifying a research gap is important as it provides a direction for potentially new research or helps bridge the gap in existing literature.

Gap in research is a topic or area with missing or insufficient information. A research gap limits the ability to reach a conclusion for a question.

Thank u for your suggestion.

Very useful tips specially for a beginner

Thank you. This is helpful. I find that I’m overwhelmed with literatures. As I read on a particular topic, and in a particular direction I find that other conflicting issues, topic a and ideas keep popping up, making me more confused.

I am very grateful for your advice. It’s just on point.

The clearest, exhaustive, and brief explanation I have ever read.

Thanks for sharing

Thank you very much.The work is brief and understandable

Thank you it is very informative

Thanks for sharing this educative article

Thank you for such informative explanation.

Great job smart guy! Really outdid yourself!

Nice one! I thank you for this as it is just what I was looking for!😃🤟

Thank you so much for this. Much appreciated

Thank you so much.

Thankyou for ur briefing…its so helpful

Thank you so much .I’ved learn a lot from this.❤️

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

• AI in Academia

Disclosing the Use of Generative AI: Best practices for authors in manuscript preparation

The rapid proliferation of generative and other AI-based tools in research writing has ignited an…

Intersectionality in Academia: Dealing with diverse perspectives

Meritocracy and Diversity in Science: Increasing inclusivity in STEM education

Avoiding the AI Trap: Pitfalls of relying on ChatGPT for PhD applications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Identify a Research Gap

• 5-minute read
• 10th January 2024

If you’ve been tasked with producing a thesis or dissertation, one of your first steps will be identifying a research gap. Although finding a research gap may sound daunting, don’t fret! In this post, we will define a research gap, discuss its importance, and offer a step-by-step guide that will provide you with the essential know-how to complete this critical step and move on to the rest of your research project.

What Is a Research Gap?

Simply put, a research gap is an area that hasn’t been explored in the existing literature. This could be an unexplored population, an untested method, or a condition that hasn’t been investigated yet. 

Why Is Identifying a Research Gap Important?

Identifying a research gap is a foundational step in the research process. It ensures that your research is significant and has the ability to advance knowledge within a specific area. It also helps you align your work with the current needs and challenges of your field. Identifying a research gap has many potential benefits.

1. Avoid Redundancy in Your Research

Understanding the existing literature helps researchers avoid duplication. This means you can steer clear of topics that have already been extensively studied. This ensures your work is novel and contributes something new to the field.

2. Guide the Research Design

Identifying a research gap helps shape your research design and questions. You can tailor your studies to specifically address the identified gap. This ensures that your work directly contributes to filling the void in knowledge.

3. Practical Applications

Research that addresses a gap is more likely to have practical applications and contributions. Whether in academia, industry, or policymaking, research that fills a gap in knowledge is often more applicable and can inform decision-making and practices in real-world contexts.

4. Field Advancements

Addressing a research gap can lead to advancements in the field . It may result in the development of new theories, methodologies, or technologies that push the boundaries of current understanding.

5. Strategic Research Planning

Identifying a research gap is crucial for strategic planning . It helps researchers and institutions prioritize areas that need attention so they can allocate resources effectively. This ensures that efforts are directed toward the most critical gaps in knowledge.

6. Academic and Professional Recognition

Researchers who successfully address significant research gaps often receive peer recognition within their academic and professional communities. This recognition can lead to opportunities for collaboration, funding, and career advancement.

How Do I Identify a Research Gap?

1. clearly define your research topic .

Begin by clearly defining your research topic. A well-scoped topic serves as the foundation for your studies. Make sure it’s not too broad or too narrow; striking the right balance will make it easier to identify gaps in existing literature.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

2. Conduct a Thorough Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review is a vital step in any research. Dive deep into the existing research related to your topic. Look for patterns, recurring themes, and consensus among scholars. Pay attention to areas where conflicting opinions or gaps in understanding emerge.

3. Evaluate Existing Studies

Critically evaluate the studies you encounter during your literature review. Assess the paradigms , methodologies, findings, and limitations of each. Note any discrepancies, unanswered questions, or areas where further investigation is warranted. These are potential indicators of research gaps.

4. Identify Unexplored Perspectives

Consider the perspectives presented in the existing literature. Are there alternative viewpoints or marginalized voices that haven’t been adequately explored? Identifying and incorporating diverse perspectives can often lead to uncharted territory and help you pinpoint a unique research gap.

Additional Tips

Stay up to date with emerging trends.

The field of research is dynamic, with new developments and emerging trends constantly shaping the landscape. Stay up to date with the latest publications, conferences, and discussions in your field and make sure to regularly check relevant academic search engines . Often, identifying a research gap involves being at the forefront of current debates and discussions.

Seek Guidance From Experts

Don’t hesitate to reach out to experts in your field for guidance. Attend conferences, workshops, or seminars where you can interact with seasoned researchers. Their insights and experience can provide valuable perspectives on potential research gaps that you may have overlooked. You can also seek advice from your academic advisor .

Use Research Tools and Analytics

Leverage tech tools to analyze patterns and trends in the existing literature. Tools like citation analysis, keyword mapping, and data visualization can help you identify gaps and areas with limited exploration.

Identifying a research gap is a skill that evolves with experience and dedication. By defining your research topic, meticulously navigating the existing literature, critically evaluating studies, and recognizing unexplored perspectives, you’ll be on your way to identifying a research gap that will serve as the foundation for your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

If you need any help with proofreading your research paper , we can help with our research paper editing services . You can even try a sample of our services for free . Good luck with all your research!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

• Brainstorming
• Explore Google This link opens in a new window
• Explore Web Resources
• Explore Background Information
• Explore Books
• Explore Scholarly Articles
• Narrowing a Topic
• Primary and Secondary Resources
• Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
• Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Grey Literature
• Clinical Trials
• Evidence Based Treatment
• Scholarly Research
• Database Research Log
• Search Limits
• Keyword Searching
• Boolean Operators
• Phrase Searching
• Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
• Proximity Searching
• Field Codes
• Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
• Reading a Scientific Article
• Website Evaluation
• Article Keywords and Subject Terms
• Cited References
• Citing Articles
• Related Results
• Search Within Publication
• Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
• Personal Database Accounts
• Persistent URLs
• Literature Gap and Future Research
• Web of Knowledge
• Annual Reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• Finding Seminal Works
• Exhausting the Literature
• Finding Dissertations
• Researching Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology & Design
• Tests and Measurements
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Scholarly Publication
• Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Research Articles

These examples below illustrate how researchers from different disciplines identified gaps in existing literature. For additional examples, try a NavigatorSearch using this search string: ("Literature review") AND (gap*)

• Addressing the Recent Developments and Potential Gaps in the Literature of Corporate Sustainability
• Applications of Psychological Science to Teaching and Learning: Gaps in the Literature
• Attitudes, Risk Factors, and Behaviours of Gambling Among Adolescents and Young People: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis
• Do Psychological Diversity Climate, HRM Practices, and Personality Traits (Big Five) Influence Multicultural Workforce Job Satisfaction and Performance? Current Scenario, Literature Gap, and Future Research Directions
• Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review and Identification of an Existing Gap in the Field
• Evidence and Gaps in the Literature on HIV/STI Prevention Interventions Targeting Migrants in Receiving Countries: A Scoping Review
• Homeless Indigenous Veterans and the Current Gaps in Knowledge: The State of the Literature
• A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling
• A Review of Higher Education Image and Reputation Literature: Knowledge Gaps and a Research Agenda
• Trends and Gaps in Empirical Research on Open Educational Resources (OER): A Systematic Mapping of the Literature from 2015 to 2019
• Where Should We Go From Here? Identified Gaps in the Literature in Psychosocial Interventions for Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Comorbid Anxiety

What is a ‘gap in the literature’?

The gap, also considered the missing piece or pieces in the research literature, is the area that has not yet been explored or is under-explored. This could be a population or sample (size, type, location, etc.), research method, data collection and/or analysis, or other research variables or conditions.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that just because you identify a gap in the research, it doesn't necessarily mean that your research question is worthy of exploration. You will want to make sure that your research will have valuable practical and/or theoretical implications. In other words, answering the research question could either improve existing practice and/or inform professional decision-making (Applied Degree), or it could revise, build upon, or create theoretical frameworks informing research design and practice (Ph.D Degree). See the Dissertation Center  for additional information about dissertation criteria at NU.

For a additional information on gap statements, see the following:

• How to Find a Gap in the Literature
• Write Like a Scientist: Gap Statements

How do you identify the gaps?

Conducting an exhaustive literature review is your first step. As you search for journal articles, you will need to read critically across the breadth of the literature to identify these gaps. You goal should be to find a ‘space’ or opening for contributing new research. The first step is gathering a broad range of research articles on your topic. You may want to look for research that approaches the topic from a variety of methods – qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. 

See the videos below for further instruction on identifying a gap in the literature.

Identifying a Gap in the Literature - Dr. Laurie Bedford

How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature? - SAGE Research Methods

Literature Gap & Future Research - Library Workshop

This workshop presents effective search techniques for identifying a gap in the literature and recommendations for future research.

Where can you locate research gaps?

As you begin to gather the literature, you will want to critically read for what has, and has not, been learned from the research. Use the Discussion and Future Research sections of the articles to understand what the researchers have found and where they point out future or additional research areas. This is similar to identifying a gap in the literature, however, future research statements come from a single study rather than an exhaustive search. You will want to check the literature to see if those research questions have already been answered.

Roadrunner Search

Identifying the gap in the research relies on an exhaustive review of the literature. Remember, researchers may not explicitly state that a gap in the literature exists; you may need to thoroughly review and assess the research to make that determination yourself.

However, there are techniques that you can use when searching in NavigatorSearch to help identify gaps in the literature. You may use search terms such as "literature gap " or "future research" "along with your subject keywords to pinpoint articles that include these types of statements.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Resources for a Literature Review
• Next: Web of Knowledge >>
• Last Updated: Mar 31, 2024 4:57 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

•   [email protected]
• Shapiro Library
• SNHU Library Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: What is a research gap and how do I find one?

• 7 Academic Integrity & Plagiarism
• 62 Academic Support, Writing Help, & Presentation Help
• 27 Access/Remote Access
• 7 Accessibility
• 9 Building/Facilities
• 7 Career/Job Information
• 26 Catalog/Print Books
• 26 Circulation
• 129 Citing Sources
• 14 Copyright
• 311 Databases
• 24 Directions/Location
• 18 Faculty Resources/Needs
• 7 Hours/Contacts
• 2 Innovation Lab & Makerspace/3D Printing
• 25 Interlibrary Loan
• 43 IT/Computer/Printing Support
• 3 Library Instruction
• 37 Library Technology Help
• 6 Multimedia
• 17 Online Programs
• 19 Periodicals
• 25 Policies
• 8 RefWorks/Citation Managers
• 4 Research Guides (LibGuides)
• 216 Research Help
• 23 University Services

Last Updated: Jun 27, 2023 Views: 463413

What is a research gap.

A research gap is a question or a problem that has not been answered by any of the existing studies or research within your field. Sometimes, a research gap exists when there is a concept or new idea that hasn't been studied at all. Sometimes you'll find a research gap if all the existing research is outdated and in need of new/updated research (studies on Internet use in 2001, for example). Or, perhaps a specific population has not been well studied (perhaps there are plenty of studies on teenagers and video games, but not enough studies on toddlers and video games, for example). These are just a few examples, but any research gap you find is an area where more studies and more research need to be conducted. Please view this video clip from our Sage Research Methods database for more helpful information: How Do You Identify Gaps in Literature?

How do I find one?

It will take a lot of research and reading.  You'll need to be very familiar with all the studies that have already been done, and what those studies contributed to the overall body of knowledge about that topic. Make a list of any questions you have about your topic and then do some research to see if those questions have already been answered satisfactorily. If they haven't, perhaps you've discovered a gap!  Here are some strategies you can use to make the most of your time:

• One useful trick is to look at the “suggestions for future research” or conclusion section of existing studies on your topic. Many times, the authors will identify areas where they think a research gap exists, and what studies they think need to be done in the future.
• As you are researching, you will most likely come across citations for seminal works in your research field. These are the research studies that you see mentioned again and again in the literature.  In addition to finding those and reading them, you can use a database like Web of Science to follow the research trail and discover all the other articles that have cited these. See the FAQ: I found the perfect article for my paper. How do I find other articles and books that have cited it? on how to do this. One way to quickly track down these seminal works is to use a database like SAGE Navigator, a social sciences literature review tool. It is one of the products available via our SAGE Knowledge database.
• In the PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES databases, you can select literature review, systematic review, and meta analysis under the Methodology section in the advanced search to quickly locate these. See the FAQ: Where can I find a qualitative or quantitative study? for more information on how to find the Methodology section in these two databases.
• In CINAHL , you can select Systematic review under the Publication Type field in the advanced search. 
• In Web of Science , check the box beside Review under the Document Type heading in the “Refine Results” sidebar to the right of the list of search hits.
• If the database you are searching does not offer a way to filter your results by document type, publication type, or methodology in the advanced search, you can include these phrases (“literature reviews,” meta-analyses, or “systematic reviews”) in your search string.  For example, “video games” AND “literature reviews” could be a possible search that you could try.

Please give these suggestions a try and contact a librarian for additional assistance.

Content authored by: GS

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 374 No 152

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are a self-serve option for users to search and find answers to their questions. 

Use the search box above to type your question to search for an answer or browse existing FAQs by group, topic, etc.

Tell Me More

Link to Question Form

More assistance.

Submit a Question

Related FAQs

• Research Process

What is a Research Gap

• 3 minute read
• 282.4K views

Table of Contents

If you are a young researcher, or even still finishing your studies, you’ll probably notice that your academic environment revolves around certain research topics, probably linked to your department or to the interest of your mentor and direct colleagues. For example, if your department is currently doing research in nanotechnology applied to medicine, it is only natural that you feel compelled to follow this line of research. Hopefully, it’s something you feel familiar with and interested in – although you might take your own twists and turns along your career.

Many scientists end up continuing their academic legacy during their professional careers, writing about their own practical experiences in the field and adapting classic methodologies to a present context. However, each and every researcher dreams about being a pioneer in a subject one day, by discovering a topic that hasn’t been approached before by any other scientist. This is a research gap.

Research gaps are particularly useful for the advance of science, in general. Finding a research gap and having the means to develop a complete and sustained study on it can be very rewarding for the scientist (or team of scientists), not to mention how its new findings can positively impact our whole society.

How to Find a Gap in Research

How many times have you felt that you have finally formulated THAT new and exciting question, only to find out later that it had been addressed before? Probably more times than you can count.

There are some steps you can take to help identify research gaps, since it is impossible to go through all the information and research available nowadays:

• Select a topic or question that motivates you: Research can take a long time and surely a large amount of physical, intellectual and emotional effort, therefore choose a topic that can keep you motivated throughout the process.
• Find keywords and related terms to your selected topic: Besides synthesizing the topic to its essential core, this will help you in the next step.
• Use the identified keywords to search literature: From your findings in the above step, identify relevant publications and cited literature in those publications.
• Look for topics or issues that are missing or not addressed within (or related to) your main topic.
• Read systematic reviews: These documents plunge deeply into scholarly literature and identify trends and paradigm shifts in fields of study. Sometimes they reveal areas or topics that need more attention from researchers and scientists.

Keeping track of all the new literature being published every day is an impossible mission. Remember that there is technology to make your daily tasks easier, and reviewing literature can be one of them. Some online databases offer up-to-date publication lists with quite effective search features:

• Elsevier’s Scope
• Google Scholar

Of course, these tools may be more or less effective depending on knowledge fields. There might be even better ones for your specific topic of research; you can learn about them from more experienced colleagues or mentors.

Find out how FINER research framework can help you formulate your research question.

Literature Gap

The expression “literature gap” is used with the same intention as “research gap.” When there is a gap in the research itself, there will also naturally be a gap in the literature. Nevertheless, it is important to stress out the importance of language or text formulations that can help identify a research/literature gap or, on the other hand, making clear that a research gap is being addressed.

When looking for research gaps across publications you may have noticed sentences like:

…has/have not been… (studied/reported/elucidated) …is required/needed… …the key question is/remains… …it is important to address…

These expressions often indicate gaps; issues or topics related to the main question that still hasn’t been subject to a scientific study. Therefore, it is important to take notice of them: who knows if one of these sentences is hiding your way to fame.

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

• Manuscript Review

Systematic Review VS Meta-Analysis

Literature Review in Research Writing

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Advertisement

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review

• Systematic Review
• Published: 08 November 2021
• Volume 37 , pages 198–205, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Eunice C. Wong PhD   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-4548 1 ,
• Alicia R. Maher MD 1 ,
• Aneesa Motala BA 1 , 2 ,
• Rachel Ross MPH 1 ,
• Olamigoke Akinniranye MA 1 ,
• Jody Larkin MS 1 &
• Susanne Hempel PhD 1 , 2  

2768 Accesses

7 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.

The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).

Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.

To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Similar content being viewed by others

A protocol for ongoing systematic scoping reviews of World Trade Center Health research

Thomas W. Concannon, Ramya Chari, … Laura J. Faherty

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

Audrey Tan, Sumanth Kumbagere Nagraj, … Tanja Kuchenmüller

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses

Hans Lund, Lars Tang, … Thomas Maribo

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. 1 , 2 As defined in the literature, 3 , 4 research gaps are defined as areas or topics in which the ability to draw a conclusion for a given question is prevented by insufficient evidence. Research gaps are not necessarily synonymous with research needs , which are those knowledge gaps that significantly inhibit the decision-making ability of key stakeholders, who are end users of research, such as patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The selection of research priorities is often necessary when all identified research gaps or needs cannot be pursued because of resource constraints. Methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities (from herein referred to as gaps, needs, priorities) can be multi-varied and there does not appear to be general consensus on best practices. 3 , 5

Several published reviews highlight the diverse methods that have been used to identify gaps and priorities. In a review of methods used to identify gaps from systematic reviews, Robinson et al. noted the wide range of organizing principles that were employed in published literature between 2001 and 2009 (e.g., care pathway, decision tree, and patient, intervention, comparison, outcome framework,). 6 In a more recent review spanning 2007 to 2017, Nyanchoka et al. found that the vast majority of studies with a primary focus on the identification of gaps (83%) relied solely on knowledge synthesis methods (e.g., systematic review, scoping review, evidence mapping, literature review). A much smaller proportion (9%) relied exclusively on primary research methods (i.e., quantitative survey, qualitative study). 7

With respect to research priorities, in a review limited to a PubMed database search covering the period from 2001 to 2014, Yoshida documented a wide range of methods to identify priorities including the use of not only knowledge synthesis (i.e., literature reviews) and primary research methods (i.e., surveys) but also multi-stage, structured methods such as Delphi, Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI), James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA PSP), and Essential National Health Research (ENHR). 2 The CHNRI method, originally developed for the purpose of setting global child health research priorities, typically employs researchers and experts to specify a long list of research questions, the criteria that will be used to prioritize research questions, and the technical scoring of research questions using the defined criteria. 8 During the latter stages, non-expert stakeholders’ input are incorporated by using their ratings of the importance of selected criteria to weight the technical scores. The ENHR method, initially designed for health research priority setting at the national level, involves researchers, decision-makers, health service providers, and communities throughout the entire process of identifying and prioritizing research topics. 9 The JLA PSP method convenes patients, carers, and clinicians to equally and jointly identify questions about healthcare that cannot be answered by existing evidence that are important to all groups (i.e., research needs). 10 The identified research needs are then prioritized by the groups resulting in a final list (often a top 10) of research priorities. Non-clinical researchers are excluded from voting on research needs or priorities but can be involved in other processes (e.g., knowledge synthesis). CHNRI, ENHR, and JLA PSP usually employ a mix of knowledge synthesis and primary research methods to first identify a set of gaps or needs that are then prioritized. Thus, even though CHNRI, ENHR, and JLA PSP have been referred to as priority setting methods, they actually consist of a gaps or needs identification stage that feeds into a research prioritization stage.

Nyanchoka et al.’s review found that the majority of studies focused on the identification of gaps alone (65%), whereas the remaining studies focused either on research priorities alone (17%) or on both gaps and priorities (19%). 7 In an update to Robinson et al.’s review, 6 Carey et al. reviewed the literature between 2010 and 2011 and observed that the studies conducted during this latter period of time focused more on research priorities than gaps and had increased stakeholder involvement, and that none had evaluated the reproducibility of the methods. 11

The increasing development and diversity of formal processes and methods to identify gaps and priorities are indicative of a developing field. 2 , 12 To facilitate more standardized and systematic processes, other important areas warrant further investigation. Prior reviews did not distinguish between the identification of gaps versus research needs. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center (AHRQ EPC) Program issued a series of method papers related to establishing research needs as part of comparative effectiveness research. 13 , 14 , 15 The AHRQ EPC Program defined research needs as “evidence gaps” identified within systematic reviews that are prioritized by stakeholders according to their potential impact on practice or care. 16 Furthermore, Nyanchoka et al. relied on author designations to classify studies as focusing on gaps versus research priorities and noted that definitions of gaps varied across studies, highlighting the need to apply consistent taxonomy when categorizing studies in reviews. 7 Given the rise in the use of stakeholders in both gaps and prioritization exercises, a greater understanding of the range of practices involving stakeholders is also needed. This includes the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders (e.g., consultants versus final decision-makers), the composition of stakeholders (e.g., non-research clinicians, patients, caregivers, policymakers), and the methods used to recruit stakeholders. The lack of consensus of best practices also highlights the importance of learning the extent to which evaluations to determine the effectiveness of gaps, needs, and prioritization exercises have been conducted, and if so, what were the resultant outcomes.

To better inform efforts and organizations that fund health research, we conducted a scoping review of methods used to identify gaps, needs, and priorities that were linked to potential or actual health research funding decision-making. Hence, this scoping review was limited to studies in which the identification of health research gaps, needs, or priorities was supported or conducted by funding organizations to address the following questions 1 : What are the characteristics of methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities? and 2 To what extent have evaluations of the impact of these methods been conducted? Given that scoping reviews may be executed to characterize the ways an area of research has been conducted, 17 , 18 this approach is appropriate for the broad nature of this study’s aims.

Protocol and Registration

We employed methods that conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. 19 See Appendix A in the Supplementary Information. The scoping review protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/5zjqx/ ).

Eligibility Criteria

Studies published in English that described methods to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities that were supported or conducted by funding organizations were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that reported only the results of the exercise (e.g., list of priorities) absent of information on the methods used. We also excluded studies involving evidence synthesis (e.g., literature or systematic reviews) that were solely descriptive and did not employ an explicit method to identify research gaps, needs, or priorities.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Our database search also included an update of the Nyanchoka et al. scoping review, which entailed executing their database searches for the time period following 2017 (the study’s search end date). 7 Nyanchoka et al. did not include database searches for research needs. The electronic database search and scoping review update were completed in August and September 2019, respectively . The search strategy employed for each of the databases is presented in Appendix B in the Supplementary Information.

Selection of Sources of Evidence and Data Charting Process

Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text publications. Citations that one or both reviewers considered potentially eligible were retrieved for full-text review. Relevant background articles and scoping and systematic reviews were reference mined to screen for eligible studies. Full-text publications were screened against detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion by the review team.

Information on study characteristics were extracted from each article including the aims of the exercise (i.e., gaps, needs, priorities, or a combination) and health condition (i.e., physical or psychological). Based on definitions in the literature, 3 , 4 , 5 the aims of the exercise were coded according to the activities that were conducted, which may not have always corresponded with the study authors’ labeling of the exercises. For instance, the JLA PSP method is often described as a priority exercise but we categorized it as a needs and priority exercise. Priority exercises can be preceded by exercises to identify gaps or needs, which then feed into the priority exercise such as in JLA PSP; however, standalone priority exercises can also be conducted (e.g., stakeholders prioritize an existing list of emerging diseases).

For each type of exercise, information on the methods were recorded. An initial list of methods was created based on previous reviews. 9 , 12 , 20 During the data extraction process, any methods not included in the initial list were subsequently added. If more than one exercise was reported within an article (e.g., gaps and priorities), information was extracted for each exercise separately. Reviewers extracted the following information: methods employed (e.g., qualitative, quantitative), criteria used (e.g., disease burden, importance to stakeholders), stakeholder involvement (e.g., stakeholder composition, method for identifying stakeholders), and whether an evaluation was conducted on the effectiveness of the exercise (see Appendix C in the Supplementary Information for full data extraction form).

Synthesis of results entailed quantitative descriptives of study characteristics (e.g., proportion of studies by aims of exercise) and characteristics of methods employed across all studies and by each type of study (e.g., gaps, needs, priorities).

The electronic database search yielded a total of 10,548 titles. Another 284 articles were identified after searching the reference lists of full-text publications, including three systematic reviews 21 , 22 , 23 and one scoping review 24 that had met eligibility criteria. Moreover, a total of 99 publications designated as relevant background articles were also reference mined to screen for eligible studies. We conducted full-text screening for 2524 articles, which resulted in 2344 exclusions (440 studies were designated as background articles). A total of 167 exercises related to the identification of gaps, needs, or priorities that were supported or conducted by a research funding organization were described across 180 publications and underwent full data extraction. See Figure 1 for the flow diagram of our search strategy and reasons for exclusion.

Literature flow

Characteristics of Sources of Evidence

Among the published exercises, the majority of studies (152/167) conducted gaps, need, or prioritization exercises related to physical health, whereas only a small fraction of studies focused on psychological health (12/167) (see Appendix D in the Supplementary Information).

Methods for Identifying Gaps, Needs, and Priorities

As seen in Table 1 , only about a quarter of studies involved a singular type of exercise with 7% focused on the identification of gaps only (i.e., areas with insufficient information to draw a conclusion for a given question), 6% on needs only (i.e., knowledge gaps that inhibit the decision-making of key stakeholders), and 14% priorities only (i.e., ranked gaps or needs often because of resource constraints). Studies more commonly conducted a combination of multiple types of exercises with more than half focused on the identification of both research needs and priorities, 14% on gaps and priorities, 3% gaps, needs, and priorities, and 3% gaps and needs.

Across the 167 studies, the three most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops/meetings/conferences (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the JLA PSP approach (28%). This was followed by methods involving literature reviews (17%), qualitative methods (17%), consensus methods (13%), and reviews of source materials (15%). Other methods included the CHNRI process (7%), reviews of in-progress data (7%), consultation with (non-researcher) stakeholders (4%), applying a framework tool (4%), ENHR (1%), systematic reviews (1%), and evidence mapping (1%).

The criterion most widely applied across the 167 studies was the importance to stakeholders (72%) (see Table 2 ). Almost one-third (29%) considered the potential value and 18% feasibility as criteria. Burden of disease (9%), addressing inequities (8%), costs (6%), alignment with organization’s mission (3%), and patient centeredness (2%) were adopted as criteria to a lesser extent.

About two-thirds of the studies included researchers (66%) and clinicians (69%) as stakeholders (see Appendix E in the Supplementary Information). Patients and the public were involved in 59% of the studies. A smaller proportion included policy makers (20%), funders (13%), product makers (8%), payers (5%), and purchasers (2%) as stakeholders. Nearly half of the studies (51%) relied on stakeholder organizations to identify stakeholders (see Appendix F in the Supplementary Information). A quarter of studies (26%) used purposive sampling and some convenience sampling (11%). Few (9%) used snowball sampling to identify stakeholders. Only a minor fraction of studies, seven of the 167 (4%), reported some type of effectiveness evaluation. 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31

Our scoping review revealed that approaches to identifying gaps, needs, and priorities are less likely to occur as discrete processes and more often involve a combination of exercises. Approaches encompassing multiple exercises (e.g., gaps and needs) were far more prevalent than singular standalone exercises (e.g., gaps only) (73% vs. 27%). Findings underscore the varying importance placed on gaps, needs, and priorities, which reflect key principles of the Value of Information approach (i.e., not all gaps are important, addressing gaps do not necessarily address needs nor does addressing needs necessarily address priorities). 32

Findings differ from Nyanchoka et al.’s review in which studies involving the identification of gaps only outnumbered studies involving both gaps and priorities. 7 However, Nyanchoka et al. relied on author definitions to categorize exercises, whereas our study made designations based on our review of the activities described in the article and applied definitions drawn from the literature. 3 , 4 Lack of consensus on definitions of gaps and priority setting has been noted in the literature. 33 , 34 To the authors’ knowledge, no prior scoping review has focused on methods related to the identification of “research needs.” Findings underscore the need to develop and apply more consistent taxonomy to this growing field of research.

More than 40% of studies employed methods with a structured protocol including JLA PSP, ENHR, CHRNI, World Café, and the Dialogue model. 10 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 The World Café and Dialogue models particularly value the experiential perspectives of stakeholders. The World Café centers on creating a special environment, often modeled after a café, in which rounds of multi-stakeholder, small group, conversations are facilitated and prefaced with questions designed for the specific purpose of the session. Insights and results are reported and shared back to the entire group with no expectation to achieve consensus, but rather diverse perspectives are encouraged. 36 The Dialogue model is a multi-stakeholder, participatory, priority setting method involving the following phases: exploratory (informal discussions), consultation (separate stakeholder consultations), prioritization (stakeholder ratings), and integration (dialog between stakeholders). 39 Findings may indicate a trend away from non-replicable methods to approaches that afford greater transparency and reproducibility. 41 For instance, of the 17 studies published between 2000 and 2009, none had employed CHNRI and 6% used JLA PSP compared to the 141 studies between 2010 and 2019 in which 8% applied CHNRI and 32% JLA PSP. However, notable variations in implementing CHNRI and JLA PSP have been observed. 41 , 42 , 43 Though these protocols help to ensure a more standardized process, which is essential when testing the effectiveness of methods, such evaluations are infrequent but necessary to establish the usefulness of replicable methods.

Convening workshops, meetings, or conferences was the method used by the greatest proportion of studies (37%). The operationalization of even this singular method varied widely in duration (e.g., single vs. multi-day conferences), format (e.g., expert panel presentations, breakout discussion groups), processes (e.g., use of formal/informal consensus methods), and composition of stakeholders. The operationalization of other methods (e.g., quantitative, qualitative) also exhibited great diversity.

The use of explicit criteria to determine gaps, needs, or priorities is a key component of certain structured protocols 40 , 44 and frameworks. 9 , 45 In our scoping review, the criterion applied most frequently across studies (71%) was “importance to stakeholders” followed by potential value (31%) and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder values are being incorporated into the identification of gaps, needs, and exercises across a significant proportion of studies, but how this is operationalized varies widely across studies. For instance, the CHNRI typically employs multiple criteria that are scored by technical experts and these scores are then weighted based on stakeholder ratings of their relative importance. Other studies totaled scores across multiple criteria, whereas JLA PSP asks multiple stakeholders to rank the top ten priorities. The importance of involving stakeholders, especially patients and the public, in priority setting is increasingly viewed as vital to ensuring the needs of end users are met, 46 , 47 particularly in light of evidence demonstrating mismatches between the research interests of patients and researchers and clinicians. 48 , 49 , 50 In our review, clinicians (69%) and researchers (66%) were the most widely represented stakeholder groups across studies. Patients and the public (e.g., caregivers) were included as stakeholders in 59% of the studies. Only a small fraction of studies involved exercises in which stakeholders were limited to researchers only. Patients and the public were involved as stakeholders in 12% of studies published between 2000 and 2009 compared to 60% of studies between 2010 and 2019. Findings may reflect a trend away from researchers traditionally serving as one of the sole drivers of determining which research topics should be pursued.

More than half of the studies reported relying on stakeholder organizations to identify participants. Partnering with stakeholder organizations has been noted as one of the primary methods for identifying stakeholders for priority setting exercises. 34 Purposive sampling was the next most frequently used stakeholder identification method. In contrast, convenience sampling (e.g., recommendations by study team) and snowball sampling (e.g., identified stakeholders refer other stakeholders who then refer additional stakeholders) were not as frequently employed, but were documented as common methods in a prior review conducted almost a decade ago. 14 The greater use of stakeholder organizations than convenience or snowball sampling may be partly due to the more recent proliferation of published studies using structured protocols like JLA PSP, which rely heavily on partnerships with stakeholder organizations. Though methods such as snowball sampling may introduce more bias than random sampling, 14 there are no established best practices for stakeholder identification methods. 51 Nearly a quarter of studies provided either unclear or no information on stakeholder identification methods, which has been documented as a barrier to comparing across studies and assessing the validity of research priorities. 34

Determining the effectiveness of gaps, needs, and priority exercises is challenging given that outcome evaluations are rarely conducted. Only seven studies reported conducting an evaluation. 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 Evaluations varied with respect to their focus on process- (e.g., balanced stakeholder representation, stakeholder satisfaction) versus outcome-related impact (e.g., prioritized topics funded, knowledge production, benefits to health). There is no consensus on what constitutes optimal outcomes, which has been found to vary by discipline. 52

More than 90% of studies involved exercises related to physical health in contrast to a minor portfolio of work being dedicated to psychological health, which may be an indication of the low priority placed on psychological health policy research. Understanding whether funding decisions for physical versus psychological health research are similarly or differentially governed by more systematic, formal processes may be important to the extent that this affects the effective targeting of funds.

Limitations

By limiting studies to those supported or conducted by funding organizations, we may have excluded global, national, or local priority setting exercises. In addition, our scoping review categorized approaches according to the actual exercises conducted and definitions provided in the scientific literature rather than relying on the terminology employed by studies. This resulted in instances in which the category assigned to an exercise within our scoping review could diverge from the category employed by the study authors. Lastly, this study’s findings are subject to limitations often characteristic of scoping reviews such as publication bias, language bias, lack of quality assessment, and search, inclusion, and extraction biases. 53

Conclusions

The diversity and growing establishment of formal processes and methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are characteristic of a developing field. Even with the emergence of more structured and systematic approaches, the inconsistent categorization and definition of gaps, needs, and priorities inhibit efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of varied methods and processes, such efforts are rare and sorely needed to build an evidence base to guide best practices. The immense variation occurring within structured protocols, across different combinations of disparate methods, and even within singular methods, further emphasizes the importance of using clearly defined approaches, which are essential to conducting investigations of the effectiveness of these varied approaches. The recent development of reporting guidelines for priority setting for health research may facilitate more consistent and clear documentation of processes and methods, which includes the many facets of involving stakeholders. 34 To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Chalkidou K, Whicher D, Kary W, Tunis SR . Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities: Identifying Critical Gaps in Evidence for Clinical and Health Policy Decision Making. International journal of technology assessment in health care . 2009;25(3):241-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990225

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yoshida S . Approaches, Tools and Methods Used for Setting Priorities in Health Research in the 21(st) Century. Journal of global health . 2016;6(1):010507-010507. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.06.010507

Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, McKoy NA . Development of a Framework to Identify Research Gaps from Systematic Reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2011;64(12):1325-30. [Comment in: J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):522-3; [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23265604 ]]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009

Saldanha IJ, Wilson LM, Bennett WL, Nicholson WK, Robinson KA . Development and Pilot Test of a Process to Identify Research Needs from a Systematic Review. J Clin Epidemiol . May 2013;66(5):538-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.07.009

Viergever RF, Terry R, Matsoso M . Health research prioritization at WHO: an overview of methodology and high level analysis of WHO led health research priority setting exercises. Geneva: World Health Organization . 2010;

Google Scholar  

Robinson KA, Akinyede O, Dutta T, et al. Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation . 2013. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care .

Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R . A Scoping Review describes Methods Used to Identify, Prioritize and Display Gaps in Health Research. J Clin Epidemiol . Jan 30 2019;doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005

Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croatian medical journal . 2008;49(6):720-33.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry RF . A Checklist for Health Research Priority Setting: Nine Common Themes of Good Practice. Health Res Policy Syst . Dec 15 2010;8:36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-8-36

James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook . March 2020. http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/downloads/JLA-Guidebook-V9-download-March-2020.pdf

Carey TY, A.; Beadles, C.; Wines, R . Prioritizing Future Research through Examination of Research Gaps in Systematic Reviews . 2012.

Carey T, Yon A, Beadles C, Wines R . Prioritizing future research through examination of research gaps in systematic reviews. Prepared for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute . 2012;

Carey TS, Sanders GD, Viswanathan M, Trikalinos TA, Kato E, Chang S . Framework for Considering Study Designs for Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Paper No. 8 (Prepared by the RTI–UNC Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007- 10056-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC048-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . March 2012. Framework for Considering Study Designs for Future Research Needs . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22624168

O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Nakamoto E, et al. Methods for Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 4. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center and the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC044-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . Vol. Methods Future Research Needs Reports. 2011. June 2011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62571/

Trikalinos T, Dahabreh I, Lee J, Moorthy D . Methods Research on Future Research Needs: Defining an Optimal Format for Presenting Research Needs. Methods Future Research Needs Report No. 3. (Prepared by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC027-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . June 2011. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm .

Kane RL, Guise JM, Hartman K, Rothenberg B, Trikalinos T, Wilt T . Presentation of Future Research Needs . 2012. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care .

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E . Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing Between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach. journal article. BMC Medical Research Methodology . November 19 2018;18(1):143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB . Guidance for Conducting Systematic Scoping Reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc . Sep 2015;13(3):141-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. The PRISMA-ScR Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine . 2018;169(7):467-473. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850

Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, Rudan I . A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Research Policy and Systems . 2011;9(1):19.

Rylance J, Pai M, Lienhardt C, Garner P . Priorities for tuberculosis research: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis . 2010;10(12):886-892.

Tong A, Chando S, Crowe S, et al. Research priority setting in kidney disease: a systematic review. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation . 2015;65(5):674-83. [Comment in: Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 May;65(5):641-3; [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25919496 ]]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.11.011

Article   Google Scholar  

Tong A, Sautenet B, Chapman JR, et al. Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review. Transplant international: official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation . 2017;30(4):327-343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tri.12924

Bourne AM, Johnston RV, Cyril S, et al. Scoping Review of Priority Setting of Research Topics for Musculoskeletal Conditions Review. BMJ Open . 2018;8(12):9 e023962. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962

Bennett WL, Nicholson WK, Saldanha IJ, Wilson LM, McKoy NA, Robinson KA . Future Research Needs for the Management of Gestational Diabetes. 2010. AHRQ Future Research Needs Papers .

Buckley BS, Grant AM, Glazener CMA . Case study: a patient-clinician collaboration that identified and prioritized evidence gaps and stimulated research development. Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2013;66(5):483-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.016

Elberse JE, Pittens CACM, de Cock Buning T, Broerse JEW . Patient Involvement in a Scientific Advisory Process: Setting the Research Agenda for Medical Products. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) . 2012;107(2-3):231-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.05.014

Fun WH, Sararaks S, Tan EH, et al. Research funding impact and priority setting - advancing universal access and quality healthcare research in Malaysia. BMC Health Services Research . Apr 24 2019;19(1):248.

Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H . Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment at CADTH. Article. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care . 2010;26(3):341-347. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462310000383

Mador RL, Kornas K, Simard A, Haroun V . Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice Checklist as a Tool for Evaluating the Research Priority Setting Process of a Provincial Research and Program Evaluation Program. Health research policy and systems . 2016;14:22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0092-5

Sanders GD, Powers B, Crowley M, et al. Future Research Needs for Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Identification of Future Research Needs from Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 18. Future Research Needs for Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Identification of Future Research Needs from Comparative Effectiveness Review No 18 . 2010. AHRQ Future Research Needs Papers .

Minelli C, Baio G . Value of Information: a Tool to Improve Research Prioritization and Reduce Waste. PLos Med . 2015;12(9):e1001882-e1001882. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001882

Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, Stewart J . Health Research Priority Setting in Selected High Income Countries: a Narrative Review of Methods Used and Recommendations for Future Practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc . 2014;12:23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-12-23

Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, et al. Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol . Dec 28 2019;19(1):243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Uneke CJ, Ezeoha AE, Ndukwe CD, Oyibo PG, Onwe F, Aulakh BK . Research Priority Setting for Health Policy and Health Systems Strengthening in Nigeria: the Policymakers and Stakeholders Perspective and Involvement. The Pan African medical journal . 2013;16:10. doi: https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2013.16.10.2318

MacFarlane A, Galvin R, O’Sullivan M, et al. Participatory Methods for Research Prioritization in Primary Care: an Analysis of the World Cafe Approach in Ireland and the USA. Family practice . 2017;34(3):278-284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw104

Nelson ML, McKellar KA, Munce S, et al. Addressing the Evidence Gap in Stroke Rehabilitation for Complex Patients: a Preliminary Research Agenda. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation . 2018;99(6):1232-1241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.488

Restall GJ, Carnochan TN, Roger KS, Sullivan TM, Etcheverry EJ, Roddy P . Collaborative Priority Setting for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Rehabilitation Research: a Case Report. Canadian journal of occupational therapy Revue canadienne d’ergotherapie . 2016;83(1):7-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417415577423

Abma TA, Broerse JEW . Patient Participation as Dialogue: Setting Research Agendas. Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy . 2010;13(2):160-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x

Rudan I . Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: IV. Key conceptual advances. J Glob Health . 2016;6(1):010501. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh-06-010501

Yoshida S, Wazny K, Cousens S, Chan KY . Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: III Involving Stakeholders. J Glob Health. Jun 2016;6(1):010303. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.06.010303

Rudan I, Yoshida S, Chan KY, et al. Setting Health Research Priorities Using the CHNRI Method: VII. A Review of the First 50 Applications of the CHNRI Method. J Glob Health . 2017;7(1):011004. doi: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.07.011004

Nygaard A, Halvorsrud L, Linnerud S, Grov EK, Bergland A . The James Lind Alliance Process Approach: Scoping Review. BMJ Open . 2019;9(8):e027473. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027473

Okello D, Chongtrakul P , The COHRED Working Group on Priority Setting. A Manual for Research Priority Setting using the ENHR Strategy. Reference mining. Accessed July 24, 2019. http://www.cohred.org/downloads/578.pdf

Fadlallah R, El-Harakeh A, Bou-Karroum L, et al. A Common Framework of Steps and Criteria for Prioritizing Topics for Evidence Syntheses: a Systematic Review. J Clin Epidemiol . 2020;120:67-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.009

Natale CV, Gross D . The ROI of engaged patients. Healthc Financ Manage . 2013;67(8):90-7.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Clavisi O, Bragge P, Tavender E, Turner T, Gruen RL . Effective Stakeholder Participation in Setting Research Priorities Using a Global Evidence Mapping Approach. Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2013;66(5):496-502.e2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002

Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P . Relation Between Agendas of the Research Community and the Research Consumer. Lancet . 2000;355(9220):2037-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I . Patients’, Clinicians’ and the Research Communities’ Priorities for Treatment Research: There is an Important Mismatch. Res Involv Engagem . 2015;1:2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x

Kapiriri L, Tomlinson M, Gibson J, et al. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders. Croatian medical journal . 2007;48(5):618-627.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guise J-M, O’Haire C, McPheeters M, et al. A Practice-Based Tool for Engaging Stakeholders in Future Research: a Synthesis of Current Practices. Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2013;66(6):666-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.010

Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK . Priority Setting: What Constitutes Success? A Conceptual Framework for Successful Priority Setting. Article. Bmc Health Services Research . 2009;9:12. 43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-43

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA . A Scoping Review of Scoping Reviews: Advancing the Approach and Enhancing the Consistency. Research synthesis methods . 2014;5(4):371-385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

Download references

Acknowledgements

This scoping review is part of research that was sponsored by Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (now Psychological Health Center of Excellence).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA

Eunice C. Wong PhD, Alicia R. Maher MD, Aneesa Motala BA, Rachel Ross MPH, Olamigoke Akinniranye MA, Jody Larkin MS & Susanne Hempel PhD

Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science & Innovation, Los Angeles, USA

Aneesa Motala BA & Susanne Hempel PhD

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eunice C. Wong PhD .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

(PDF 1205 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wong, E.C., Maher, A.R., Motala, A. et al. Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review. J GEN INTERN MED 37 , 198–205 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07064-1

Download citation

Received : 01 March 2021

Accepted : 21 July 2021

Published : 08 November 2021

Issue Date : January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07064-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• research gaps
• research needs
• research priorities
• priority setting
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The 7 Research Gaps

Lennart Nacke

Academics must maintain the validity of their research, and creating false contributions can have dire consequences, such as losing trust from peers and having a publication retracted.

To ensure that your research is relevant, focused, and feasible, you should conduct a thorough literature review to identify any knowledge gaps or areas that have not yet been explored fully. Identifying these gaps will enable you to create new and innovative research to fill them. For example, if you are researching the impact of climate change on bird migration, you may find that many studies have been conducted on the subject, but none have focused on a particular species of bird. This could be an opportunity to explore the topic in more depth.

Finding a gap doesn't necessarily mean choosing a completely different topic from what has already been researched, but rather identifying aspects within existing topics that have yet to be examined in-depth or from different angles.

Prior to moving forward with your research project, it's crucial to verify that a gap in the field is feasible. When designing your study, take into account resources and time constraints to avoid creating unrealistic results.

As part of the research process, I recommend prioritizing honesty and integrity, identifying knowledge gaps and considering their feasibility.

1. Evidence Gap

• Study results are conclusive but conflicting when viewed abstractly . For example, VR studies may have demonstrated that virtual reality can benefit cognitive development. However, other studies have suggested that it can be detrimental to physical health. This evidence gap requires further exploration to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of VR technology's potential impacts.
• New research defies conventional wisdom . For example, there has been a growing interest in AI-powered chatbots for healthcare applications such as symptom tracking and personalized health advice. This is a research gap that has yet to be fully explored in the HCI literature, as most existing studies focus on chatbot usability and user experience, rather than their potential applications in healthcare.
• Provocative exceptions arise. For example, human-computer interaction studies have indicated that assisted technologies, such as voice or gesture-based interaction, can improve user experience and performance. However, there is a lack of research into how these technologies may harm users' privacy. This could be an area of research where more research is needed to understand the potential risks of using such technologies.

Identifying these gaps requires the analysis of each study. Pair the pieces together to identify the conflicting findings.

Example of how to write this:

• We identified an evidence gap in prior research concerning [X]. Previous research has addressed several aspects of [X]: 1, 2, 3 (w/ citations). However, it has not addressed contradictions in the findings concerning the prior research. We identified this gap: [Describe].
• Prior research has generally found that [X] is beneficial for [Y], but other studies have found contradictory evidence. Our study sought to bridge this gap by investigating the differences between the prior research findings.

2. Knowledge Gap

Two knowledge void settings are possible:

• Desired research results don't exist. Theories or literature from similar fields may not exist in the field . For example, in the games literature, there is a knowledge gap in understanding how cognitive skills such as problem solving and critical thinking can be improved through playing video games. While there have been studies exploring the potential benefits of playing video games, there is still a dearth of research into the cognitive benefits of playing specific types of video games.
• Unexpected study results. For instance, one study may have found that playing an action game improved cognitive performance in older adults, while a previous study found that playing a game designed to improve executive functioning had no effect on cognitive abilities.

This is a common gap in previous research.

• We identified a knowledge gap in prior research concerning [X]. Furthermore, it did not address the subject of [Y]. This includes several new dimensions with research attention in other disciplines. [Y] should be explored to see why [X] has a different effect.
• Research should consider how [Y] affects the outcomes of [X], such as the impact of cultural differences on the effectiveness of [X].

3. Practical Knowledge Gap

• Professionals publicly promote one action but perform another. For example, a doctor may publicly encourage patients to make healthy lifestyle choices, but privately prescribe medication as the only solution.
• Professional practices differ from research or are unstudied. For example, a lawyer may tell a client that they should proceed with a certain strategy in a court case, but the outcome of such a strategy may not have been studied and could have a variety of unexpected outcomes.

The scope and causes of a conflict can be discovered through research. This situation is known as an action-knowledge conflict.

• Prior research lacked practical expertise and rigour. Unexplored areas of [X] seem to be lacking in [Y] field practice. Theoretical studies dominate [Y]. Thus, [Y] has few practical studies. This matters in [X]. Because [...]. Theory studies focused on [X] & little on [Y].
• There have been few field studies of [X] in relation to [Y], making it difficult to assess the potential of [Y] to improve [X].

4. Methodological Gap

Researchers may encounter methodological gaps if their sampling, measurement, and data analysis methods are different. Observation methods and self-reported survey responses might differ when studying social behaviour. Methodological problems can lead to inconsistencies and contradictory findings, making it hard for other researchers to validate the study's conclusions. We are better able to understand many phenomena and make better policy decisions if we address these methodological gaps.

• Addresses issues with existing research methodologies. For example, mixed methodologies can provide a more holistic look at the phenomenon being studied. They can also help to identify underlying factors that might not be seen with one specific methodology.
• Proposes an innovative research direction. For example, an HCI research direction could explore the impact of AI-enabled technology on user experience, such as voice recognition effects on user engagement and user satisfaction.

New insights can only be gained by changing research methodologies for this gap.

• We found a methodological gap in past studies. [Y] lacks [X] research designs. We identified little prior research on [X] designs based on our study design. This study investigates [X] research designs. We overcome methodology inadequacies with [Z] to expand research.
• We employed a longitudinal field study design with qualitative interviews to explore the impact of [X] on [Y], which had only been studied in experimental settings.

5. Empirical Gap

A major challenge for scholars is empirical validation. Literature and expert opinion can lead to theories and models, but they must be tested and proven. Empirical research is characterized by rigorous conception, implementation, and analysis. It is essential for reliable outcomes, but many fields lack it. Many reasons exist for this. Researchers from different domains must collaborate and invest in data gathering and processing infrastructure to close empirical gaps. It aids in social problem-solving and understanding human behaviour.

• Conflicts were not assessed empirically in any prior research endeavour. For example, the 2016 US presidential election provided an unprecedented opportunity to empirically assess the effects of political discourse polarization on voter behaviour. This was a conflict that had likely not been examined in any prior research endeavour.
• Research results must be confirmed. To confirm research results, additional studies should be conducted using different methodologies and data sets to corroborate the original findings. This validates that the outcomes of the original study are not due to chance or misinterpretation of the data.

The focus here is on problems that have not been studied.

• Prior research had an empirical gap. In the context of [Y], there are some unexplored [X] that seem relevant. Because [...], empirical research is crucial. Qualitative research on [X] has thrived. No study has directly assessed [X] through empirical research.
• No study has looked at the relationship between [X] and [Y] in a laboratory setting, which would provide a more direct measure of the effect of [X] on [Y].

6. Theoretical Gap

• Related work lacks theory. For example, few studies have sought to explain the observed relationships between diversity and resilience through an underlying theory of the mechanisms at play.
• Multiple theoretical models explain the same phenomenon causing a theoretical conflict. Examine which theory can best address the research gap. An example of a theoretical conflict in psychology is the debate between behaviourists and cognitive psychologists regarding the primary cause of behaviour. Behaviourists argue that behaviour is primarily caused by external factors, while cognitive psychologists believe behaviour is determined by internal mental processes.

The application of theory to research concerns will allow you to gain fresh insights.

• Current investigations show that [X] theory is outdated. Some earlier theory seems essential. However, [X] and theoretical development need scrutiny. This is essential because [...]. To strengthen theories, existing theoretical models must incorporate research in [Y].
• [X] theory has traditionally failed to consider the role of [ Y ] in the decision-making process, a factor that has been increasingly shown to be essential in the past decade.

7. Population Gap

Underserved populations are always understudied. For example, people of colour are disproportionately underrepresented in clinical trials and medical research studies. This results in an inadequate understanding of their needs and health risks. Research on under-represented or under-researched populations can include:

These groups are often neglected or overlooked in research, and their experiences and perspectives can provide invaluable insights into a wide range of topics. Addressing gaps like this will help us better understand these groups' needs and perspectives. We can use this knowledge to inform better policy decisions and create more equitable societies.

• Some sub-populations have been overlooked and under-researched. It is important to investigate the [X] in the context of the [Y]. It is crucial to investigate this group because [...] Previous research has mainly focused on [Z].
• Research into the [X] group has only recently gained traction, with studies such as [study], which identified [findings] related to [Y].

Further reading

Miles, D. A. (2017, August). A taxonomy of research gaps: Identifying and defining the seven research gaps. In Doctoral student workshop: finding research gaps-research methods and strategies, Dallas, Texas (pp. 1-15).

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

ARTICLE/RESEARCH: A Taxonomy of Research Gaps: Identifying and Defining the Seven Research Gaps

2017, Journal of Research Methods and Strategies

One of the most prevailing issues in the craft of research is to develop a research agenda and build the research on the development of the research gap. Most research of any endeavor is attributed to the development of the research gap, which is a primary basis in the investigation of any problem, phenomenon or scientific question. Given this accepted tenet of engagement in research, surprising in the research fraternity, we do not train researchers on how to systematically identify research gaps as basis for the investigation. This is has continued to be a common problem with novice researchers. Unfailingly, very little theory and research has been developed on identifying research gaps as a basis for a line in inquiry. The purpose of this research is threefold. First, the proposed theoretical framework builds on the five-point theoretical model of Robinson, Saldanhea, and McKoy (2011) on research gaps. Second, this study builds on the six-point theoretical model of Müller-Bloch and Franz (2014) on research gaps. Lastly, the purpose of this research is to develop and propose a theoretical model that is an amalgamation of the two preceding models and re-conceptualizes the research gap concepts and their characteristics. Thus, this researcher proposes a seven-point theoretical model. This article discusses the characteristics of each research and the situation in which its application is warranted in the literature review The significance of this article is twofold. First, this research provides theoretical significance by developing a theoretical model on research gaps. Second, this research attempts to build a solid taxonomy on the different characteristics of research gaps and establish a foundation. The implication for researchers is that research gaps should be structured and characterized based on their functionality. Thus, this provides researchers with a basic framework for identifying them in the literature investigation.

Related Papers

ISSAH BAAKO

Various researchers have established the need for researchers to position their research problem in the research gap of the study area. This does not only indicate the relevance of the study but it demonstrates the significant contribution it would make in the field of study. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review on the concept of research gaps and provoke a discussion on the contemporary literature on types of research gaps. The paper discusses the various approaches for researchers to identify, align and position research problems, research design, and methodology in the research gaps to achieve relevance in their findings and study. A systematic review of the current literature on research gaps might assist beginning researchers in the justification of research problems. Given the acceptable tenet of developing a research agenda, design, and development on a research gap, many early career researchers especially (post)graduate students have difficulties in systematically identifying research gaps as a basis for conducting research work. The significance of this paper is twofold. First, it provides a systematic review of literature on the identification of research gaps to undertake research that would challenge assumptions and underlying existing theories in a significant way. Second, it provides a theoretical discussion on the importance of developing research problems on research gaps to structure their study.

Kayode Oyediran

Problem in a research as well as human body calls for perfect diagnosis of illness. This is important to avoid treating the symptoms instead of the actual disease. A research problem could be identified through professional or/and academic efforts. This poses a lot of problems to students, both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, as this determines the title of their articles or research works. Many of them have to submit many topics to their supervisors before one could be reframed and approved. At times, students appealed to their supervisors to provide them with researchable topics. This to the supervisor(s) almost writing the dissertations/theses for them. The argument of this paper is to let students understand "problem identification" using an analogy from the Holy Bible. The study employed a conversation analysis methodology, which is empirically grounded, exploratory in process and inferential. This involves using every conversation between two or more parties to explore facts/lesson. It was recommended that seasoned lecturers should explain to students how to identify research problems using what are familiar to them to make them understand this important aspect of research.

Sid Ahmed KHETTAB

A research gap is generally any problem a scientific article, an academic book or a thesis may contain. In the previous article [https://discourse.clevious.com/2019/12/how-to-come-up-with-research-idea.html], based on Dr. Anthony Miles' article on research gaps, I summarized the 7 research gaps into three main categories: theoretical problems, reasoning problems, and empirical problems.

Research to Action: The Global Guide to Research Impact

Steven E Wallis, PhD

The basics of research are seemingly clear. Read a lot of articles, see what’s missing, and conduct research to fill the gap in the literature. Wait a minute. What is that? “See what’s missing?” How can we see something that is not there? In this post, we will show you how to “see the invisible;” How to identify the missing pieces in any study, literature review, or program analysis. With these straight-forward techniques, you will be able to better target your research in a more cost-effective way to fill those knowledge gaps to develop more effective theories, plans, and evaluations.

UNICAF University - Zambia

Ivan Steenkamp

Azeez T Fatimo

Researchers and academia often have difficulties identifying the research gap in literature in various fields of study. Hence, exploring research gap is one of the most arduous tasks for researchers especially those at the preliminary stage. The explicit identification of research gap is an inevitable step in developing a research agenda including decision about funding and the design of informative studies. Thus, to identify the research gap, the researcher needs to prune down his area of interest as identifying research gaps requires a lot of reading and analyzing of materials from various literatures. Hence, this study explores literatures regarding the method of identifying research gaps in management sciences. This was done by extensively examining various literatures on the method of identifying research gaps from previous researchers. However, the study made use of content analysis to identify research gaps in some articles. This study revealed that researchers are focused on a single type of research gap, leaving other research gaps unexplored. Also, there are some methods of research identification that has remained understandable by researchers as there are little or no knowledge about them. Hence, the study recommended among others that the various research identification methods be explored by researchers who intend to engage in studies in this field of management sciences.

Omini Akpang

This section contains the four Thematic Gap Analyses and the Cross-Cutting Gap Analysis. Each of the chapters has a lead author (s) as noted on the front page of the chapter. This follows the way that the team has divided-up the responsibilities for each Thematic Area, with a disciplinary specialist (s) taking the lead on each area. The chapters have, however, been reviewed and commented by others in the project team so the analysis and suggested actions and conclusions have the general support of the full project team.

In this second part of The Reason to Replicate Research, I develop with more details and explanations the Reasoning Gaps idea I briefly discussed in the article “How to Come Up with Research Question Easily Like a Pro”. (https://discourse.clevious.com/2019/12/how-to-come-up-with-research-idea.html) And just like in Part I (https://discourse.clevious.com/2020/01/the-empirical-gap-to-replicate-research.html), I will try to pivot the explanation around an example and show why they are important to fill.

David Nicholas

RELATED PAPERS

Levi Nwankwo

Rosanna Pescini Gobert

Malahayati Nursing Journal

Iwan Shalahuddin

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

Filipa Sousa

Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia

Janne Marques Silveira Silveira

2009 IEEE LEOS Annual Meeting Conference Proceedings

Katsunari Okamoto

Laura Duran

International journal of health geographics

jesus roche

Majalah Geografi Indonesia

Aditya Pandu Wicaksono

Zdzisław Noga

Composites Part B: Engineering

Roland Kádár

Arseny Kurnikov

2013 51st Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)

Faramarz Fekri

2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR)

Ramses Sanchez

Angel Cornejo

Sridhar Thapa

Environmental Science: Nano

Philippe Le Coustumer

Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications

Jesús Ildefonso Díaz

Social work and society

Jonathan Crabtree Parker

Al-Risalah : Jurnal Studi Agama dan Pemikiran Islam

Abdul Hamid, Lc, M.Kom.I, Ph.D

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

rosella franconi

Proceedings

Eduardo Rodriguez-Valdes

hukyytj jkthjfgr

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Utility Menu

• Get Involved
• News & Events

qualtrics survey

[video] the push to close covid-era gaps: acting on findings from the education recovery scorecard.

On April 2nd, the Harvard Graduate School of Education hosted CEPR Faculty Director Thomas Kane, CEPR's incoming Executive Director Christina Grant, and education leaders from across the country to discuss ways in which states and districts can act on new findings from the Education Recovery Scorecard , CEPR’s ongoing collaboration with Stanford’s Educational Opportunity Project , and work to close the gaps exacerbated by COVID.

Panelists :

• Dr. Aleesia Johnson, Superintendent of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS)

Indianapolis experienced smaller losses than other high-poverty districts in Indiana and is now approaching 2019 achievement levels. Dr. Johnson has served IPS, the largest district in Indiana, since 2019. She is also on the advisory board of CEPR.

• Daniel McKee, Governor of the State of Rhode Island. 

Governor McKee has focused on high-quality public education for all students throughout his career and launched the Learn365RI plan in 2023, which aims to lower student absenteeism and expand out-of-school learning time for students.

• Catherine Truitt, State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Superintendent Truitt has guided North Carolina in its focus on academic recovery, collecting better data than many states.  Many districts in North Carolina are now approaching their 2019 levels.

• Moderator Dr. Christina Grant, CEPR’s incoming Executive Director and State Superintendent of Education for Washington, D.C.

An overview of the forum is provided below. Some questions and quotes have been lightly edited for length and clarity. Note: video playback may not be compatible with Google Chrome. If experiencing any errors, switching browsers may help.

The challenge

CEPR’s Faculty Director Thomas Kane set the stage for the panel by outlining the challenge. Students have made up one-third of the pandemic learning loss in math and one quarter in reading, a large recovery in historical terms. However, most states remain behind 2019 levels, and gaps between high- and low-poverty districts in many states have only continued to widen.

“Just imagine if, during the pandemic, the federal government said ‘We’re not going to try to come up with a vaccine. We’re going to take all that money that would have gone to a vaccine and just distribute it to local public health authorities and just say, you guys figure it out…' I’m sure what would have happened is some public health departments would have made more progress than others.”

There are many barriers to accelerating recovery:

Chronic absenteeism has risen since the pandemic.

Parents underestimate impacts on their children, making it hard to garner support for less politically popular options like extending the school year.

Most recovery aid went directly to districts; the federal government had very little authority to regulate or coordinate how districts spent that money, leading to divergent results.

Recovery will require an extensive multi-year set of interventions. The scale of the necessary intervention is often underestimated. As the presentation slides show, even combining tutoring, double math periods, and summer school for a percentage of students with an extended school year for all could only make up .5 years of learning in one year—and many districts remain more than a year behind their 2019 levels.

Now, the remaining $190 billion in federal pandemic aid must be spent by September 2024. Will leaders step up to complete students’ recovery when federal dollars expire?

Reflecting on the work so far

How do you think about your district or state's recovery efforts so far.

"Creating a system where you can see every child every day.... those are expenditures that might not make the nightly news, but were critical as we tried to put children's faces to the data point which we call chronic absenteeism." Christina Grant

The road ahead

Chronic Absenteeism

  “It’s a community-wide solution, in every home, every day, learning should matter… Leadership does matter—supporting individuals like superintendents that are doing the work to stay the course is the most important thing we can do right now... After a world crisis, you never go back to normal. But it is your choice to decide where you go." Dan McKee  

"This chronic absenteeism issue is a symptom of something else that’s wrong. I’m looking forward to seeing someone dig into the data more… I think this is across socioeconomic backgrounds, and race and ethnicity." Catherine Truitt

Even if we maintain rapid recovery, we will still be more than a year away from total recovery. But the federal money is running out in September— where will the leadership come from to pick up the reins?

"Our schools don’t exist in bubbles. Our schools are in our communities. They reflect the values of our communities. They also reflect the challenges of our communities. So we cannot do the work on our own. It takes the community to make it all happen." Aleesia Johnson

How do you get broad approval for your initiatives, given that your positions are political as well as strategic?

"I am elected, and our state BOE is appointed... and those appointees were in a different political party from me. Then we have the legislature, which holds the purse strings in North Carolina... I was frequently like a child of divorce, caught between the legislature and the state board of education. The way we handled this—aside from building relationships, talking through differences, et cetera—was we kept students at the center. And both groups responded to that." Catherine Truitt

The teacher shortage has demonstrated the teaching profession is no longer sustainable for many. How are you responding?

CEPR's Faculty Director Thomas Kane concluded the forum. "This is a pivotal moment. What we do in the next year or two will have a big impact," Kane said. "It really is up to us whether students recover, or whether we let these gaps remain. Everyone on stage will be doing as much as we can to make a difference—I hope you'll join us." 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch the full panel  on the Harvard Education YouTube channel.

Learn more about the Education Recovery Scorecard.

Read the HGSE News coverage.

News by Focus Area

• COVID-19 Impact (57)
• Postsecondary Access & Success (25)
• School Improvement & Redesign (64)
• Teacher Effectiveness (57)

News by Type

• Press Releases (39)
• Newsletters (5)
• Insights (2)
• Announcements (6)
• In the News (212)

News by Project

News by year.

Filling the Gap: Training the Workforce in Evidence-Based Public Health

For more than two decades, the Prevention Research Center (PRC) at Washington University has been training public-health practitioners from around the world in Evidence-Based Public Health, showing them how to develop programs and policies for communities based on local preferences and proven solutions to public health problems.

In its most recent training at the university’s Knight Center in March, the PRC team welcomed 28 participants from six state health departments and the Federated States of Micronesia.

“Less than 20 percent of public health employees have a degree in public health,” said Ross Brownson , Director of the PRC and the Steven H. and Susan U. Lipstein Distinguished Professor at the Brown School. “Our course, a partnership with the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, plays an ongoing role building the public health workforce.”

The March training was a three and a half day course attended by people working in day-to-day public health practice in Arkansas, Texas, Rhode Island, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa and Micronesia. Among the leaders attending the training were Nancy Sutton, Chief for the Center for Chronic Care & Disease Management at the Rhode Island Department of Health; and X-ner Luther, Non-Communicable Diseases Section Chief, Federated States of Micronesia Department of Health and Social Affairs.

Participants gave the session high marks.

 “This training is not only a place where you improve your skills in addressing the vast challenges of chronic diseases, it’s where you learn to appreciate perspectives from a diverse team of experts in public health,” Luther said. “It enabled me to better understand the importance of having a framework that supports evidence-based decision making. It has equipped me to improve my work to better serve my people in the big ocean state/country of Micronesia.”

Sutton agreed.

“This training was exceptional,” she said. “Both those of us who have been in our careers for over 25 years and those who are newer in their careers benefited from the guidance and tools provided. Staff have already shared how they have applied what was learned to improve their approach in framing policy position papers, completing grant applications, and building relationships internally and external to the department of health.”

Evidence based public health (EBPH) is the development, implementation, and evaluation of effective programs and policies in public health through application of principles of scientific reasoning. The process involves integrating research-based interventions with community preferences to improve the health of populations and health equity. The course has focused primarily on skills for practitioners in chronic disease prevention and control. Through presentations, practice exercises, and case studies, the course takes an applied approach and emphasizes information that is readily available to busy practitioners. A 10-week online format is also available.

Since 1997, the EBPH course has reached nearly 4,000 public health practitioners representing all 50 states, 2 territories, 34 countries, and 4 continents. Findings from evaluations of the course have been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals, and a book based on the course is now in its third edition.

In a 3–5-day in person training, the course focuses on 10 specific skill sets to improve public health practice.  In evaluations participants provided after the March training, participants applauded the program and said it provided them with practical guidance to improve their work in a variety of ways, among them:

• Involving people who are impacted or at high risk for specific health issues in decision-making and program planning.
• Ensuring equity is central to evidence-based decision making.
• Developing data briefs about cancer to present to legislators.
• Using data to effectively describe who the disproportionately affected populations are in a given chronic disease/condition in a geographic area and why they are affected.

One participant said the training changed their views about their job dramatically.

“I went in feeling like my work wasn’t all that important,” they said. “Now, I have a different perspective on what I do and how it affects the health and well-being of those in my state.”

For more information about Evidence-based Public Health, see https://prcstl.wustl.edu/items/evidence-based-public-health-training/ . For more information about the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, go to https://chronicdisease.org .

• Open access
• Published: 03 April 2024

“This is how I'm going to do it, but this is not how you're going to do it”: the expectation gap between student paramedics and mentors in East and Central Scotland

• Megan E. Worsfold 1 ,
• Clare Jouanny 1 ,
• Ela Hamer 1 ,
• Stian A. Mohrsen 2 ,
• Patryk Jadzinski 3 &
• Mick Harper 3  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  368 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1232 Accesses

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

The role of paramedics has expanded significantly over the past two decades, requiring advanced skills and education to meet the demands of diverse healthcare settings. In 2021, the academic requirements for paramedics were raised to a bachelor’s degree to align with other registered professions. The limited evidence on effective paramedic practice education necessitates a novel or new examination of unique learning methods, emphasising the need to establish effective learning relationships between mentors and learners to enhance professional respect and support achieving learning outcomes. This study aimed to investigate expectations between student paramedics and their mentors, focusing on the learning dynamics within paramedic education.

This qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit participants from two distinct cohorts: student paramedics from the University of Stirling and Practice Educator Mentors from the Scottish Ambulance Service. Focus groups were conducted to illuminate comprehensive insights into participants' expectations regarding practice education and their respective roles in the learning process. Codebook thematic analysis was used to assess the alignment of these expectations.

Findings illustrate important challenges within practice placement across learning paradigms and highlight the attitudes surrounding the integration of higher education and expectations of practice placements. These challenges encompass systemic barriers, including the support provided to mentors as they assume increased responsibilities and barriers that deter qualified staff from initially undertaking this role.

The study aimed to assess expectations between practice educators and students within the paramedic profession in Scotland. The methodology effectively identified key themes from comprehensive data, marking the first primary research in this field. There are disparities in learning styles, expectation measurement, and attitudes toward higher education during practice placements, which could significantly impact the teaching and assessment processes. The findings suggest increased support for practice educators, educational programs addressing challenges of mentorship, and stronger links between higher education institutes and the Scottish Ambulance Service. Further research is needed to understand the extent of the expectation gap, how expectations evolve, and to develop strategies to address disparities.

Peer Review reports

In the last 20 years, the paramedic profession experienced/observed an exponential growth with the paramedics’ scope of practice developing beyond the emergency ambulance service into wider healthcare settings such as primary care, injury treatment centres, forensic services, and hospital care [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Simultaneously, specialist and advanced paramedic roles, both clinical and non-clinical, are increasing in workforce planning, requiring postgraduate skills to enable practitioners to engage with research and advanced leadership [ 4 , 5 ]. In order to meet the requirements of diversifying professional demands, the 2013 Paramedic Evidence-based Education Project (PEEP) report emphasised the role of broader theoretical and systems-based learning, in contrast to the historical practice-focused nature of ambulance work [ 6 ]. In 2021 the regulator of paramedics and other allied health professions (AHPs) across the UK, The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), raised pre-registration qualification requirements to a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree (BSc), to meet minimum academic requirements and align the standard of paramedic education with other registered professions [ 7 ].

More time allocated to theory and increasing numbers of student paramedics competing for ambulance service placements have highlighted the importance of effective practice-based learning to bridge theory and practice [ 8 ]. Supervised practice education has been extensively studied and refined in medicine and nursing with proven methods and frameworks extrapolated, largely successfully, across other healthcare professions [ 9 , 10 ]. However, the current evidence regarding paramedic practice education is limited or arguably, outdated [ 11 , 12 ]. While some concepts can be inferred from successful practices in related professions, the authors understand the field of paramedicine to carry a set of unique features that juxtapose effective learning including those listed in Table  1 .

Endorsed by The College of Paramedics, who emphasise that the term 'mentor' has been widely adopted from other healthcare professions, referring to a person who teaches or supervises a mentee. However, as the profession has expanded in a unique direction, so has the role within paramedic practice education, leading to its recognition as multifaceted and more recently designated title as 'practice educator’ (see Fig.  1 ) [ 13 ].

Roles of a practice educator - image adapted from Clarke, 2020 [ 13 ]

Furthermore, a large proportion of the existing evidence exploring practice learning focuses on personal and professional attributes of supervisors, or student-perceived barriers to learning used to define “good mentorship” where the responsibility for learning is shifted onto the mentor [ 14 , 15 ]. Others debate that the learning experience is a relationship in which the learner and mentor share the responsibility for effective learning by contributing to, and reflecting on, mutual discussion and feedback [ 10 , 16 ].

Considering these challenges and the limited time allocated to practical education, learners and their mentors must be able to establish a professional rapport, and studies conclude that failure to establish effective learning relationships contributes to negative impacts on student paramedics’ learning [ 17 , 18 ]. Alignment of expectations between supervisor and learner has proven to enhance respect, professionalism, and mutual trust. These are all crucial to effective learning, but failure to align can result in a dysfunctional relationship negatively affecting the engagement of both supervisor and learner [ 17 ].

The paucity of literature describing and exploring expectations and attitudes between paramedic practice educators and learners makes it challenging to interpret behaviours and experiences within the practice placement setting and plan for effective learning. To address this knowledge gap and contribute to the future preparation of practice-based learning for both student paramedics and their Practice Educator Mentors (PEMs), we undertook a small-scale qualitative study. The primary aim being to explore the expectations of mentorship between student paramedics and their PEMs across the regions of Forth Valley, Fife, and Tayside in Scotland.

Recruitment

A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit a sample of students and PEMs who met predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table  2 ). In the time the study was advertised, and data was being collected, eight participants agreed to take part in the study. Participants volunteered in response to information posters and emails distributed in workplaces and educational institutions, they then received information sheets and consent forms before deciding to participate. Randomisation within-group sampling was used to limit sample size where appropriate to give each recruited participant an equal chance of inclusion.

Student paramedics were invited from the University of Stirling (UoS) BSc Paramedic Science programme. This was motivated by the fact that this was the academic base of the study team at the time, but more importantly that it was a newly established programme. This helped ensure that participants were not influenced or biased by the experiences of previous cohorts and allowed the capture of fresh, untainted perspectives. Students had to have completed a minimum of one practice placement module to provide a frame of reference and experiences on which to draw from during the focus groups.

Practice educators were HCPC registered paramedics invited from the Scottish Ambulance Service, specifically in the UoS catchment area for practical placements. As other areas of Scotland already established undergraduate programmes in preceding years, we sought to gain the experiences of novice educators.

Data collection

From a recruited pool of ten volunteers, eight student paramedics were randomly selected using an online number generator. Two participants were in their first year of paramedic science and the remaining six were in their second year of paramedic science. All students were enrolled and actively studying on the Paramedic Science BSc programme at UoS. Using the same method of recruitment, a total of five PEMs were recruited initially, with three later withdrawing due to unknown circumstances. The remaining two PEMs had over five years of experience as qualified paramedics (Table  3 ).

Data was collected through semi-structured focus groups (see Table  4 ) conducted between June – July 2022. Focus groups address funding and time constraints, but also offer advantages such as facilitating participant engagement and provide a conducive environment for open discussion [ 19 ].The interview sessions, lasting up to one hour, were facilitated remotely through Microsoft Teams by research staff from the UoS who were independent of the Paramedic Science programme and the Scottish Ambulance Service. Facilitators were equipped with online briefings and debriefings, as well as a semi-structured questioning approach, enabling them to maintain focus while also providing flexibility for detailed exploration and follow-up questioning as needed [ 20 ]. Two student paramedic (SP) focus groups were conducted, each with four students and one facilitator, and one group was conducted with the two PEMs. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the lead researcher, allowing thorough familiarisation with the data pre-analysis. The lead researcher was also observing the focus groups passively to allow for documentation and subsequent analysis of non-verbal cues, which resulted in providing a comprehensive understanding of the data beyond the spoken words. To promote candid and open dialogue, focus groups were organised with up to four participants, and importantly, to minimise bias, student and paramedic educator groups were kept separate.

Data analysis

Data was anonymised, transcribed, and analysed in NVivo by the lead researcher [ 17 ]. Themes that emerged were reviewed by a second researcher (SM) without requirement for any amendments. The application of codes from a codebook designed in the familiarisation stage of the data is a deductive approach, reducing time spent on coding whilst still accessing data through a qualitative lens [ 21 ]. The researcher being fully immersed in the data at this stage, and the transcription process is seen as a method of bracketing, to reduce the risk of preconceptions and predetermined confirmation that can be associated with codebook thematic analysis. Figure  2 provides a graphic representation of codebook thematic analysis, adapted from Braun and Clarke [ 17 ].

Steps of codebook thematic analysis [ 22 ]

Analysis was driven by role theory which sets out that people hold positions within society that are paralleled with expectations of behaviours of self and others [ 18 ]. This allowed for exploration of expectations embedded within the role of the student and the practice educator and helped shed light on how these sometimes conflict or converge [ 19 ] Highlighting discrepancies in anticipated behaviours in the mentor-learner relationship led to improved understanding of sources for conflicting expectations. This method involves a recurring process of gathering data, analysing, and applying a codebook, before conducting further analysis until reaching a point of data saturation [ 22 ]. The data collection and analysis process involved acknowledging the role of the researcher. This reflexive approach enabled the lead researcher to critically reflect, applying introspection and self-awareness of bias throughout [ 23 ].

Fifteen codes were identified through initial coding before being refined and described into four major emerging themes (Table  5 ).

Throughout the focus group sessions, participants spontaneously offered suggestions for enhancing the teacher/learner experience, with a particular focus on improvements within the practice learning environment. These suggestions addressed possible solutions to existing challenges. It is important to note that this study did not specifically aim to explore recommendations for practice, and these suggestions did not align with the predefined themes for analysis. Consequently, they were excluded from the analysis conducted in this study. However, these suggestions may be of interest to policymakers or for future research purposes and are available from the main author on request.

Theme 1: Attributes of effective learning

Among the themes identified in the data analysis process, the attributes of effective learning received the most extensive attention. Within this theme, various codes encompassing individual attributes, teaching and learning styles, relationships, and elements of mutual learning and communication were amalgamated. This comprehensive theme explored the various features that contribute to effective learning approaches and conducive learning environments. Attributes and communication were instrumental in providing insights into the expected level of engagement and the establishment of strong connections within working relationships, which were widely recognised as pivotal for both effective learning and teaching styles. Notably, student participants perceived their relationships with PEMs as professional, yet they also viewed them as friendly figures. Conversely, PEMs tended to see their role in a more parental light, fostering a different kind of connection with their students.

“It is like working with kids, you know…” [PEM 1]

Also referring to the act of taking on a student when another PEM is on annual leave as ‘ babysitting’ [PEM 2], perhaps denoting their role to be overseeing or preventing mistakes and failure as opposed to teaching and nurturing good practice.

PEMs expressed a clear expectation that student paramedics should be eager to immerse themselves in the learning process and actively expand their own knowledge. One PEM emphasised this by stating:

"I want someone who is going to ask the questions. I want someone who is going to be keen to learn" – [PEM 1]

Students also recognised the importance of keenness as an attribute for effective learning. However, their perspective appeared to involve a slightly more passive role in the learning process. As articulated by one participant:

"I think just somebody who's willing to think about you and your learning and to invest in that, who will take the time ... who's willing to then come back and say, 'Let's talk about this?'" - [SP 4]

Both groups valued enthusiasm for learning, but it is striking that students expected their mentors to take an active role in engaging with them, investing in their educational development, and facilitating discussions. This reflects a desire among students for guidance and mentorship throughout their educational journey.

Students’ experiences varied between the time and place where they undertook practice learning. They identified that applying an appropriate level of pressure and encouraging knowledge exploration were effective strategies for extending their learning comfort zones. However, the success of these strategies appeared to be contingent on the presence of mutual respect between students and their PEMs. One student discussed an experience where they were made to feel unwelcome when their PEM left them unattended for an extended period:

“...they got a call, and I was walking out the door and had all my kit on... and they drove off and left me at the station for two and a half hours and to me, that was a pretty clear sign. It made me feel very unwelcome.” – [SP 6]

This behaviour had implications surrounding the relationship between the student and their PEM. However, two other students praised their PEMs for the enthusiasm and opportunities they were provided, including the great relationships they built up. The framing of relationships through the sharing of knowledge, experiences, and mutual values frequently came up in both data sets.

Theme 2: Academic paradigm

The development of a BSc Paramedic Science programme in Scotland has provoked ambivalent feelings amongst both cohorts with scepticism found among qualified paramedics:

“I think there are people that just do not want to put in the effort...a lot of staff have been in the job for several years and argue that well, it's not an academic job” - [PEM 2]

This theme, was also reflected amongst students in their experiences of practice placement:

“Sometimes it's like they don't like the new system, they don't trust the system...” – [Student 3]

The same student compared the previous changes in other health care sectors to the more recent changes in paramedic practice, and shared a positive opinion surrounding these changes:

“This happened with midwifery and nursing they both changed, and I feel like for the better to be honest” – [Student 3]

Expectations surrounding the application of theory to practice surfaced opinions of how ‘academic’ the role of a paramedic is perceived to be. Students emphatically believed that the role of a paramedic has evolved, and they expected qualified staff to be accessible for both theoretical and practical inquiries:

“Someone that you can almost go to for advice if you need and be it placement or be it the education kind of side about the theory side of it, just someone you could go to and bring up concerns bring up problems” – [SP 3]

However, students observed that this ideal was not always realised in practice. They recounted instances where the integration of theory into practice was not only absent but also met with resistance. In these experiences, they encountered defensive behaviour from some qualified staff members who appeared reluctant to incorporate new and up-to-date theoretical knowledge:

"There's a common phrase: 'This is how I'm going to do it, but this is not how you're going to do it. This is not the way you're taught...'" – [SP 4]

These discussions focus on attitudes within the contemporary culture of paramedicine. Students articulated their expectations regarding engagement with the academic program from both students and educators, emphasising how this engagement could influence the learning and teaching that occurs in a practice-based education environment. Furthermore, these conversations highlighted a lack of understanding about the mutual benefits that can result from effectively integrating theoretical knowledge into paramedic practice.

Theme 3: System barriers to effective learning

This study unveiled several barriers to effective learning, encompassing issues related to the education of PEMs and associated communication challenges. One prevalent barrier was the marked lack of communication and engagement concerning academic system knowledge, particularly in the context of assessing students and PEMs using the practice assessment document (PAD). This lack of clarity led to disparities in expectations of students' clinical abilities, resulting in unequal learning opportunities, as described by one student:

"There's a lack of consistency... because you have mentors who allow some students to do almost everything, while others won't even let you measure blood pressure, you know?" – [SP 1]

Furthermore, the study highlighted the stress experienced by qualified staff, compounded by the pressures of additional paperwork and responsibilities. These staff members felt inadequately supported and insufficiently educated by the system that surrounded them:

"Why should I bother, then, if the service isn't bothered? Why should I be?" – [PEM 1]

Students were aware of this stress within the ambulance service, and they reported experiencing feelings of guilt as a result. They believed that this stressful situation could potentially have been avoided:

"Who decided that being a paramedic would involve a university route now... they throw you into ambulance service placements, and the ambulance service is like, ‘What?’ Like, ‘we were not prepared for this’, and then no one really takes responsibility for it. It's as if they've introduced this new way of learning without the necessary support and infrastructure" – [SP 8]

Collectively, these barriers hindered the establishment of a positive learning and teaching environment. Students reported that the lack of engagement within the service had repercussions on their motivation:

"They need to be motivated because, at the end of the day, if they're not motivated, it can affect our motivation too" – [SP 1]

The paramedic role, already characterised by its unpredictability, poses numerous challenges to practice placements. However, the reporting of these additional barriers could further complicate the task of creating an effective learning environment.

Theme 4: Changes in expectation

Both students and PEMs were specifically asked to reflect on whether their expectations had evolved over time, be that due to an increasing experience in practice, a developed understanding of the university system, or growing knowledge. This theme also sought to capture any notable expectations from second-year students that might be comparable to those of first-year students. Although no third-year students were recruited, second-year students discussed how they anticipated their expectations would rise and be accompanied by various challenges. They also discussed their perceived expectations from mentors during this phase.

“I also think us going into the third year out on placement. I do think that they will expect – they will have really high expectations. They will expect us to be able to run a job.” – [SP 4]

Second-year students disclosed that they had significantly adjusted their expectations since the beginning of their course, viewing this as a learned mechanism to enhance their learning experiences and environments:

“Now I go in completely blank ... that's kind of one of the only ways as a student you can kind of get over the negativity and just go forward because placement is what you put into it and like obviously what people on the opposite side put in like makes a big difference... I have lowered my expectations considerably since the first day” - [SP 8]

This theme also delved into the factors influencing these changes in expectations. Students appeared to gauge their expectations based on their evolving clinical abilities:

“...as we develop our kind of skills as well, like my expectations of my next placement are going to be different from expectations of my last placement. And because I know more, and I can do more... it's a very evolving thing” – [SP 2]

In contrast, mentors articulated that they had to tailor their expectations based on their prior experiences, whether due to a lack of understanding of clinical abilities or otherwise:

"I think it all depends on their background... I think when you get the students who are younger or haven't really had that kind of life experience, your expectations change" – [PEM 2]

This implies that expectations not only evolve over time but also vary according to the individual's confidence, experience, and comprehension of the field.

Attitude towards higher education

Analysis shows that students hold an expectation of PEMs as experienced individuals who should exude confidence in their knowledge while maintaining a commitment to staying current with their practice. However, they articulate that they often encounter defensive and resistant behaviour among PEMs, who appear reluctant to adapt and assume additional responsibilities related to teaching. These behavioural patterns mirror findings from prior research, which coupled with conclusions from the Paramedic Evidence-based Education Project (PEEP), prompted the HCPC to elevate registration requirements to standardise paramedic education programs [ 6 , 20 ].

A theme that emerged prominently from the students' narratives is the distinction between PEMs who have undergone university-based paramedic education and those who have received vocational, practice-based training within the service. Students consistently noted the value of PEMs with a university education background, emphasising that they bring a unique perspective and contribute to a more positive and proactive learning environment. This aligns with existing evidence, which suggests that qualified staff who have completed their paramedic education at a university often draw upon their own experiences with mentors—both positive and negative—to create a supportive and constructive learning atmosphere for current students during practice placements [ 22 , 23 , 24 ].

Despite these positive changes, resistance to change is apparent in the evidence among PEMs in Scotland, seemingly prioritising their own prior experiences over the new knowledge imparted in university settings. Effective practice education relies on continuous professional development on behalf of the PEM to strengthen both clinical and operational practice, but also the ability to facilitate learning [ 10 ]. Both students and PEMs describe power dynamics complicating learner-mentor relationships in the practice learning environment. This phenomenon could be attributed to systemic barriers but may result from a lack of awareness regarding the higher education pathway to paramedic registration, coupled with a failure to understand the significance of nurturing the next generation of paramedics and the mutual benefits it offers.

System barriers

The lack of a supporting infrastructure reported as creating barriers for qualified staff, resulting in a lack of motivation to step into a PEM role. Staff members report an onerous set of responsibilities and requirements associated with the PEM role that are inadequately reflected in terms of scheduling and financial compensation. Consequently, those who have taken on this role often feel unsupported and report feeling ‘stressed’ resulting in a detrimental impact on both their motivation and job satisfaction, sentiments echoing previous literature [ 25 ]. Analysis shows that this situation has not only prompted qualified staff to step away from the PEM role but is also reported as engendering a negative atmosphere and attitude that permeate the learning environment.

In some instances, PEMs report having pre-emptively conveyed their dissatisfaction to discourage students from pursuing this career path and students, whilst students articulate that they have keenly observed the constraints faced by their mentors which has left them with a sense of guilt and burden. The impact of guilt is known to reduce self-esteem, create barriers to goal achievement, and even manifest as physical symptoms such as anxiety [ 26 ]. This underscores the dual impact of the lack of infrastructure—staff members experience negative stress, while students grapple with the emotional toll of guilt and burden.

Learning styles

Students and PEMs express that enthusiasm and investment as two crucial attributes for a positive learning environment. These attributes are typically assumed to be inherent in individuals volunteering to become PEMs and in students enrolling in university courses. Specifically, student paramedics expressed a desire for investment from their PEMs through effective communication and a willingness to challenge them by probing their knowledge and identifying areas for improvement. As such, students seemed to prefer a more passive role, where they were not solely responsible for asking questions, possibly to alleviate the perceived burden on their mentors. However, it's important to note that this passive learning style may not be the most effective approach for adult learners [ 27 ]. Conversely, PEMs described a teaching style in which learners take the initiative to ask questions and demonstrate their independence in the learning process. This approach places students in a more active role while positioning PEMs as more of a guide or facilitator, in keeping with contemporary andragogy [ 28 , 29 ].

It is apparent from the data, that not only are both roles awaiting the other to communicate, but both roles are trying to reduce their own workload, and by doing so, creating a relationship based on incorrect learning styles. For the practice learning environment to be effective, it is important both student and PEM are aware of their own and each other’s learning styles [ 30 , 31 ]. This instils a need for the flexibility to adapt practice to suit individual learning styles in building a learning relationship that will positively affect students, PEMs, and the practice area [ 18 ].

Assessment in practice

The lack of understanding regarding the Practice Assessment Document (PAD) potentially signifies a communication gap between higher education institutions and the ambulance service. However, it can also be interpreted as a lack of engagement on the part of PEMs with the available guidance. PEMs appear uncertain about the clinical abilities of students at different stages of their education, leading to unequal opportunities and, at times, difficulties in connecting theoretical knowledge to practical application.

Students expected there to be some level of education or training provided to PEMs before they take on the role. In contrast, PEMs acknowledged their unfamiliarity with academic processes, including the PAD, even though they were more familiar with the mentoring environment through internal trainees. It is important to recognise that the role of a practice educator encompasses more than that of a mentor in a practice placement for higher education students and raises questions about whether PEMs truly understand their multifaceted role.

Students discussed how they perceived mentors measuring their expectations based on clinical ability. They also predicted that these expectations would become increasingly challenging to meet over their three years of study. In contrast, PEMs stated that they measured their expectations of students based on the students' life experiences and previous work experience. This difference in the measurement of expectations may be related to a lack of confidence in students' clinical abilities and their understanding of the PAD. Potentially, this creates an uneven playing field between students and PEMs, potentially leading students to perform according to incorrect or misperceived expectations.

Recommendations

To address these issues, the implementation of university-led mentorship modules and financial support for further education emerges as a potential solution. It is important to consider the inclusion of additional mentoring time in scheduling and pay, and collaborative efforts between higher education institutions and the Scottish Ambulance Service to provide necessary support for PEMs. This multifaceted approach ensures that staff, educators, and learners are adequately equipped to engage in effective mentorship within the practice environment.

Limitations

Whilst this study has heralded important thematic results, further research would benefit from a larger sample size. In addition, independent interviews could potentially yield more candid insights, thereby enriching the depth of the data. It should be acknowledged that opting for codebook TA as a deductive approach may introduce an element of researcher bias, which could potentially influence the remainder of the analysis, for this study that was mitigated by a second researcher reviewing the thematic analysis. Data saturation was reached within the sample; however, the researchers believe data saturation was not reached in answer to the research question. This is due to the small representation of students and mentors in comparison to the Scottish Ambulance Service and higher education student populations within Scotland. Consequently, affecting the transferability of results, it is crucial to consider the inherent constraints associated with this modest sample size and the specific study context.

The primary aim was to investigate expectations between student paramedics and their mentors. The selected methodology proved effective in identifying key themes through the analysis of data. This is the first primary research looking at the expectations of both practice educators and students of the paramedic profession within Scotland. It has revealed multiple disparities in expectations between these two groups during practice placements, including differences in learning styles, the measurement of expectations, and attitudes toward higher education. Practice placements are crucial for students' professional development as future clinicians, designed to provide opportunities for refining clinical skills, broadening knowledge, and applying theoretical concepts in real-world clinical settings. Any misalignment in expectations within this environment has the potential to greatly affect the teaching and assessment processes within practice education.

This study has raised important questions about how the infrastructure can better prepare for the practice placement of student paramedics. Suggestions include increased investment in support for PEMs, the potential for educational programs that inform about the challenges faced, theories and applications of mentorship, and the creation of stronger links and relationships between higher education institutes and the Scottish Ambulance Service. Further research is required on a larger scale and in alternative settings to determine the extent of the expectation gap, identify how expectations change over time, and generate strategies for overcoming the identified disparities.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available to uphold participant confidentiality and protect the integrity of ongoing research collaborations but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Health Care Professional

United Kingdom

Thematic analysis

Bachelor of Science

Health and Care Professions Council

Practice Educator Mentor

Practice Assessment Document

University of Stirling

College of Paramedics

Eaton G, Mahtani K, Catterall M. The evolving role of paramedics – a NICE problem to have? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018;23(3):193–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819618768357 .

Article   Google Scholar  

NHS England. Transforming urgent and emergency care services in England: safer, faster, better: good practice in delivering urgent and emergency care. A guide for local health and social care communities. 2015. Available: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/trans-uec.pdf . Accessed 10 Jan 2022.

Woollard M. The Role of the Paramedic Practitioner in the UK. Australas J Paramedicine. 2006;4:1–9. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.4.1.357 .

NHS England. Health Education England, NHS Improvement. Multi-professional framework for advanced clinical practice in England. 2017. Available: https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/multi-professionalframeworkforadvancedclinicalpracticeinengland.pdf . Accessed 10 Mar 2022.

College of Paramedics. Paramedic Post-Graduate Career Guidance - 2023. Bridgwater. 2023. Available: https://collegeofparamedics.co.uk/COP/ProfessionalDevelopment/Post_Graduate_Curriculum_Guidance.aspx . Accessed 18 Dec 2023.

Lovegrove M, David J. Paramedic evidence-based education project (PEEP). End of study report: Maximising paramedics’ contribution to the delivery of high quality and cost effective patient care. High Wycome: Buckinghamshire New University; 2013.

Google Scholar  

Health and Care Professions Council. HCPC Increased the Education Threshold for Paramedics. 2021. Available: https://www.hcpc-uk.org/news-and-events/news/2021/hcpc-increases-the-education-threshold-for-paramedics/ . Accessed 9 Oct 2022.

Michau R, Roberts S, Williams B, Boyle M. An investigation of theory-practice gap in undergraduate paramedic education. BMC Medical Educ. 2009;9:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-23 .

Bailey-McHale J, Hart D. Mastering Mentorship: A Practical Guide for Mentors of Nusing, Health, and Social Care Students. London: Sage; 2013.

Book   Google Scholar  

Henry-Noel N, Bishop M, Gwede CK, Petkova E, Szumacher E. Mentorship in medicine and other health professions. J Cancer Educ. 2018;34:629–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-018-1360-6 .

Cooper S. Contemporary UK paramedical training and education. How do we train? How should we educate? Emerg Med J. 2004;22(5):375–9.

E Armitage. Role of paramedic mentors in an evolving profession. J Para Prac. 2013;2(1). https://doi.org/10.12968/jpar.2010.2.1.46151

Clarke V. Practice Based Learning: A Handbook for Practice Educators and Facilitators. Bridgwater: Class Professional Publishing; 2020.

Wilkes Z. The student-mentor relationship: a review of the literature. Nurs Stand. 2006;20(37):42–7. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2006.05.20.37.42.c4160 .

Veeramah V. What are the barriers to good mentoring? Nurs Times. 2012;108(39):12–5.

Burgess A, van Diggele C, Mellis C. Mentorship in the health professions: a review. Clin Teach. 2018;15(3):197–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12756 .

Appleton-Knapp SL, Krentler KA. Measuring student expectations and their effects on satisfaction: the importance of managing student expectations. J Mark Educ. 2006;28(3):254–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475306293359 .

Taylor CA. Collaborative approach to developing “learning synergy” in primary health care. Nurse Educ Prac. 2007;7(1):18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2006.03.003 .

Flick E. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. London: SAGE; 2018.

Stewart D, Shamdasani P. Focus groups: theory and practice. California: Sage; 2015.

Roberts K, Dowell A, Nie J. Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:66.

Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic analysis. In: Rohleder P, Lyons A, editors. Handbook of Research Methods in Health and Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 1–18.

Patnaik E. Reflexivity: Situating the Researcher in Qualitative Research. Humanitis and Social Science Studies. 2013;2(2):98–106.

Stewart CA, Mitchell DGV, MacDonald PA, Pasternak SH, Tremblay PF, Finger E. The psychophysiology of guilt in healthy adults. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2023;23:1192–209. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-023-01079-3 .

Belvins S. Learning styles: the impact on education. Medsurg Nurs. 2021;30(4):285–6.

Gubbins K, Hardwick S. Practice Education in Paramedic Science: Theories and Application. Bridgwater: Class Professional Publishing; 2019.

Huskins C, Silet K, Weber-Main AM, Begg MD, Fowler VG, Hamilton J, Fleming M. Identifying and aligningexpectations in a mentoring relationship. J Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4(6):439–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00356.x .

Lane M, Rouse J, Docking RE. Mentoring within the paramedic profession: a practice educator’s perspective. Br Paramed J. 2016;1(1):2–8. https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2016.05.1.1.2 .

Graffam B. Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Med Teach. 2007;27(1):38–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590601176398 .

AS Devenish, MJ Clark, ML Flemmin. Experiences in becoming a paramedic: the professional socialization of university qualified paramedics. Creat Educ. 2016;7(6). https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.76081

Givati A, Markham C, Street K. The bargaining of professionalism in emergency care practice: NHS paramedics and higher education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;23:353–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9802-1 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am extremely grateful to my supervisors, Dr. Mick Harper and Mr. Patryk Jadzinski for their invaluable advice, continuous support, and patience during my studies. Their immense knowledge and experience has, and will continue to encourage me throughout my academic research journey. I also wish to acknowledge the University of Stirling, and thank them for funding the publication of this paper. 

The study itself was unfunded. Publishing fees have been covered by the University of Stirling after completion of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland

Megan E. Worsfold, Clare Jouanny & Ela Hamer

Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK

Stian A. Mohrsen

University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, England

Patryk Jadzinski & Mick Harper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design, study coordination, and data analysis by MW. Data collection by EH and CJ. Manuscript by MW, SM, PJ, and MH. All authors have read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan E. Worsfold .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study received gatekeeper approval from the Scottish Ambulance Service and the University of Stirling and was approved by the University of Portsmouth Ethics Committee on the 17th of February 2022 with approval number SHFEC 2022–004. All methods were carried out in line with the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research.

All participants were provided a patient information sheet and gave signed informed consent for study participation and publication of study findings. No patient identifiable data form part of this publication.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MW and SM were both affiliated with both the University of Stirling and the Scottish Ambulance Service at the time the study was conducted, but neither were directly involved with recruitment or data collection.

PJ, MH, CJ, and EH declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Worsfold, M.E., Jouanny, C., Hamer, E. et al. “This is how I'm going to do it, but this is not how you're going to do it”: the expectation gap between student paramedics and mentors in East and Central Scotland. BMC Med Educ 24 , 368 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05319-z

Download citation

Received : 20 July 2023

Accepted : 14 March 2024

Published : 03 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05319-z

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

• Expectations

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

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
• Lippincott Open Access

Identifying Research Gaps and Prioritizing Psychological Health Evidence Synthesis Needs

Susanne hempel.

* RAND Corporation, Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), Santa Monica

† University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA

Kristie Gore

‡ RAND, National Security Research Division, Arlington

Bradley Belsher

§ Defense Health Agency, Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE), Falls Church, VA

Associated Data

Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's website, www.lww-medicalcare.com .

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Evidence synthesis is key in promoting evidence-based health care, but it is resource-intense. Methods are needed to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis needs within health care systems. We describe a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.

Scoping searches targeted 15 sources, including the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Guidelines and National Defense Authorization Acts. We screened for evidence gaps in psychological health management approaches relevant to the target population. We translated gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Gaps amenable to evidence synthesis format provided the basis for stakeholder input. Stakeholders rated topics for their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. Feasibility scans determined whether topics were ready to be pursued, that is, sufficient literature exists, and duplicative efforts are avoided.

We identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. Areas included: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (19), suicide prevention (14), depression (9), bipolar disorder (9), substance use (24), traumatic brain injury (20), anxiety (1), and cross-cutting (14) synthesis topics. Stakeholder input helped prioritize 19 potential PTSD topics and 22 other psychological health topics. To date, 46 topics have undergone feasibility scans. We document lessons learned across clinical topics and research methods.

Conclusion:

We describe a transparent and structured approach to evidence synthesis topic selection for a health care system using scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis format, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.

Evidence synthesis is an essential step in promoting evidence-based medicine across health systems; it facilitates the translation of research to practice. A systematic review of the research literature on focused review questions is a key evidence synthesis approach that can inform practice and policy decisions. 1 However, systematic reviews are resource-intense undertakings. In a resource-constrained environment, before an evidence review is commissioned, the need and the feasibility of the review must be established.

Establishing the need for the review can be achieved through a research gap analysis or needs assessment. Identification of a gap serves as the first step in developing a new research question. 2 Research gaps in health care do not necessarily align directly with research needs. Research gaps are only critical where knowledge gaps substantially inhibit the decision-making ability of stakeholders such as patients, health care providers, and policymakers, thus creating a need to fill the knowledge gap. Evidence synthesis enables the assessment of whether a research gap continues to exist or whether there is adequate evidence to close the knowledge gap.

Furthermore, a gap analysis often identifies multiple, competing gaps that are worthwhile to be pursued. Given the resource requirements of formal evidence reviews, topic prioritization is needed to best allocate resources to those areas deemed the most relevant for the health system. Regardless of the topic, the prioritization process is likely to be stakeholder-dependent. Priorities for evidence synthesis will vary depending on the mission of the health care system and the local needs of the health care stakeholders. A process of stakeholder input is an important mechanism to ensure that the evidence review will meet local needs as well to identify a receptive audience of the review findings.

In addition to establishing the need for an evidence review, the feasibility of conducting the review must also be established. In conducting primary research, feasibility is often mainly a question of available resources. For evidence reviews, the resources, the availability of primary research, and the presence of existing evidence reviews on the topic need to be explored. Not all topics are amenable for a systematic review which focus on a specific range of research questions and rely heavily on published literature. Furthermore, evidence review synthesizes the existing evidence; hence, if there is insufficient evidence in the primary research literature, an evidence review is not useful. Establishing a lack of evidence is a worthwhile exercise since it identifies the need for further research. However, most health care delivery organizations will be keen to prioritize areas that can be synthesized, that is, investing in synthesizing a body of research sizable enough to derive meaningful results. For evidence reviews, the presence of existing evidence syntheses is also an important consideration, in particular, to determine the incremental validity of a new review. Although primary research benefits profoundly by replication, secondary literature, in particular in the context of existing high-quality reviews and/or limited evidence, may not add anything to our knowledge base. 3

This work describes a structured and transparent approach to identify and prioritize areas of psychological health that are important and that can be feasibly addressed by a synthesis of the research literature. It describes a collaboration between an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System (MHS) and a research center specializing in evidence synthesis.

This project is anchored in the relationship between the Defense Health Agency Psychological Health Center of Excellence (PHCoE) and the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), one of the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) dedicated to providing long-term analytic support to the Defense Health Agency. PHCoE, an agency charged with facilitating the implementation of evidence-based research and practices across the Military Health System funded a series of systematic reviews and evidence maps synthesizing psychological research. The project draws on the expertise of the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) located at RAND, a center specializing in evidence synthesis. The project included scoping searches, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans. The project is ongoing; this manuscript describes methods and results from June 2016 to September 2018. The project was assessed by our Human Subject Protection staff and determined to be exempt (date July 7, 2016, ID ND3621; August 6, 2017, ID ND3714).

The following describes the process, Figure ​ Figure1 1 provides a visual overview.

Process of identifying research gaps and prioritizing psychological health evidence synthesis needs.

Scoping Searches to Identify Evidence Synthesis Gaps

Scoping searches targeted pertinent sources for evidence gaps. The searches focused on clinical conditions and interventions relevant to psychological health, including biological psychiatry, health care services research, and mental health comorbidity. Proposed topics and study populations were not limited by deployment status or deployment eligibility, but the topic section considered the prevalence of clinical conditions among Department of Defense active duty military personnel managed by the MHS. The scoping searches excluded evidence gaps addressing children and adolescents and clinical conditions exclusively relevant to veterans managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Scoping Search Sources

We screened 15 sources in total for evidence synthesis gaps.

Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines were a key source for documented evidence gaps. 4 – 9 Recently updated guidelines were screened only for evidence gaps that indicated a lack of synthesis of existing research or content areas that were outside the scope of that guideline (guidelines rely primarily on published systematic reviews and can only review a limited number of topic areas).

We consulted the current report of the committee on armed services of the House of Representatives regarding the proposed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the report for the upcoming fiscal year. 10 , 11 We specifically screened the report for research priorities identified for psychological health. We also screened the published National Research Action Plan designed to improve access to mental health services for veterans, service members, and military families. 12

We conducted a literature search for publications dedicated to identifying evidence gaps and research needs for psychological health and traumatic brain injury. We searched for publications published since 2000–2016 in the most relevant databases, PubMed and PsycINFO, that had the words research gap, knowledge gap, or research priority in the title and addressed psychological health (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). The search retrieved 203 citations. Six publications were considered potentially relevant and obtained as full text, 1 source was subsequently excluded because the authors conducted a literature search <3 years ago and it was deemed unlikely that a new review would identify substantially more eligible studies. 13 – 19

We also used an analysis of the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in the MHS 20 to identify interventions that were popular with patients but for which potentially little evidence-based guidance exists. We focused our scoping efforts on complementary approaches such as stress management, hypnotherapy, massage, biofeedback, chiropractic, and music therapy to align with the funding scope. In the next step, we reviewed the existing clinical practice guidelines to determine whether clinicians have guidance regarding these approaches. The Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel 21 is an anonymous survey conducted every 3 years on service members with the aim of identifying interventions or health behaviors patients currently use. To address evidence gaps most relevant to patients, we screened the survey results, and then matched the more prevalent needs identified with guidance provided in relevant clinical practice guidelines.

We consulted the priority review list assembled by the Cochrane group to identify research needs for systematic reviews. We screened the 2015–2017 lists for mental health topics that are open to new authors, that is, those that do not have an author team currently dedicated to the topic. None of the currently available topics appeared relevant to psychological health and no topics were added to the table. We also consulted with ongoing federally funded projects to identify evidence gaps that were beyond the scope of the other projects. In addition, we screened a list of psychological health research priorities developed at PHCoE for knowledge gaps that could be addressed in systematic reviews or evidence maps. Finally, we screened resources available on MHS web sites for evidence gaps.

Gap Analysis Procedure and Approach to Translating Gaps into Evidence Review Format

We first screened these sources for knowledge gaps, regardless of considerations of whether the gap is amenable to evidence review. However, we did not include research gaps where the source explicitly indicated that the knowledge gap is due to the lack of primary research. We distinguished 5 evidence gap domains and abstracted gaps across pertinent areas: interventions or diagnostic questions, treatment outcomes or specific populations, and health services research and health care delivery models.

We then translated the evidence gaps into potential topics for evidence maps and/or systematic reviews. Evidence maps provide a broad overview of large research areas using data visualizations to document the presence and absence of evidence. 22 Similar to scoping reviews, evidence maps do not necessarily address the effects of interventions but can be broader in scope. Systematic reviews are a standardized research methodology designed to answer clinical and policy questions with published research using meta-analysis to estimate effect sizes and formal grading of the quality of evidence. We considered systematic reviews for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness questions regarding specific intervention and diagnostic approaches.

Stakeholder Input

Evidence synthesis gaps that were determined to be amenable to systematic review or evidence map methods provided the basis for stakeholder input. Although all topics were reviewed by project personnel, we also identified psychological health service leads for Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines within the Defense Health Agency as key stakeholders to be included in the topic selection process. To date, 2 rounds of formal ratings by stakeholders have been undertaken.

The first round focused on the need for systematic review covering issues related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The second round focused on other potential psychological health topics determined to be compatible with the MHS mission. Represented clinical areas were suicide prevention and aftercare, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, traumatic brain injury, substance use disorder including alcohol and opioid use disorder, and chronic pain. All of the potential topics addressed either the effects of clinical interventions or health service research questions.

Stakeholders rated the topics based on their potential to inform psychological health care in the military health system. The raters used a scale 5-point rating scale ranging from “No impact” to “Very high impact.” In addition, stakeholders were able to add additional suggestions for evidence review. We analyzed the mean, the mode, and individual stakeholder rating indicating “high impact” for individual topics.

Feasibility Scans

Feasibility scans provided an estimate of the volume and the type of existing research literature which is informative for 3 reasons. First, this process determined whether sufficient research was available to inform a systematic review or an evidence map. Second, feasibility scans can provide an estimate of the required resources for an evidence review by establishing whether only a small literature base or a large number of research studies exists. Finally, feasibility scans identify existing high-profile evidence synthesis reports that could make a new synthesis obsolete.

Feasibility scans for potential evidence maps concentrated on the size of the body of research that would need to be screened and the relevant synthesis questions that can inform how this research should be organized in the evidence map. Feasibility scans for systematic reviews aimed to determine the number of relevant studies, existing high-quality reviews, and the number of studies not covered in existing reviews. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the focus of most of the systematic review topics, that is, strong research evidence that could inform clinical practice guideline committees to recommend either for or against interventions. An experienced systematic reviewer used PubMed, a very well-maintained and user-friendly database for biomedical literature, developed preliminary search strategies, and applied database search filters (eg, for RCTs or systematic reviews) in preliminary literature searches to estimate the research volume for each topic.

Scans also identified any existing high-quality evidence review published by agencies specializing in unbiased evidence syntheses such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)’s Evidence-based Practice Center program, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration, the Evidence Synthesis Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Federal Health Technology Assessment program. We used the databases PubMed and PubMed Health to identify reports. We appraised the scope, relevance and publication year of the existing high-profile evidence reviews. The research base for psychological health develops rapidly and evidence syntheses need to ensure that current clinical policies reflect the best available evidence. When determining the feasibility and appropriateness of a new systematic review, we took the results of the original review and any new studies that had been published subsequent to the systematic review on the same topic into account.

The following results are described: the results of the scoping searches and gap analysis, the translation of gaps into evidence synthesis format, the stakeholder input ratings, and the feasibility scans.

Scoping Searches and Gap Analysis Results

The scoping search and gap analysis identified a large number of evidence gaps as documented in the gap analysis table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ). Across sources, we identified 58 intervention, 9 diagnostics, 12 outcome, 19 population, and 24 health services evidence synthesis gaps. The evidence gaps varied considerably with regard to scope and specificity, for example, highlighting knowledge gaps in recommendations for medications for specific clinical indications or treatment combinations 4 to pointing out to gaps in supporting caregivers. 11 The largest group of evidence gaps were documented for interventions. This included open questions for individual interventions (eg, ketamine) 12 as well as the best format and modality within an intervention domain (eg, use of telehealth). 6 Diagnostic evidence gaps included open questions regarding predictive risk factors that could be used in suicide prevention 8 and the need for personalized treatments. 12 Outcome evidence gaps often pointed to the lack of measured outcomes to include cost-effectiveness as well as the lack of knowledge on hypothesized effects, such as increased access or decreased stigma associated with technology-based modalities. 23 Population evidence gaps addressed specific patient populations such as complex patients 5 and family members of service members. 11 The health services evidence gaps addressed care support through technology (eg, videoconferencing 23 ) as well as treatment coordination within health care organizations such as how treatment for substance use disorder should be coordinated with treatment for co-occurring conditions. 4

Potential Evidence Synthesis Topics

The gaps were translated into potential evidence map or systematic review topics. This translation process took into account that some topics cannot easily be operationalized as an evidence review. For example, knowledge gaps regarding prevalence or utilization estimates were hindered by the lack of publicly available data. In addition, we noted that some review questions may require an exhaustive search and a full-text review of the literature because the information cannot be searched for directly, and hence were outside the budget restraints.

The clinical areas and number of topics were: PTSD (n=19), suicide prevention (n=14), depression (n=9), bipolar disorder (n=9), substance use (n=24), traumatic brain injury (n=20), anxiety (n=1), and cross-cutting (n=14) evidence synthesis topics. All topic areas are documented in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).

Stakeholder Input Results

Stakeholders rated 19 PTSD-related research gaps and suggested an additional 5 topics for evidence review, addressing both preventions as well as treatment topics. Mean ratings for topics ranged from 1.75 to 3.5 on a scale from 0 (no impact potential) to 4 (high potential for impact). Thus, although identified as research gaps, the potential of an evidence review to have an important impact on the MHS varied across the topics. Only 2 topics received a mean score of ≥3 (high potential), including predictors of PTSD treatment retention and response and PTSD treatment dosing, duration, and sequencing . In addition, raters’ opinions varied considerably across some topics with SDs ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 across all topics.

The stakeholders rated 22 other psychological health topics, suggested 2 additional topics for evidence review, and revised 2 original topics indicating which aspect of the research gap would be most important to address. Mean scores for the rated topics ranged from 0.25 to 3.75, with the SDs for each item ranging from 0 to 1.4. Six topics received an average score of ≥3, primarily focused on the topics of suicide prevention, substance use disorders, and telehealth interventions. Opinions on other topics varied widely across service leads.

Feasibility Scan Results

Evidence review topics that were rated by stakeholders as having some potential for impact (using a rating cutoff score>1) within the MHS were selected for formal feasibility scans. To date, 46 topics have been subjected to feasibility scans. Of these, 11 were evaluated as potential evidence map, 17 as a systematic review, and 18 as either at the time of the topic suggestion. The results of the feasibility scans are documented in the table in the Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B836 ).

The feasibility scan result table shows the topic, topic modification suggestions based on literature reviews, and the mean stakeholder impact rating. The table shows the employed search strategy to determine the feasibility; the estimated number of RCTs in the database PubMed; the number and citation of Cochrane, Evidence Synthesis Program, and Health Technology Assessment reviews, that is, high-quality syntheses; and the estimated number of RCTs published after the latest existing systematic review that had been published on the topic.

Each potential evidence review topic was discussed in a narrative review report that documented the reason for determining the topic to be feasible or not feasible. Reasons for determining the topic to be not feasible included the lack of primary research for an evidence map or systematic review, the presence of an ongoing research project that may influence the evidence review scope, and the presence of an existing high-quality evidence review. Some topics were shown to be feasible upon further modification; this included topics that were partially addressed in existing reviews or topics where the review scope would need to be substantially changed to result in a high-impact evidence review. Topics to be judged feasible met all outlined criteria, that is, the topic could be addressed in a systematic review or evidence map, there were sufficient studies to justify a review, and the review would not merely replicate an existing review but make a novel contribution to the evidence base.

The project describes a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize evidence synthesis topics using scoping reviews, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans.

The work demonstrates an approach to establishing and evaluating evidence synthesis gaps. It has been repeatedly noted that research gap analyses often lack transparency with little information on analytic criteria and selection processes. 24 , 25 In addition, research need identification may not be informed by systematic literature searches documenting gaps but primarily rely on often unstructured content expert input. 26 , 27 Evidence synthesis needs assessment is a new field that to date has received very little attention. However, as health care delivery organizations move towards providing evidence-based treatments and the existing research continue to grow, both evidence reviews and evidence review gap identification and prioritization will become more prominent.

One of the lessons learned is that the topic selection process added to the timeline and required additional resources. The scoping searches, translation into evidence synthesis topics, stakeholder input, and feasibility scans each added time and the project required a longer period of performance compared to previous evidence synthesis projects. The project components were undertaken sequentially and had to be divided into topic areas. For example, it was deemed too much to ask for stakeholder input for all 122 topics identified as potential evidence review topics. Furthermore, we needed to be flexible to be able to respond to unanticipated congressional requests for evidence reviews. However, our process of identifying synthesis gaps, checking whether topics can be translated into syntheses, obtaining stakeholder input to ensure that the gaps are meaningful and need filling, and estimating the feasibility and avoiding duplicative efforts, has merit considering the alternative. More targeted funding of evidence syntheses ensures relevance and while resources need to be spent on the steps we are describing, these are small investments compared to the resources required for a full systematic review or evidence map.

The documented stakeholder engagement approach was useful for many reasons, not just for ensuring that the selection of evidence synthesis topics was transparent and structured. The stakeholders were alerted to the evidence synthesis project and provided input for further topic refinement. This process also supported the identification of a ‘customer’ after the review was completed, that is, a stakeholder who is keen on using the evidence review is likely to take action on its results and ready to translate the findings into clinical practice. The research to practice gap is substantial and the challenges of translating research to practice are widely documented. 28 – 30 Inefficient research translation delays delivery of proven clinical practices and can lead to wasteful research and practice investments.

The project had several strengths and limitations. The project describes a successful, transparent, and structured process to engage stakeholders and identifies important and feasible evidence review topics. However, the approach was developed to address the specific military psychological health care system needs, and therefore the process may not be generalizable to all other health care delivery organizations. Source selection was tailored to psychological health synthesis needs and process modifications (ie, sources to identify gaps) are needed for organizations aiming to establish a similar procedure. To keep the approach manageable, feasibility scans used only 1 database and we developed only preliminary, not comprehensive searches. Hence, some uncertainty about the true evidence base for the different topics remained; feasibility scans can only estimate the available research. Furthermore, the selected stakeholders were limited to a small number of service leads. A broader panel of stakeholders would have likely provided additional input. In addition, all evaluations of the literature relied on the expertise of experienced systematic reviewers; any replication of the process will require some staff with expertise in the evidence review. Finally, as outlined, all described processes added to the project timeline compounding the challenges of providing timely systematic reviews for practitioners and policymakers. 31 , 32

We have described a transparent and structured approach to identify and prioritize areas of evidence synthesis for a health care system. Scoping searches and feasibility scans identified gaps in the literature that would benefit from evidence review. Stakeholder input helped ensure the relevance of review topics and created a receptive audience for targeted evidence synthesis. The approach aims to advance the field of evidence synthesis needs assessment.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors thank Laura Raaen, Margaret Maglione, Gulrez Azhar, Margie Danz, and Thomas Concannon for content input and Aneesa Motala and Naemma Golshan for administrative assistance.

Supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Psychological Health Center of Excellence. The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Psychological Health Center of Excellence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or the United States government.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• College of Arts & Sciences
• Graduate Division
• College of Liberal and Professional Studies

Ellen Bryer, PhD Candidate in Sociology, and Alexander Adames, Presidential Postdoctoral Research Fellow, published an article in Social Science Research, titled, "The Development of Racial Wealth Gaps in Early Adulthood"

Ellen Bryer , PhD Candidate in Sociology, and Alexander Adames , Presidential   Postdoctoral Research Fellow ,  published an article in  Social Science Research , titled, " The Development of Racial Wealth Gaps in Early Adulthood ." This paper was started as a final paper in Xi Song's (Assistant Professor of Sociology) Panel Data Analysis class. Abstract: While much research has documented stark racial gaps in total net worth, few studies have examined the development of racial gaps across different types of assets using longitudinal data. Drawing on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1997), we study the emergence of Black-White and Hispanic-White wealth gaps across different types of assets and debt among a recent cohort of young adults. We find that the gaps in net worth, financial assets, home equity, and debt all increase over time. The racial gaps in financial assets widen at a rate that exceeds the corresponding gaps in other components of net worth. Indeed, a decomposition analysis reveals that financial assets contribute more than home equity to exacerbating net worth disparities. Our findings underscore the unique role that financial assets play in expanding racial wealth gaps in young adulthood. Access the paper here ➡️   " The Development of Racial Wealth Gaps in Early Adulthood "

© 2024 The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

Report Accessibility Issues and Get Help

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.