recommendation of research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on September 15, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on July 18, 2023.

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyze the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic. Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

Recommendations for future research should be:

• Concrete and specific
• Supported with a clear rationale
• Directly connected to your research

Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

• Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
• Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
• Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question   conclusion  recommendation. Here’s an example.

Conclusion An important condition for controlling many social skills is mastering language. If children have a better command of language, they can express themselves better and are better able to understand their peers. Opportunities to practice social skills are thus dependent on the development of language skills.

As a rule of thumb, try to limit yourself to only the most relevant future recommendations: ones that stem directly from your work. While you can have multiple recommendations for each research conclusion, it is also acceptable to have one recommendation that is connected to more than one conclusion.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar subjects to your paper or dissertation topic . They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Survivorship bias
• Self-serving bias
• Availability heuristic
• Halo effect
• Hindsight bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Important evidence or analysis that wasn’t mentioned in the discussion section and results section
• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion …”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g., “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2023, July 18). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved August 5, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/recommendations-in-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Recommendations

Definition:

Research recommendations refer to suggestions or advice given to someone who is looking to conduct research on a specific topic or area. These recommendations may include suggestions for research methods, data collection techniques, sources of information, and other factors that can help to ensure that the research is conducted in a rigorous and effective manner. Research recommendations may be provided by experts in the field, such as professors, researchers, or consultants, and are intended to help guide the researcher towards the most appropriate and effective approach to their research project.

Parts of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations can vary depending on the specific project or area of research, but typically they will include some or all of the following parts:

• Research question or objective : This is the overarching goal or purpose of the research project.
• Research methods : This includes the specific techniques and strategies that will be used to collect and analyze data. The methods will depend on the research question and the type of data being collected.
• Data collection: This refers to the process of gathering information or data that will be used to answer the research question. This can involve a range of different methods, including surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments.
• Data analysis : This involves the process of examining and interpreting the data that has been collected. This can involve statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a combination of both.
• Results and conclusions: This section summarizes the findings of the research and presents any conclusions or recommendations based on those findings.
• Limitations and future research: This section discusses any limitations of the study and suggests areas for future research that could build on the findings of the current project.

How to Write Research Recommendations

Writing research recommendations involves providing specific suggestions or advice to a researcher on how to conduct their study. Here are some steps to consider when writing research recommendations:

• Understand the research question: Before writing research recommendations, it is important to have a clear understanding of the research question and the objectives of the study. This will help to ensure that the recommendations are relevant and appropriate.
• Consider the research methods: Consider the most appropriate research methods that could be used to collect and analyze data that will address the research question. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different methods and how they might apply to the specific research question.
• Provide specific recommendations: Provide specific and actionable recommendations that the researcher can implement in their study. This can include recommendations related to sample size, data collection techniques, research instruments, data analysis methods, or other relevant factors.
• Justify recommendations : Justify why each recommendation is being made and how it will help to address the research question or objective. It is important to provide a clear rationale for each recommendation to help the researcher understand why it is important.
• Consider limitations and ethical considerations : Consider any limitations or potential ethical considerations that may arise in conducting the research. Provide recommendations for addressing these issues or mitigating their impact.
• Summarize recommendations: Provide a summary of the recommendations at the end of the report or document, highlighting the most important points and emphasizing how the recommendations will contribute to the overall success of the research project.

Example of Research Recommendations

Example of Research Recommendations sample for students:

• Further investigate the effects of X on Y by conducting a larger-scale randomized controlled trial with a diverse population.
• Explore the relationship between A and B by conducting qualitative interviews with individuals who have experience with both.
• Investigate the long-term effects of intervention C by conducting a follow-up study with participants one year after completion.
• Examine the effectiveness of intervention D in a real-world setting by conducting a field study in a naturalistic environment.
• Compare and contrast the results of this study with those of previous research on the same topic to identify any discrepancies or inconsistencies in the findings.
• Expand upon the limitations of this study by addressing potential confounding variables and conducting further analyses to control for them.
• Investigate the relationship between E and F by conducting a meta-analysis of existing literature on the topic.
• Explore the potential moderating effects of variable G on the relationship between H and I by conducting subgroup analyses.
• Identify potential areas for future research based on the gaps in current literature and the findings of this study.
• Conduct a replication study to validate the results of this study and further establish the generalizability of the findings.

Applications of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations are important as they provide guidance on how to improve or solve a problem. The applications of research recommendations are numerous and can be used in various fields. Some of the applications of research recommendations include:

• Policy-making: Research recommendations can be used to develop policies that address specific issues. For example, recommendations from research on climate change can be used to develop policies that reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainability.
• Program development: Research recommendations can guide the development of programs that address specific issues. For example, recommendations from research on education can be used to develop programs that improve student achievement.
• Product development : Research recommendations can guide the development of products that meet specific needs. For example, recommendations from research on consumer behavior can be used to develop products that appeal to consumers.
• Marketing strategies: Research recommendations can be used to develop effective marketing strategies. For example, recommendations from research on target audiences can be used to develop marketing strategies that effectively reach specific demographic groups.
• Medical practice : Research recommendations can guide medical practitioners in providing the best possible care to patients. For example, recommendations from research on treatments for specific conditions can be used to improve patient outcomes.
• Scientific research: Research recommendations can guide future research in a specific field. For example, recommendations from research on a specific disease can be used to guide future research on treatments and cures for that disease.

Purpose of Research Recommendations

The purpose of research recommendations is to provide guidance on how to improve or solve a problem based on the findings of research. Research recommendations are typically made at the end of a research study and are based on the conclusions drawn from the research data. The purpose of research recommendations is to provide actionable advice to individuals or organizations that can help them make informed decisions, develop effective strategies, or implement changes that address the issues identified in the research.

The main purpose of research recommendations is to facilitate the transfer of knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders who can benefit from the research findings. Recommendations can help bridge the gap between research and practice by providing specific actions that can be taken based on the research results. By providing clear and actionable recommendations, researchers can help ensure that their findings are put into practice, leading to improvements in various fields, such as healthcare, education, business, and public policy.

Characteristics of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations are a key component of research studies and are intended to provide practical guidance on how to apply research findings to real-world problems. The following are some of the key characteristics of research recommendations:

• Actionable : Research recommendations should be specific and actionable, providing clear guidance on what actions should be taken to address the problem identified in the research.
• Evidence-based: Research recommendations should be based on the findings of the research study, supported by the data collected and analyzed.
• Contextual: Research recommendations should be tailored to the specific context in which they will be implemented, taking into account the unique circumstances and constraints of the situation.
• Feasible : Research recommendations should be realistic and feasible, taking into account the available resources, time constraints, and other factors that may impact their implementation.
• Prioritized: Research recommendations should be prioritized based on their potential impact and feasibility, with the most important recommendations given the highest priority.
• Communicated effectively: Research recommendations should be communicated clearly and effectively, using language that is understandable to the target audience.
• Evaluated : Research recommendations should be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in addressing the problem identified in the research, and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Advantages of Research Recommendations

Research recommendations have several advantages, including:

• Providing practical guidance: Research recommendations provide practical guidance on how to apply research findings to real-world problems, helping to bridge the gap between research and practice.
• Improving decision-making: Research recommendations help decision-makers make informed decisions based on the findings of research, leading to better outcomes and improved performance.
• Enhancing accountability : Research recommendations can help enhance accountability by providing clear guidance on what actions should be taken, and by providing a basis for evaluating progress and outcomes.
• Informing policy development : Research recommendations can inform the development of policies that are evidence-based and tailored to the specific needs of a given situation.
• Enhancing knowledge transfer: Research recommendations help facilitate the transfer of knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or other stakeholders who can benefit from the research findings.
• Encouraging further research : Research recommendations can help identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further research, encouraging continued exploration and discovery.
• Promoting innovation: Research recommendations can help identify innovative solutions to complex problems, leading to new ideas and approaches.

Limitations of Research Recommendations

While research recommendations have several advantages, there are also some limitations to consider. These limitations include:

• Context-specific: Research recommendations may be context-specific and may not be applicable in all situations. Recommendations developed in one context may not be suitable for another context, requiring adaptation or modification.
• I mplementation challenges: Implementation of research recommendations may face challenges, such as lack of resources, resistance to change, or lack of buy-in from stakeholders.
• Limited scope: Research recommendations may be limited in scope, focusing only on a specific issue or aspect of a problem, while other important factors may be overlooked.
• Uncertainty : Research recommendations may be uncertain, particularly when the research findings are inconclusive or when the recommendations are based on limited data.
• Bias : Research recommendations may be influenced by researcher bias or conflicts of interest, leading to recommendations that are not in the best interests of stakeholders.
• Timing : Research recommendations may be time-sensitive, requiring timely action to be effective. Delayed action may result in missed opportunities or reduced effectiveness.
• Lack of evaluation: Research recommendations may not be evaluated to determine their effectiveness or impact, making it difficult to assess whether they are successful or not.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Assignment – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Techniques – Methods, Types and Examples

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

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 exploration. In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and an ever-expanding knowledge base, refining the process of generating research recommendations becomes imperative.

But, what is a research recommendation?

Research recommendations are suggestions or advice provided to researchers to guide their study on a specific topic . They are typically given by experts in the field. Research recommendations are more action-oriented and provide specific guidance for decision-makers, unlike implications that are broader and focus on the broader significance and consequences of the research findings. However, both are crucial components of a research study.

Difference Between Research Recommendations and Implication

Although research recommendations and implications are distinct components of a research study, they are closely related. The differences between them are as follows:

Types of Research Recommendations

Recommendations in research can take various forms, which are as follows:

These recommendations aim to assist researchers in navigating the vast landscape of academic knowledge.

Let us dive deeper to know about its key components and the steps to write an impactful research recommendation.

Key Components of Research Recommendations

The key components of research recommendations include defining the research question or objective, specifying research methods, outlining data collection and analysis processes, presenting results and conclusions, addressing limitations, and suggesting areas for future research. Here are some characteristics of research recommendations:

Research recommendations offer various advantages and play a crucial role in ensuring that research findings contribute to positive outcomes in various fields. However, they also have few limitations which highlights the significance of a well-crafted research recommendation in offering the promised advantages.

The importance of research recommendations ranges in various fields, influencing policy-making, program development, product development, marketing strategies, medical practice, and scientific research. Their purpose is to transfer knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, or stakeholders, facilitating informed decision-making and improving outcomes in different domains.

How to Write Research Recommendations?

Research recommendations can be generated through various means, including algorithmic approaches, expert opinions, or collaborative filtering techniques. Here is a step-wise guide to build your understanding on the development of research recommendations.

1. Understand the Research Question:

Understand the research question and objectives before writing recommendations. Also, ensure that your recommendations are relevant and directly address the goals of the study.

2. Review Existing Literature:

Familiarize yourself with relevant existing literature to help you identify gaps , and offer informed recommendations that contribute to the existing body of research.

3. Consider Research Methods:

Evaluate the appropriateness of different research methods in addressing the research question. Also, consider the nature of the data, the study design, and the specific objectives.

4. Identify Data Collection Techniques:

Gather dataset from diverse authentic sources. Include information such as keywords, abstracts, authors, publication dates, and citation metrics to provide a rich foundation for analysis.

5. Propose Data Analysis Methods:

Suggest appropriate data analysis methods based on the type of data collected. Consider whether statistical analysis, qualitative analysis, or a mixed-methods approach is most suitable.

6. Consider Limitations and Ethical Considerations:

Acknowledge any limitations and potential ethical considerations of the study. Furthermore, address these limitations or mitigate ethical concerns to ensure responsible research.

7. Justify Recommendations:

Explain how your recommendation contributes to addressing the research question or objective. Provide a strong rationale to help researchers understand the importance of following your suggestions.

8. Summarize Recommendations:

Provide a concise summary at the end of the report to emphasize how following these recommendations will contribute to the overall success of the research project.

By following these steps, you can create research recommendations that are actionable and contribute meaningfully to the success of the research project.

Download now to unlock some tips to improve your journey of writing research recommendations.

Example of a Research Recommendation

Here is an example of a research recommendation based on a hypothetical research to improve your understanding.

Research Recommendation: Enhancing Student Learning through Integrated Learning Platforms

Background:

The research study investigated the impact of an integrated learning platform on student learning outcomes in high school mathematics classes. The findings revealed a statistically significant improvement in student performance and engagement when compared to traditional teaching methods.

Recommendation:

In light of the research findings, it is recommended that educational institutions consider adopting and integrating the identified learning platform into their mathematics curriculum. The following specific recommendations are provided:

• Implementation of the Integrated Learning Platform:

Schools are encouraged to adopt the integrated learning platform in mathematics classrooms, ensuring proper training for teachers on its effective utilization.

• Professional Development for Educators:

Develop and implement professional programs to train educators in the effective use of the integrated learning platform to address any challenges teachers may face during the transition.

• Monitoring and Evaluation:

Establish a monitoring and evaluation system to track the impact of the integrated learning platform on student performance over time.

• Resource Allocation:

Allocate sufficient resources, both financial and technical, to support the widespread implementation of the integrated learning platform.

By implementing these recommendations, educational institutions can harness the potential of the integrated learning platform and enhance student learning experiences and academic achievements in mathematics.

This example covers the components of a research recommendation, providing specific actions based on the research findings, identifying the target audience, and outlining practical steps for implementation.

Using AI in Research Recommendation Writing

Enhancing research recommendations is an ongoing endeavor that requires the integration of cutting-edge technologies, collaborative efforts, and ethical considerations. By embracing data-driven approaches and leveraging advanced technologies, the research community can create more effective and personalized recommendation systems. However, it is accompanied by several limitations. Therefore, it is essential to approach the use of AI in research with a critical mindset, and complement its capabilities with human expertise and judgment.

Here are some limitations of integrating AI in writing research recommendation and some ways on how to counter them.

1. Data Bias

AI systems rely heavily on data for training. If the training data is biased or incomplete, the AI model may produce biased results or recommendations.

How to tackle: Audit regularly the model’s performance to identify any discrepancies and adjust the training data and algorithms accordingly.

2. Lack of Understanding of Context:

AI models may struggle to understand the nuanced context of a particular research problem. They may misinterpret information, leading to inaccurate recommendations.

How to tackle: Use AI to characterize research articles and topics. Employ them to extract features like keywords, authorship patterns and content-based details.

3. Ethical Considerations:

AI models might stereotype certain concepts or generate recommendations that could have negative consequences for certain individuals or groups.

How to tackle: Incorporate user feedback mechanisms to reduce redundancies. Establish an ethics review process for AI models in research recommendation writing.

4. Lack of Creativity and Intuition:

AI may struggle with tasks that require a deep understanding of the underlying principles or the ability to think outside the box.

How to tackle: Hybrid approaches can be employed by integrating AI in data analysis and identifying patterns for accelerating the data interpretation process.

5. Interpretability:

Many AI models, especially complex deep learning models, lack transparency on how the model arrived at a particular recommendation.

How to tackle: Implement models like decision trees or linear models. Provide clear explanation of the model architecture, training process, and decision-making criteria.

6. Dynamic Nature of Research:

Research fields are dynamic, and new information is constantly emerging. AI models may struggle to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape and may not be able to adapt to new developments.

How to tackle: Establish a feedback loop for continuous improvement. Regularly update the recommendation system based on user feedback and emerging research trends.

The integration of AI in research recommendation writing holds great promise for advancing knowledge and streamlining the research process. However, navigating these concerns is pivotal in ensuring the responsible deployment of these technologies. Researchers need to understand the use of responsible use of AI in research and must be aware of the ethical considerations.

Exploring research recommendations plays a critical role in shaping the trajectory of scientific inquiry. It serves as a compass, guiding researchers toward more robust methodologies, collaborative endeavors, and innovative approaches. Embracing these suggestions not only enhances the quality of individual studies but also contributes to the collective advancement of human understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

The purpose of recommendations in research is to provide practical and actionable suggestions based on the study's findings, guiding future actions, policies, or interventions in a specific field or context. Recommendations bridges the gap between research outcomes and their real-world application.

To make a research recommendation, analyze your findings, identify key insights, and propose specific, evidence-based actions. Include the relevance of the recommendations to the study's objectives and provide practical steps for implementation.

Begin a recommendation by succinctly summarizing the key findings of the research. Clearly state the purpose of the recommendation and its intended impact. Use a direct and actionable language to convey the suggested course of action.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Industry News

Google Releases 2024 Scholar Metrics, Evaluates Impact of Scholarly Articles

Google has released its 2024 Scholar Metrics, assessing scholarly articles from 2019 to 2023. This…

• Career Corner
• Reporting Research

How to Create a Poster That Stands Out: Tips for a smooth poster presentation

It was the conference season. Judy was excited to present her first poster! She had…

• Diversity and Inclusion

6 Reasons Why There is a Decline in Higher Education Enrollment: Action plan to overcome this crisis

Over the past decade, colleges and universities across the globe have witnessed a concerning trend…

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

How to Effectively Cite a PDF (APA, MLA, AMA, and Chicago Style)

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

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.

• Publishing Research
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer-Review Week 2023
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

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

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What are Implications and Recommendations in Research? How to Write It, with Examples

Highly cited research articles often contain both implications and recommendations , but there is often some confusion around the difference between implications and recommendations in research. Implications of a study are the impact your research makes in your chosen area; they discuss how the findings of the study may be important to justify further exploration of your research topic. Research recommendations suggest future actions or subsequent steps supported by your research findings. It helps to improve your field of research or cross-disciplinary fields through future research or provides frameworks for decision-makers or policymakers. Recommendations are the action plan you propose based on the outcome.

In this article, we aim to simplify these concepts for researchers by providing key insights on the following:  

• what are implications in research 
• what is recommendation in research 
• differences between implications and recommendations 
• how to write implications in research 
• how to write recommendation in research 
• sample recommendation in research 

Table of Contents

What are implications in research

The implications in research explain what the findings of the study mean to researchers or to certain subgroups or populations beyond the basic interpretation of results. Even if your findings fail to bring radical or disruptive changes to existing ways of doing things, they might have important implications for future research studies. For example, your proposed method for operating remote-controlled robots could be more precise, efficient, or cheaper than existing methods, or the remote-controlled robot could be used in other application areas. This could enable more researchers to study a specific problem or open up new research opportunities.   

Implications in research inform how the findings, drawn from your results, may be important for and impact policy, practice, theory, and subsequent research. Implications may be theoretical or practical. 1  

• Practical implications are potential values of the study with practical or real outcomes . Determining the practical implications of several solutions can aid in identifying optimal solution results. For example, clinical research or research on classroom learning mostly has practical implications in research . If you developed a new teaching method, the implication would be how teachers can use that method based on your findings.  
• Theoretical implications in research constitute additions to existing theories or establish new theories. These types of implications in research characterize the ability of research to influence society in apparent ways. It is, at most, an educated guess (theoretical) about the possible implication of action and need not be as absolute as practical implications in research . If your study supported the tested theory, the theoretical implication would be that the theory can explain the investigated phenomenon. Else, your study may serve as a basis for modifying the theory. Theories may be partially supported as well, implying further study of the theory or necessary modifications are required.  

What are recommendations in research?

Recommendations in research can be considered an important segment of the analysis phase. Recommendations allow you to suggest specific interventions or strategies to address the issues and constraints identified through your study. It responds to key findings arrived at through data collection and analysis. A process of prioritization can help you narrow down important findings for which recommendations are developed.  

Recommendations in research examples

Recommendations in research may vary depending on the purpose or beneficiary as seen in the table below.  

Table: Recommendations in research examples based on purpose and beneficiary  

If you’re wondering how to make recommendations in research . You can use the simple  recommendation in research example below as a handy template.  

Table: Sample recommendation in research template  

Basic differences between implications and recommendations in research

Implications and recommendations in research are two important aspects of a research paper or your thesis or dissertation. Implications discuss the importance of the research findings, while recommendations offer specific actions to solve a problem. So, the basic difference between the two is in their function and the questions asked to achieve it. The following table highlights the main differences between implications and recommendations in research .  

Table: Differences between implications and recommendations in research  

Where do implications go in your research paper

Because the implications and recommendations of the research are based on study findings, both are usually written after the completion of a study. There is no specific section dedicated to implications in research ; they are usually integrated into the discussion section adding evidence as to why the results are meaningful and what they add to the field. Implications can be written after summarizing your main findings and before the recommendations and conclusion.   

Implications can also be presented in the conclusion section after a short summary of the study results.   

How to write implications in research

Implication means something that is inferred. The implications of your research are derived from the importance of your work and how it will impact future research. It is based on how previous studies have advanced your field and how your study can add to that.   

When figuring out how to write implications in research , a good strategy is to separate it into the different types of implications in research , such as social, political, technological, policy-related, or others. As mentioned earlier, the most frequently used are the theoretical and practical implications.   

Next, you need to ask, “Who will benefit the most from reading my paper?” Is it policymakers, physicians, the public, or other researchers? Once you know your target population, explain how your findings can help them.  

The implication section can include a paragraph or two that asserts the practical or managerial implications and links it to the study findings. A discussion can then follow, demonstrating that the findings can be practically implemented or how they will benefit a specific audience. The writer is given a specific degree of freedom when writing research implications , depending on the type of implication in research you want to discuss: practical or theoretical. Each is discussed differently, using different words or in separate sections. The implications can be based on how the findings in your study are similar or dissimilar to that in previous studies. Your study may reaffirm or disprove the results of other studies, which has important implications in research . You can also suggest future research directions in the light of your findings or require further research to confirm your findings, which are all crucial implications. Most importantly, ensure the implications in research are specific and that your tone reflects the strength of your findings without exaggerating your results.   

Implications in research can begin with the following specific sentence structures:  

• These findings suggest that…
• These results build on existing body of evidence of…
• These results should be considered when…
• While previous research focused on x, our results show that y…

What should recommendations in research look like?

Recommendations for future research should be:  

• Directly related to your research question or findings  
• Concrete and specific  
• Supported by a clear reasoning  

The recommendations in research can be based on the following factors:  

1. Beneficiary: A paper’s research contribution may be aimed at single or multiple beneficiaries, based on which recommendations can vary. For instance, if your research is about the quality of care in hospitals, the research recommendation to different beneficiaries might be as follows:  

• Nursing staff: Staff should undergo training to enhance their understanding of what quality of care entails.  
• Health science educators: Educators must design training modules that address quality-related issues in the hospital.  
• Hospital management: Develop policies that will increase staff participation in training related to health science.  

2. Limitations: The best way to figure out what to include in your research recommendations is to understand the limitations of your study. It could be based on factors that you have overlooked or could not consider in your present study. Accordingly, the researcher can recommend that other researchers approach the problem from a different perspective, dimension, or methodology. For example, research into the quality of care in hospitals can be based on quantitative data. The researcher can then recommend a qualitative study of factors influencing the quality of care, or they can suggest investigating the problem from the perspective of patients rather than the healthcare providers.   

3. Theory or Practice: Your recommendations in research could be implementation-oriented or further research-oriented.   

4. Your research: Research recommendations can be based on your topic, research objectives, literature review, and analysis, or evidence collected. For example, if your data points to the role of faculty involvement in developing effective programs, recommendations in research can include developing policies to increase faculty participation. Take a look at the evidence-based recommendation in research example s provided below.   

Table: Example of evidence-based research recommendation  

Avoid making the following mistakes when writing research recommendations :  

• Don’t undermine your own work: Recommendations in research should offer suggestions on how future studies can be built upon the current study as a natural extension of your work and not as an entirely new field of research.  
• Support your study arguments: Ensure that your research findings stand alone on their own merits to showcase the strength of your research paper.   

How to write recommendations in research

When writing research recommendations , your focus should be on highlighting what additional work can be done in that field. It gives direction to researchers, industries, or governments about changes or developments possible in this field. For example, recommendations in research can include practical and obtainable strategies offering suggestions to academia to address problems. It can also be a framework that helps government agencies in developing strategic or long-term plans for timely actions against disasters or aid nation-building.  

There are a few SMART 2 things to remember when writing recommendations in research. Your recommendations must be: 

• S pecific: Clearly state how challenges can be addressed for better outcomes and include an action plan that shows what can be achieved. 
• M easurable: Use verbs denoting measurable outcomes, such as identify, analyze, design, compute, assess, evaluate, revise, plan, etc., to strengthen recommendations in research .   
• A ttainable: Recommendations should offer a solution-oriented approach to problem-solving and must be written in a way that is easy to follow.  
• R elevant: Research recommendations should be reasonable, realistic, and result-based. Make sure to suggest future possibilities for your research field.  
• T imely: Time-based or time-sensitive recommendations in research help divide the action plan into long-term or short-term (immediate) goals. A timeline can also inform potential readers of what developments should occur over time.  

If you are wondering how many words to include in your research recommendation , a general rule of thumb would be to set aside 5% of the total word count for writing research recommendations . Finally, when writing the research implications and recommendations , stick to the facts and avoid overstating or over-generalizing the study findings. Both should be supported by evidence gathered through your data analysis.  

References:  

• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.  Psychological bulletin ,  124 (2), 262.
• Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.  Manag Rev ,  70 (11), 35-36.

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

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

What is IMRaD Format in Research?

What is a Review Article? How to Write it?

• How it works

How To Write Recommendations In A Research Study

Published by Alvin Nicolas at July 12th, 2024 , Revised On July 12, 2024

The ultimate goal of any research process is not just to gather knowledge, but to use that knowledge to make a positive impact. This is where recommendations come in.  A well-written recommendations section in your research study translates your findings into actionable steps and guides future research on the topic. 

This blog is your ultimate guide to understanding how to write recommendations in a research study. But before that, let’s see what is recommendation in research. 

What Is Recommendation In Research 

In a research study, the recommendation section refers to a suggested course of action based on the findings of your research . It acts as a bridge between the knowledge you gained and its practical implications. 

Recommendations take your research results and propose concrete steps on how to use them to address a problem or improve a situation. Moreover, you can suggest new avenues and guide future research in building upon your work. This will improve the credibility of your research. For studies that include real-world implications, recommendations are a great way to provide evidence-based suggestions for policymakers or practitioners to consider. 

Difference Between Research Recommendations and Implication

Research recommendations and implications often confuse researchers. They cannot easily differentiate between the two. Here is how they are different. 

Where To Add Recommendations 

Recommendations are mostly part of your conclusion and discussion sections. If you are writing a practical dissertation , you can include a separate section for your recommendations. 

Types of Research Recommendations

There are different forms of recommendations in research. Some of them include the following. 

How To Construct The Recommendations Section

There are different ways in which different scholars write the recommendations section. A general observation is a research question → conclusion → recommendation.

The following example will help you understand this better.

Research Question

How can the education of mothers impact the social skills of kindergarten children?

The role of mothers is a significant contributor towards the social skills of children. From an early age, kids tend to observe how their mother interacts with others and follow in her footsteps initially. Therefore, mothers should be educated and interact with good demeanour if they want their children to have excellent social skills.

Recommendation

The study revealed that a mother’s education plays an important role in building the social skills of children on kindergarten level. Future research could explore how the same continues in junior school level children.

How To Write Recommendations In Research

Now that you are familiar with the definition and types, here is a step-by-step guide on how to write a recommendation in research.

Step 1: Revisit Your Research Goals

Before doing anything else, you have to remind yourself of the objectives that you set out to achieve in your research. It allows you to match your recommendations directly to your research questions and see if you made any contribution to your goals.

Step 2: Analyse Your Findings

You have to examine your data and identify your key results. This analysis forms the foundation for your recommendations. Look for patterns and unexpected findings that might suggest new areas for other researchers to explore.

Step 3: Consider The Research Methods

Ask these questions from yourself: were the research methods effective? Is there any other way that would have been better to perform this research, or were there any limitations associated with the research methods?

Step 4: Prioritise Recommendations

You might have a lot of recommendations in mind, but all are not equal. You have to consider the impact and feasibility of each suggestion. Prioritise these recommendations, while remaining realistic about implementation.

Step 5: Write Actionable Statements

Do not be vague when crafting statements. Instead, you have to use clear and concise language that outlines specific actions. For example, if you want to say “improve education practices,” you could write “implement a teacher training program” for better clarity.

Step 6: Provide Evidence

You cannot just make suggestions out of thin air, and have to ground them in the evidence you have gathered through your research. Moreover, cite relevant data or findings from your study or previous literature to support your recommendations.

Step 7: Address Challenges

There are always some limitations related to the research at hand. As a researcher, it is your duty to highlight and address any challenges faced or what might occur in the future.

Tips For Writing The Perfect Recommendation In Research

Use these tips to write the perfect recommendation in your research.

• Be Concise – Write recommendations in a clear and concise language. Use one sentence statements to look more professional.
• Be Logical & Coherent – You can use lists and headings according to the requirements of your university.
• Tailor According To Your Readers – You have to aim your recommendations to a specific audience and colleagues in the field of study.
• Provide Specific Suggestions – Offer specific measures and solutions to the issues, and focus on actionable suggestions.
• Match Recommendations To Your Conclusion – You have to align your recommendations with your conclusion.
• Consider Limitations – Use critical thinking to see how limitations may impact the feasibility of your solutions.
• End With A Summary – You have to add a small conclusion to highlight suggestions and their impact.

Example Of Recommendation In Research

Context of the study:

This research studies how effective e-learning platforms are for adult language learners compared to traditional classroom instruction. The findings suggest that e-learning platforms can be just as effective as traditional classrooms in improving language proficiency.

Research Recommendation Sample

Language educators can incorporate e-learning tools into existing curriculums to provide learners with more flexibility. Additionally, they can develop training programs for educators on how to integrate e-learning platforms into their teaching practices.

E-learning platform developers should focus on e-learning platforms that are interactive and cater to different learning styles. They can also invest in features that promote learner autonomy and self-directed learning.

Future researchers can further explore the long-term effects of e-learning on language acquisition to provide insights into whether e-learning can support sustained language development.

Frequently Asked Questions

How to write recommendations in a research paper.

• Revisit your research goals
• Analyse your findings 
• Consider the research methods 
• Prioritise recommendations 
• Write actionable statements 
• Provide evidence 
• Address challenges

How to present recommendations in research?

• Be concise 
• Write logical and coherent 
• Match recommendations to conclusion 
• Ensure your recommendations are achievable

What to write in recommendation in research?

Your recommendation has to be concrete and specific and support the research with a clear rationale. Moreover, it should be connected directly to your research. Your recommendations, however, should not undermine your own work or use self-criticism. 

You May Also Like

A literature review is a survey of theses, articles, books and other academic sources. Here are guidelines on how to write dissertation literature review.

Dissertation Methodology is the crux of dissertation project. In this article, we will provide tips for you to write an amazing dissertation methodology.

The list of figures and tables in dissertation help the readers find tables and figures of their interest without looking through the whole dissertation.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Research Implications & Recommendations

A Plain-Language Explainer With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | May 2024

The research implications and recommendations are closely related but distinctly different concepts that often trip students up. Here, we’ll unpack them using plain language and loads of examples , so that you can approach your project with confidence.

Overview: Implications & Recommendations

• What are research implications ?
• What are research recommendations ?
• Examples of implications and recommendations
• The “ Big 3 ” categories
• How to write the implications and recommendations
• Template sentences for both sections
• Key takeaways

Implications & Recommendations 101

Let’s start with the basics and define our terms.

At the simplest level, research implications refer to the possible effects or outcomes of a study’s findings. More specifically, they answer the question, “ What do these findings mean?” . In other words, the implications section is where you discuss the broader impact of your study’s findings on theory, practice and future research.

This discussion leads us to the recommendations section , which is where you’ll propose specific actions based on your study’s findings and answer the question, “ What should be done next?” . In other words, the recommendations are practical steps that stakeholders can take to address the key issues identified by your study.

In a nutshell, then, the research implications discuss the broader impact and significance of a study’s findings, while recommendations provide specific actions to take, based on those findings. So, while both of these components are deeply rooted in the findings of the study, they serve different functions within the write up.

Need a helping hand?

Examples: Implications & Recommendations

The distinction between research implications and research recommendations might still feel a bit conceptual, so let’s look at one or two practical examples:

Let’s assume that your study finds that interactive learning methods significantly improve student engagement compared to traditional lectures. In this case, one of your recommendations could be that schools incorporate more interactive learning techniques into their curriculums to enhance student engagement.

Let’s imagine that your study finds that patients who receive personalised care plans have better health outcomes than those with standard care plans. One of your recommendations might be that healthcare providers develop and implement personalised care plans for their patients.

Now, these are admittedly quite simplistic examples, but they demonstrate the difference (and connection ) between the research implications and the recommendations. Simply put, the implications are about the impact of the findings, while the recommendations are about proposed actions, based on the findings.

The “Big 3” Categories

Now that we’ve defined our terms, let’s dig a little deeper into the implications – specifically, the different types or categories of research implications that exist.

Broadly speaking, implications can be divided into three categories – theoretical implications, practical implications and implications for future research .

Theoretical implications relate to how your study’s findings contribute to or challenge existing theories. For example, if a study on social behaviour uncovers new patterns, it might suggest that modifications to current psychological theories are necessary.

Practical implications , on the other hand, focus on how your study’s findings can be applied in real-world settings. For example, if your study demonstrated the effectiveness of a new teaching method, this would imply that educators should consider adopting this method to improve learning outcomes.

Practical implications can also involve policy reconsiderations . For example, if a study reveals significant health benefits from a particular diet, an implication might be that public health guidelines be re-evaluated.

Last but not least, there are the implications for future research . As the name suggests, this category of implications highlights the research gaps or new questions raised by your study. For example, if your study finds mixed results regarding a relationship between two variables, it might imply the need for further investigation to clarify these findings.

To recap then, the three types of implications are the theoretical, the practical and the implications on future research. Regardless of the category, these implications feed into and shape the recommendations , laying the foundation for the actions you’ll propose.

How To Write The  Sections

Now that we’ve laid the foundations, it’s time to explore how to write up the implications and recommendations sections respectively.

Let’s start with the “ where ” before digging into the “ how ”. Typically, the implications will feature in the discussion section of your document, while the recommendations will be located in the conclusion . That said, layouts can vary between disciplines and institutions, so be sure to check with your university what their preferences are.

For the implications section, a common approach is to structure the write-up based on the three categories we looked at earlier – theoretical, practical and future research implications. In practical terms, this discussion will usually follow a fairly formulaic sentence structure – for example:

This research provides new insights into [theoretical aspect], indicating that…

The study’s outcomes highlight the potential benefits of adopting [specific practice] in..

This study raises several questions that warrant further investigation, such as…

Moving onto the recommendations section, you could again structure your recommendations using the three categories. Alternatively, you could structure the discussion per stakeholder group – for example, policymakers, organisations, researchers, etc.

Again, you’ll likely use a fairly formulaic sentence structure for this section. Here are some examples for your inspiration: 

Based on the findings, [specific group] should consider adopting [new method] to improve…

To address the issues identified, it is recommended that legislation should be introduced to…

Researchers should consider examining [specific variable] to build on the current study’s findings.

Remember, you can grab a copy of our tried and tested templates for both the discussion and conclusion sections over on the Grad Coach blog. You can find the links to those, as well as loads of other free resources, in the description 🙂

FAQs: Implications & Recommendations

How do i determine the implications of my study.

To do this, you’ll need to consider how your findings address gaps in the existing literature, how they could influence theory, practice, or policy, and the potential societal or economic impacts.

When thinking about your findings, it’s also a good idea to revisit your introduction chapter, where you would have discussed the potential significance of your study more broadly. This section can help spark some additional ideas about what your findings mean in relation to your original research aims. 

Should I discuss both positive and negative implications?

Absolutely. You’ll need to discuss both the positive and negative implications to provide a balanced view of how your findings affect the field and any limitations or potential downsides.

Can my research implications be speculative?

Yes and no. While implications are somewhat more speculative than recommendations and can suggest potential future outcomes, they should be grounded in your data and analysis. So, be careful to avoid overly speculative claims.

How do I formulate recommendations?

Ideally, you should base your recommendations on the limitations and implications of your study’s findings. So, consider what further research is needed, how policies could be adapted, or how practices could be improved – and make proposals in this respect.

How specific should my recommendations be?

Your recommendations should be as specific as possible, providing clear guidance on what actions or research should be taken next. As mentioned earlier, the implications can be relatively broad, but the recommendations should be very specific and actionable. Ideally, you should apply the SMART framework to your recommendations.

Can I recommend future research in my recommendations?

Absolutely. Highlighting areas where further research is needed is a key aspect of the recommendations section. Naturally, these recommendations should link to the respective section of your implications (i.e., implications for future research).

Wrapping Up: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered quite a bit of ground here, so let’s quickly recap.

• Research implications refer to the possible effects or outcomes of a study’s findings.
• The recommendations section, on the other hand, is where you’ll propose specific actions based on those findings.
• You can structure your implications section based on the three overarching categories – theoretical, practical and future research implications.
• You can carry this structure through to the recommendations as well, or you can group your recommendations by stakeholder.

Remember to grab a copy of our tried and tested free dissertation template, which covers both the implications and recommendations sections. If you’d like 1:1 help with your research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service, where we hold your hand throughout the research journey, step by step.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

I am taking a Research Design and Statistical Methods class. I am wondering if I can get tutors to help me with my homework to understand more about research and statistics. I want to pass this class. I searched on YouTube and watched some videos but I still need more clarification.

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

The Ultimate Guide to Crafting Impactful Recommendations in Research

Are you ready to take your research to the next level? Crafting impactful recommendations is the key to unlocking the full potential of your study. By providing clear, actionable suggestions based on your findings, you can bridge the gap between research and real-world application.

In this ultimate guide, we'll show you how to write recommendations that make a difference in your research report or paper.

You'll learn how to craft specific, actionable recommendations that connect seamlessly with your research findings. Whether you're a student, writer, teacher, or journalist, this guide will help you master the art of writing recommendations in research. Let's get started and make your research count!

Understanding the Purpose of Recommendations

Recommendations in research serve as a vital bridge between your findings and their real-world applications. They provide specific, action-oriented suggestions to guide future studies and decision-making processes. Let's dive into the key purposes of crafting effective recommendations:

Guiding Future Research

Research recommendations play a crucial role in steering scholars and researchers towards promising avenues of exploration. By highlighting gaps in current knowledge and proposing new research questions, recommendations help advance the field and drive innovation.

Influencing Decision-Making

Well-crafted recommendations have the power to shape policies, programs, and strategies across various domains, such as:

• Policy-making
• Product development
• Marketing strategies
• Medical practice

By providing clear, evidence-based suggestions, recommendations facilitate informed decision-making and improve outcomes.

Connecting Research to Practice

Recommendations act as a conduit for transferring knowledge from researchers to practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders. They bridge the gap between academic findings and their practical applications, ensuring that research insights are effectively translated into real-world solutions.

Enhancing Research Impact

By crafting impactful recommendations, you can amplify the reach and influence of your research, attracting attention from peers, funding agencies, and decision-makers.

Addressing Limitations

Recommendations provide an opportunity to acknowledge and address the limitations of your study. By suggesting concrete and actionable possibilities for future research, you demonstrate a thorough understanding of your work's scope and potential areas for improvement.

Identifying Areas for Future Research

Discovering research gaps is a crucial step in crafting impactful recommendations. It involves reviewing existing studies and identifying unanswered questions or problems that warrant further investigation. Here are some strategies to help you identify areas for future research:

Explore Research Limitations

Take a close look at the limitations section of relevant studies. These limitations often provide valuable insights into potential areas for future research. Consider how addressing these limitations could enhance our understanding of the topic at hand.

Critically Analyze Discussion and Future Research Sections

When reading articles, pay special attention to the discussion and future research sections. These sections often highlight gaps in the current knowledge base and propose avenues for further exploration. Take note of any recurring themes or unanswered questions that emerge across multiple studies.

Utilize Targeted Search Terms

To streamline your search for research gaps, use targeted search terms such as "literature gap" or "future research" in combination with your subject keywords. This approach can help you quickly identify articles that explicitly discuss areas for future investigation.

Seek Guidance from Experts

Don't hesitate to reach out to your research advisor or other experts in your field. Their wealth of knowledge and experience can provide valuable insights into potential research gaps and emerging trends.

By employing these strategies, you'll be well-equipped to identify research gaps and craft recommendations that push the boundaries of current knowledge. Remember, the goal is to refine your research questions and focus your efforts on areas where more understanding is needed.

Structuring Your Recommendations

When it comes to structuring your recommendations, it's essential to keep them concise, organized, and tailored to your audience. Here are some key tips to help you craft impactful recommendations:

Prioritize and Organize

• Limit your recommendations to the most relevant and targeted suggestions for your peers or colleagues in the field.
• Place your recommendations at the end of the report, as they are often top of mind for readers.
• Write your recommendations in order of priority, with the most important ones for decision-makers coming first.

Use a Clear and Actionable Format

• Write recommendations in a clear, concise manner using actionable words derived from the data analyzed in your research.
• Use bullet points instead of long paragraphs for clarity and readability.
• Ensure that your recommendations are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely (SMART).

Connect Recommendations to Research

By following this simple formula, you can ensure that your recommendations are directly connected to your research and supported by a clear rationale.

Tailor to Your Audience

• Consider the needs and interests of your target audience when crafting your recommendations.
• Explain how your recommendations can solve the issues explored in your research.
• Acknowledge any limitations or constraints of your study that may impact the implementation of your recommendations.

Avoid Common Pitfalls

• Don't undermine your own work by suggesting incomplete or unnecessary recommendations.
• Avoid using recommendations as a place for self-criticism or introducing new information not covered in your research.
• Ensure that your recommendations are achievable and comprehensive, offering practical solutions for the issues considered in your paper.

By structuring your recommendations effectively, you can enhance the reliability and validity of your research findings, provide valuable strategies and suggestions for future research, and deliver impactful solutions to real-world problems.

Crafting Actionable and Specific Recommendations

Crafting actionable and specific recommendations is the key to ensuring your research findings have a real-world impact. Here are some essential tips to keep in mind:

Embrace Flexibility and Feasibility

Your recommendations should be open to discussion and new information, rather than being set in stone. Consider the following:

• Be realistic and considerate of your team's capabilities when making recommendations.
• Prioritize recommendations based on impact and reach, but be prepared to adjust based on team effort levels.
• Focus on solutions that require the fewest changes first, adopting an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) approach.

Provide Detailed and Justified Recommendations

To avoid vagueness and misinterpretation, ensure your recommendations are:

• Detailed, including photos, videos, or screenshots whenever possible.
• Justified based on research findings, providing alternatives when findings don't align with expectations or business goals.

Use this formula when writing recommendations:

Observed problem/pain point/unmet need + consequence + potential solution

Adopt a Solution-Oriented Approach

Foster Collaboration and Participation

• Promote staff education on current research and create strategies to encourage adoption of promising clinical protocols.
• Include representatives from the treatment community in the development of the research initiative and the review of proposals.
• Require active, early, and permanent participation of treatment staff in the development, implementation, and interpretation of the study.

Tailor Recommendations to the Opportunity

When writing recommendations for a specific opportunity or program:

• Highlight the strengths and qualifications of the researcher.
• Provide specific examples of their work and accomplishments.
• Explain how their research has contributed to the field.
• Emphasize the researcher's potential for future success and their unique contributions.

By following these guidelines, you'll craft actionable and specific recommendations that drive meaningful change and showcase the value of your research.

Connecting Recommendations with Research Findings

Connecting your recommendations with research findings is crucial for ensuring the credibility and impact of your suggestions. Here's how you can seamlessly link your recommendations to the evidence uncovered in your study:

Grounding Recommendations in Research

Your recommendations should be firmly rooted in the data and insights gathered during your research process. Avoid including measures or suggestions that were not discussed or supported by your study findings. This approach ensures that your recommendations are evidence-based and directly relevant to the research at hand.

Highlighting the Significance of Collaboration

Research collaborations offer a wealth of benefits that can enhance an agency's competitive position. Consider the following factors when discussing the importance of collaboration in your recommendations:

• Organizational Development: Participation in research collaborations depends on an agency's stage of development, compatibility with its mission and culture, and financial stability.
• Trust-Building: Long-term collaboration success often hinges on a history of increasing involvement and trust between partners.
• Infrastructure: A permanent infrastructure that facilitates long-term development is key to successful collaborative programs.

Emphasizing Commitment and Participation

Fostering Quality Improvement and Organizational Learning

In your recommendations, highlight the importance of enhancing quality improvement strategies and fostering organizational learning. Show sensitivity to the needs and constraints of community-based programs, as this understanding is crucial for effective collaboration and implementation.

Addressing Limitations and Implications

If not already addressed in the discussion section, your recommendations should mention the limitations of the study and their implications. Examples of limitations include:

• Sample size or composition
• Participant attrition
• Study duration

By acknowledging these limitations, you demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of your research and its potential impact.

By connecting your recommendations with research findings, you provide a solid foundation for your suggestions, emphasize the significance of collaboration, and showcase the potential for future research and practical applications.

Crafting impactful recommendations is a vital skill for any researcher looking to bridge the gap between their findings and real-world applications. By understanding the purpose of recommendations, identifying areas for future research, structuring your suggestions effectively, and connecting them to your research findings, you can unlock the full potential of your study. Remember to prioritize actionable, specific, and evidence-based recommendations that foster collaboration and drive meaningful change.

As you embark on your research journey, embrace the power of well-crafted recommendations to amplify the impact of your work. By following the guidelines outlined in this ultimate guide, you'll be well-equipped to write recommendations that resonate with your audience, inspire further investigation, and contribute to the advancement of your field. So go forth, make your research count, and let your recommendations be the catalyst for positive change.

Q: What are the steps to formulating recommendations in research? A: To formulate recommendations in research, you should first gain a thorough understanding of the research question. Review the existing literature to inform your recommendations and consider the research methods that were used. Identify which data collection techniques were employed and propose suitable data analysis methods. It's also essential to consider any limitations and ethical considerations of your research. Justify your recommendations clearly and finally, provide a summary of your recommendations.

Q: Why are recommendations significant in research studies? A: Recommendations play a crucial role in research as they form a key part of the analysis phase. They provide specific suggestions for interventions or strategies that address the problems and limitations discovered during the study. Recommendations are a direct response to the main findings derived from data collection and analysis, and they can guide future actions or research.

Q: Can you outline the seven steps involved in writing a research paper? A: Certainly. The seven steps to writing an excellent research paper include:

• Allowing yourself sufficient time to complete the paper.
• Defining the scope of your essay and crafting a clear thesis statement.
• Conducting a thorough yet focused search for relevant research materials.
• Reading the research materials carefully and taking detailed notes.
• Writing your paper based on the information you've gathered and analyzed.
• Editing your paper to ensure clarity, coherence, and correctness.
• Submitting your paper following the guidelines provided.

Q: What tips can help make a research paper more effective? A: To enhance the effectiveness of a research paper, plan for the extensive process ahead and understand your audience. Decide on the structure your research writing will take and describe your methodology clearly. Write in a straightforward and clear manner, avoiding the use of clichés or overly complex language.

Sign up for more like this.

Implications or Recommendations in Research: What's the Difference?

• Peer Review

High-quality research articles that get many citations contain both implications and recommendations. Implications are the impact your research makes, whereas recommendations are specific actions that can then be taken based on your findings, such as for more research or for policymaking.

Updated on August 23, 2022

That seems clear enough, but the two are commonly confused.

This confusion is especially true if you come from a so-called high-context culture in which information is often implied based on the situation, as in many Asian cultures. High-context cultures are different from low-context cultures where information is more direct and explicit (as in North America and many European cultures).

Let's set these two straight in a low-context way; i.e., we'll be specific and direct! This is the best way to be in English academic writing because you're writing for the world.

Implications and recommendations in a research article

The standard format of STEM research articles is what's called IMRaD:

• Introduction
• Discussion/conclusions

Some journals call for a separate conclusions section, while others have the conclusions as the last part of the discussion. You'll write these four (or five) sections in the same sequence, though, no matter the journal.

The discussion section is typically where you restate your results and how well they confirmed your hypotheses. Give readers the answer to the questions for which they're looking to you for an answer.

At this point, many researchers assume their paper is finished. After all, aren't the results the most important part? As you might have guessed, no, you're not quite done yet.

The discussion/conclusions section is where to say what happened and what should now happen

The discussion/conclusions section of every good scientific article should contain the implications and recommendations.

The implications, first of all, are the impact your results have on your specific field. A high-impact, highly cited article will also broaden the scope here and provide implications to other fields. This is what makes research cross-disciplinary.

Recommendations, however, are suggestions to improve your field based on your results.

These two aspects help the reader understand your broader content: How and why your work is important to the world. They also tell the reader what can be changed in the future based on your results.

These aspects are what editors are looking for when selecting papers for peer review.

Implications and recommendations are, thus, written at the end of the discussion section, and before the concluding paragraph. They help to “wrap up” your paper. Once your reader understands what you found, the next logical step is what those results mean and what should come next.

Then they can take the baton, in the form of your work, and run with it. That gets you cited and extends your impact!

The order of implications and recommendations also matters. Both are written after you've summarized your main findings in the discussion section. Then, those results are interpreted based on ongoing work in the field. After this, the implications are stated, followed by the recommendations.

Writing an academic research paper is a bit like running a race. Finish strong, with your most important conclusion (recommendation) at the end. Leave readers with an understanding of your work's importance. Avoid generic, obvious phrases like "more research is needed to fully address this issue." Be specific.

The main differences between implications and recommendations (table)

Now let's dig a bit deeper into actually how to write these parts.

What are implications?

Research implications tell us how and why your results are important for the field at large. They help answer the question of “what does it mean?” Implications tell us how your work contributes to your field and what it adds to it. They're used when you want to tell your peers why your research is important for ongoing theory, practice, policymaking, and for future research.

Crucially, your implications must be evidence-based. This means they must be derived from the results in the paper.

Implications are written after you've summarized your main findings in the discussion section. They come before the recommendations and before the concluding paragraph. There is no specific section dedicated to implications. They must be integrated into your discussion so that the reader understands why the results are meaningful and what they add to the field.

A good strategy is to separate your implications into types. Implications can be social, political, technological, related to policies, or others, depending on your topic. The most frequently used types are theoretical and practical. Theoretical implications relate to how your findings connect to other theories or ideas in your field, while practical implications are related to what we can do with the results.

Key features of implications

• State the impact your research makes
• Helps us understand why your results are important
• Must be evidence-based
• Written in the discussion, before recommendations
• Can be theoretical, practical, or other (social, political, etc.)

Examples of implications

Let's take a look at some examples of research results below with their implications.

The result : one study found that learning items over time improves memory more than cramming material in a bunch of information at once .

The implications : This result suggests memory is better when studying is spread out over time, which could be due to memory consolidation processes.

The result : an intervention study found that mindfulness helps improve mental health if you have anxiety.

The implications : This result has implications for the role of executive functions on anxiety.

The result : a study found that musical learning helps language learning in children .

The implications : these findings suggest that language and music may work together to aid development.

What are recommendations?

As noted above, explaining how your results contribute to the real world is an important part of a successful article.

Likewise, stating how your findings can be used to improve something in future research is equally important. This brings us to the recommendations.

Research recommendations are suggestions and solutions you give for certain situations based on your results. Once the reader understands what your results mean with the implications, the next question they need to know is "what's next?"

Recommendations are calls to action on ways certain things in the field can be improved in the future based on your results. Recommendations are used when you want to convey that something different should be done based on what your analyses revealed.

Similar to implications, recommendations are also evidence-based. This means that your recommendations to the field must be drawn directly from your results.

The goal of the recommendations is to make clear, specific, and realistic suggestions to future researchers before they conduct a similar experiment. No matter what area your research is in, there will always be further research to do. Try to think about what would be helpful for other researchers to know before starting their work.

Recommendations are also written in the discussion section. They come after the implications and before the concluding paragraphs. Similar to the implications, there is usually no specific section dedicated to the recommendations. However, depending on how many solutions you want to suggest to the field, they may be written as a subsection.

Key features of recommendations

• Statements about what can be done differently in the field based on your findings
• Must be realistic and specific
• Written in the discussion, after implications and before conclusions
• Related to both your field and, preferably, a wider context to the research

Examples of recommendations

Here are some research results and their recommendations.

A meta-analysis found that actively recalling material from your memory is better than simply re-reading it .

• The recommendation: Based on these findings, teachers and other educators should encourage students to practice active recall strategies.

A medical intervention found that daily exercise helps prevent cardiovascular disease .

• The recommendation: Based on these results, physicians are recommended to encourage patients to exercise and walk regularly. Also recommended is to encourage more walking through public health offices in communities.

A study found that many research articles do not contain the sample sizes needed to statistically confirm their findings .

The recommendation: To improve the current state of the field, researchers should consider doing power analysis based on their experiment's design.

What else is important about implications and recommendations?

When writing recommendations and implications, be careful not to overstate the impact of your results. It can be tempting for researchers to inflate the importance of their findings and make grandiose statements about what their work means.

Remember that implications and recommendations must be coming directly from your results. Therefore, they must be straightforward, realistic, and plausible.

Another good thing to remember is to make sure the implications and recommendations are stated clearly and separately. Do not attach them to the endings of other paragraphs just to add them in. Use similar example phrases as those listed in the table when starting your sentences to clearly indicate when it's an implication and when it's a recommendation.

When your peers, or brand-new readers, read your paper, they shouldn't have to hunt through your discussion to find the implications and recommendations. They should be clear, visible, and understandable on their own.

That'll get you cited more, and you'll make a greater contribution to your area of science while extending the life and impact of your work.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• How to formulate...

How to formulate research recommendations

• Related content
• Peer review
• Polly Brown ([email protected]) , publishing manager 1 ,
• Klara Brunnhuber , clinical editor 1 ,
• Kalipso Chalkidou , associate director, research and development 2 ,
• Iain Chalmers , director 3 ,
• Mike Clarke , director 4 ,
• Mark Fenton , editor 3 ,
• Carol Forbes , reviews manager 5 ,
• Julie Glanville , associate director/information service manager 5 ,
• Nicholas J Hicks , consultant in public health medicine 6 ,
• Janet Moody , identification and prioritisation manager 6 ,
• Sara Twaddle , director 7 ,
• Hazim Timimi , systems developer 8 ,
• Pamela Young , senior programme manager 6
• 1 BMJ Publishing Group, London WC1H 9JR,
• 2 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London WC1V 6NA,
• 3 Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments, James Lind Alliance Secretariat, James Lind Initiative, Oxford OX2 7LG,
• 4 UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford OX2 7LG,
• 5 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD,
• 6 National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 7PX,
• 7 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Edinburgh EH2 1EN,
• 8 Update Software, Oxford OX2 7LG
• Correspondence to: PBrown
• Accepted 22 September 2006

“More research is needed” is a conclusion that fits most systematic reviews. But authors need to be more specific about what exactly is required

Long awaited reports of new research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines are too often a disappointing anticlimax for those wishing to use them to direct future research. After many months or years of effort and intellectual energy put into these projects, authors miss the opportunity to identify unanswered questions and outstanding gaps in the evidence. Most reports contain only a less than helpful, general research recommendation. This means that the potential value of these recommendations is lost.

Current recommendations

In 2005, representatives of organisations commissioning and summarising research, including the BMJ Publishing Group, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the UK Cochrane Centre, met as members of the development group for the Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (see bmj.com for details on all participating organisations). Our aim was to discuss the state of research recommendations within our organisations and to develop guidelines for improving the presentation of proposals for further research. All organisations had found weaknesses in the way researchers and authors of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines stated the need for further research. As part of the project, a member of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination under-took a rapid literature search to identify information on research recommendation models, which found some individual methods but no group initiatives to attempt to standardise recommendations.

Suggested format for research recommendations on the effects of treatments

Core elements.

E Evidence (What is the current state of the evidence?)

P Population (What is …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Cite sources with ease

How to Write Recommendations in a Research Paper Correctly and Appropriately

Updated 25 Jul 2024

Completing a research paper can be daunting, but it becomes more manageable if you delve deeper into the process. Academic papers adhere to specific formats that must be followed to ensure high-quality content.

The conclusion and recommendations sections are crucial components of a research paper. They mark the end of your research, leave a lasting impression on your readers, and should be approached with great care. No wonder many students search for information about how to write recommendations in research papers. Explore this comprehensive guide to infuse your content with thoughtfulness and coherence, thereby elevating the impact of your research paper. Crafting clear and actionable recommendations in a research paper is essential, and a personal statement writing service can provide the expertise needed to present your findings and suggestions convincingly.

Recommendations in a research paper: meaning and goals

Before you start learning how to write recommendations in a research paper, the first thing is to clarify the meaning of this term. It is a significant element in the research paper structure, as it is critical to your discussion section and conclusion. While conducting research and analyzing gathered data, you may come across ideas or results that only partially align with the scope of your research topic. Alternatively, your findings offer possible implications or causal relationships between the aspects not covered in existing research.

Based on your conclusions and findings, this section will provide practical solutions for further research. The particular goals of this section depend on the research nature and usually include the following:

• Providing strategies to address the issues considered in the paper;
• Delivering suggestions on how the investigation findings can be applied in practice;
• Identifying gaps in the subject area and suggesting ways to extend existing knowledge;
• Enhancing reliability and validity of the research findings. 

Where to put recommendations?

To better understand how to write recommendations in research, you should know where to insert them. These elements are typically added in the conclusion (a short version) and discussion sections. Still, if you’re doing research with a practical or business focus, you can also include your suggestions in an advisory report or separate section. This text part should be completed based on the research findings and evidence. It should be clear, specific, and actionable, targeted to the intended audience, such as researchers, practitioners, or policymakers.

Get plagiarism-free papers in just 3 hours

• Zero AI - 100% human-crafted content
• Tailored to your writing style
• Sourced from the latest, reliable sources

Guaranteed Turnitin success ✌️

Place an order

What should recommendations look like?

When providing your solutions for further research, it’s important to ensure they are specific, fully connected to your investigation, and supported by a comprehensible rationale. The essential goal is to show how other researchers can generate the same results to make conclusions and offer potential directions for future research. 

Recommendations should be clear and include actionable words. While completing this section, the writer should show a solution-oriented approach by highlighting the scope for future investigation. Using bullet points is a better way to ensure clarity instead of writing long paragraphs.

Look at the following recommendation in a research paper example:

It is recommended that company X should create and promote sugar-free biscuits along with their existing product range. The marketing department should focus on creating a positive and healthy image. 

Let’s rewrite this paragraph to make it clear and well-structured:

• The corporation has to introduce and promote sugar-free products;
• The company has to create a new positive image;
• The company has to launch an advertising campaign to show their products’ benefits for health.

When visiting the EduBirdie website, you’ll find many helpful tips on writing a research paper, ranging from completing a research paper conclusion to exploring examples of a well-thought-out recommendations section. Don’t miss your chance to improve your paper with our assistance!

Structure of recommendations

Let’s consider the typical structure of this part. You’ll come across many various ways to organize it. The most common approach uses a simple formula with three elements: research question, conclusion, and recommendation. Now, you’ll see how this structure can be implemented.

Research question:

Which category of people is more prone to social exclusion? 

Conclusion:

The study found that individuals over 65 have a greater risk of being isolated from society.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the institutions dealing with overcoming social exclusion should focus on this particular group. 

In this example, the author delivers a suggestion based on the research findings (the risk of social isolation grows among people aged 65 and more). The measures to improve this situation are indicated (the organizations dealing with problems of social isolation should pay more attention to people over 65 years old).

How to write recommendations in research papers: essential guidelines

Look at some tips from EduBirdie research paper writing services to help you complete a flawless chapter for your papers.

• Be concise in your statements.  Ensure that your suggestions are written in clear and concise language, avoiding jargon or technical terms difficult to understand. Try to limit yourself to one-sentence statements to present your recommendation. Not only it can help with language learning overall, but will also look more professional.
• Organize your ideas logically and coherently . You may use lists or paragraphs depending on your institution's guidelines or field of study. Use headings and subheadings to structure your section for easy navigation.
• Provide specific and concrete suggestions.  Clearly state the issues you explore and offer specific measures and solutions. Your call to action and suggestions should be related to the issues mentioned in the previous sections. Focusing on the most relevant and actionable suggestions directly stemming from your research is crucial.
• Match recommendations to your conclusion.  Ensure that your suggestions logically align with your conclusions. Refrain from suggesting too many solutions. You can create one recommendation addressing several conclusions when you must provide numerous suggestions for every study conclusion.
• Ensure your solutions are achievable.  Your recommendations should be practical and feasible to implement. Suggest specific and actionable steps to effectively address the considered issues or gaps in the research, avoiding vague or impractical suggestions.
• Use a comprehensive approach.  Make sure your solutions cover all relevant areas within your research scope. Consider different contexts, stakeholders, and perspectives affected by the recommendations. Be thorough in identifying potential improvement areas and offering appropriate actions.
• Don’t add new information to this part of your paper.  Avoid introducing new issues or ideas to complete your argument when writing recommendations in a research paper. Your academic paper has to stand on its own merits. 
• Create content tailored to your readers.  Ensure that your recommendations are aimed at your audience, namely your colleagues in the field of study who work on similar topics. The ideas you provide in the paper should be based on limitations identified during research. They should offer concrete possibilities for further study to rely on areas your investigation could not cover when completed.
• Explain how your recommendations can solve the issues you explore.  Go beyond listing suggestions and provide a rationale for each, including why it is essential, how it handles the research problem, and what evidence or theory supports it. Use relevant literature citations to strengthen your content. Explain how the suggested solutions can effectively answer the research question. This can be done by adding the following:
• Ideas for improving the methodology or approach;
• Policy suggestions;
• Perspectives for future research.
• Don’t undermine your research contribution or criticize yourself.   Avoid criticizing yourself in this section. Instead, use it as a perfect opportunity to provide ideas on how future studies can build upon your findings, making them a natural extension point. 
• Acknowledge any limitations or constraints of your research.  Reflect on how these limitations may impact the feasibility or generalizability of your solutions. This demonstrates critical thinking and awareness of the limitations of your study.
• End this section with a summary.  Highlight the key suggestions and their potential impact in a short conclusion. Emphasize the significance of your ideas and their valuable contribution to the field.

Don’t forget to consult and adhere to the requirements and specific guidelines provided by your institution for this section.

How do the discussion and the conclusion sections differ in a research paper? 

The discussion usually entails a comprehensive analysis of the results, delving into the significance of your findings and providing contextualization using citations of relevant sources. On the other hand, the conclusion is typically more concise and general. It briefly considers the main research question and provides suggestions from your findings.

Can the research paper conclusion come with new arguments? 

Although adding fresh evidence or arguments in the conclusion might be tempting, especially if you have a compelling point, we don’t recommend doing it. Research papers, dissertations, or theses typically adhere to a formal structure. Exposing all your arguments and findings in the thesis body is crucial. It’s better to do it in the discussion and results chapters. The conclusion should serve as a summary and reflection of your evidence and arguments rather than a place to introduce new ideas.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Steven Robinson

Steven Robinson is an academic writing expert with a degree in English literature. His expertise, patient approach, and support empower students to express ideas clearly. On EduBirdie's blog, he provides valuable writing guides on essays, research papers, and other intriguing topics. Enjoys chess in free time.

Related Blog Posts

Discover how to write a discussion section of a research paper.

When working on a research paper, one of the most important parts you must include is the discussion or the analytical section where you outline yo...

What is qualitative research? Approaches, methods, and examples

Students in social sciences frequently seek to understand how people feel, think, and behave in specific situations or relationships that evolve ov...

Delimitations in research: meaning, types, and examples

Working on academic papers can make it easy to feel overwhelmed by the huge amount of available data and information. One of the most crucial consi...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Home » Blog » How to Write Conclusions and Recommendations in a Research Paper

How to Write Conclusions and Recommendations in a Research Paper

Table of Contents

How to Write Conclusions and Recommendations

Writing a research paper can be very stressful but as you go deeper into writing it, it becomes easier. Like every form of writing, research papers have formats that you must follow to enable you to write one that is worthy of Nobel recognition.

The conclusions and recommendations are an essential part of research papers and also, mark the end of a research paper. Both must be taken seriously as they are the very last impression you leave in the minds of your readers. They have the ability to add beauty and technicality to your piece of writing. No matter how much or how best you have written other chapters of your paper, it wouldn’t matter if your conclusion or recommendation lacks soul.

It is important to note that the conclusion and recommendations may be combined or presented in separate sections depending on the type of research paper.

How to write a conclusion for your research paper

The conclusion section of a research paper focuses on discussing the essential features and the significant outcomes of your research. It highlights to your readers the importance of your research to them after they have read through it. It also serves as a round off to the story in your research. The conclusion should be written in relation to the introduction in your research paper. This means that your conclusion should be written in such a way that it relates to the aims of the research paper.

Here are a few steps to follow to enable you write a good conclusion for your research paper.

Find logical connections

The conclusion should summarize your research paper. Don’t begin a new idea in this section. You should restate main points, and provide a basic synthesis for them. This means that you should find a logical connection between your aims, objectives or hypothesis to your conclusions. This will ensure that your conclusion doesn’t sound like a single thought to your readers or sound different from what was discussed throughout the research paper. When you are able to draw logical connections to previous ideas stated in your research paper, you leave your readers with a lasting impression.

Ensure your conclusion is linked to your introduction

The best structure for a conclusion in a research paper is to draft your conclusion in such a way that it links back to your introduction and your introduction links back to it, just like a perfect cycle. This can be done by restating the question asked in the introduction. But in this section, you would be providing an answer that your readers can understand. This is the same method used in short stories, when the writer leaves you guessing at the start and then tells you all you need to know at the very end of the story.

Don’t forget logic

It is ok to have opposing points in your research paper. However, it is solely your duty to ensure that your readers are not left confused as a result of the opposing points. Your conclusion is the perfect place to tell your readers your opinion on the issues highlighted in your research paper. All the questions that were unanswered or partially answered in your research paper should be answered in your conclusion. If at this point you can’t give a clear answer to those questions, let your readers know what further research is needed or the future actions that would provide a clear answer to the questions. Restate your thesis statement, let your readers know if you still believe it or a new finding has caused you to think otherwise.

Let the readers draw their own conclusions

Note that this approach is inappropriate in some types of research papers. However, it is accepted mostly in research papers on social or political issues. In this method, you ask your readers the question instead of providing them with answers. The questions asked must be centered on the purpose of the paper.

Give recommendations

If you choose to merge your conclusion and recommendation into one section, then now is the time to state your recommendation.

How to write a recommendation for your research paper

Recommendations are used to call for action or solutions to the problems you have investigated in your research paper. Your recommendations highlight specific solutions and measures to be implemented based on the findings of your research.

Here are a few guidelines to enable you to write a good recommendation for your research paper.

Should be concrete and specific

Avoid beating around the bush. You can choose to restate the problem and then explain specific measures that can be used to solve those problems. The solutions or call for action should be specific for the problems you have stated earlier. Do not introduce new questions or problems at this point.

The recommendations should connect to your conclusion

Your recommendation should logically support your conclusions and should be achievable. You should limit yourself to a few recommendations. It is possible that a single recommendation can be fitting for all your conclusions.

Explain how the solution you suggested can contribute to solving the problems you stated

You shouldn’t just stop at putting down possible solutions. You should also explain how it can solve the problems highlighted in your research paper.

The conclusion and recommendation section in any research paper is very important. It tells the reader that he has come to the end of the paper. It also breaks down everything your research paper discusses into more digestible chunks. As earlier stated, you should avoid introducing new information in your conclusion and recommendation. Goodluck!

If you like this article, see others like it:

Balancing Work and Life: Achieving Success in Nigeria’s Competitive Job Market

2024 complete nigeria current affairs pdf free download, 2024 nigeria current affairs quiz questions & answers, learn how to trade forex: a beginner’s guide, 5 corporate team building activities ideas for introverted employees, related topics, how to search for journals for a research project, a step-by-step guide to writing a comparative analysis, signs it’s time to re-evaluate your career goals, 5 common career change fears and what to do, how to plan an affordable vacation as a student.

Recommendation in Research

Ai generator.

A recommendation in research refers to the advice or suggestions provided by researchers at the conclusion of their study, aimed at addressing the gaps identified, enhancing future research , and applying findings in practical contexts. Recommendations are crucial as they guide stakeholders, including policymakers, practitioners, and fellow researchers, on how to utilize the research outcomes effectively. These suggestions are typically based on the evidence gathered during the study and are intended to improve practices, inform decision-making, and inspire further investigations to build on the existing knowledge.

What is Recommendation in Research?

A recommendation in research is a suggestion or course of action proposed by researchers based on their study’s findings. It aims to address identified gaps, enhance future research, and apply results in practical scenarios. Recommendations guide stakeholders, such as policymakers and fellow researchers, on utilizing the research effectively to improve practices, inform decisions, and inspire further studies.

Examples of Recommendations in Research

• Implement Comprehensive Training Programs : Ensure that employees receive ongoing training to keep up with technological advancements.
• Increase Funding for Renewable Energy Projects : Allocate more resources to develop sustainable energy solutions.
• Promote Interdisciplinary Research : Encourage collaboration across various fields to address complex global issues.
• Adopt Advanced Data Analytics : Utilize cutting-edge data analysis techniques to improve decision-making processes.
• Enhance Public Awareness Campaigns : Develop strategies to educate the public on critical health issues.
• Strengthen Cybersecurity Measures : Implement robust security protocols to protect sensitive information.
• Encourage Community Involvement : Foster greater community participation in local governance.
• Develop Inclusive Policies : Create policies that address the needs of diverse populations.
• Optimize Supply Chain Management : Improve logistics and supply chain efficiency to reduce costs.
• Support Mental Health Initiatives : Increase support for mental health programs and services.

Recommendation for Students in Research

Research is a crucial component of academic and professional development. Here are some key recommendations for students engaged in research to ensure success and meaningful contributions to their field:

1. Choose a Relevant and Interesting Topic

• Personal Interest: Select a topic that genuinely interests you.
• Relevance: Ensure the topic is relevant to your field of study.
• Scope: Make sure the topic is neither too broad nor too narrow.

2. Conduct a Thorough Literature Review

• Background Research: Review existing literature to understand the current state of knowledge.
• Identify Gaps: Identify gaps in the existing research that your study can address.
• Theoretical Framework: Build a strong theoretical foundation for your research.

3. Develop a Clear Research Plan

• Objectives: Define clear and achievable research objectives.
• Methodology: Choose appropriate research methods and techniques.
• Timeline: Create a realistic timeline with milestones for completing each stage of the research.

4. Use Reliable and Valid Sources

• Academic Journals: Prefer peer-reviewed journals for sourcing information.
• Primary Sources: Whenever possible, use primary sources to gather data.
• Citation Management: Use citation management tools to organize your references.

5. Ensure Ethical Conduct

• Informed Consent: Obtain informed consent from participants if your research involves human subjects.
• Data Privacy: Ensure the confidentiality and privacy of your data.
• Integrity: Maintain honesty and transparency in your research process.

6. Develop Strong Analytical Skills

• Critical Thinking: Develop the ability to critically analyze data and sources.
• Statistical Analysis: Gain proficiency in statistical methods if your research involves quantitative data.
• Qualitative Analysis: Learn methods for analyzing qualitative data, such as thematic analysis.

7. Seek Feedback and Collaboration

• Mentorship: Seek guidance from your research advisor or mentor regularly.
• Peer Review: Engage with peers for feedback and constructive criticism.
• Collaboration: Collaborate with other researchers to enhance the quality of your study.

8. Maintain Clear and Consistent Documentation

• Research Journal: Keep a detailed journal of your research process, observations, and reflections.
• Data Management: Organize your data systematically for easy retrieval and analysis.
• Progress Reports: Regularly update your progress and adjust your plan as needed.

9. Communicate Your Findings Effectively

• Writing Skills: Develop strong academic writing skills to present your findings clearly.
• Presentations: Learn to create and deliver effective presentations of your research.
• Publication: Aim to publish your research in reputable academic journals or conferences.

10. Stay Updated and Continue Learning

• Current Trends: Stay updated with the latest developments in your field.
• Professional Development: Attend workshops, seminars, and conferences to enhance your knowledge and skills.
• Networking: Build a professional network with other researchers and professionals in your field.

Types of Recommendation in Research

Recommendations in research are crucial as they provide actionable insights based on the study’s findings. Here are the primary types of recommendations commonly found in research:

1. Practical Recommendations

Practical recommendations offer actionable advice that can be implemented in real-world settings. These are particularly useful for practitioners and policymakers.

• Implementation Strategies: Suggest ways to apply research findings in practice.
• Policy Changes: Recommend modifications to existing policies or the creation of new policies.
• Best Practices: Identify effective practices and procedures based on research results.

2. Theoretical Recommendations

Theoretical recommendations are aimed at advancing academic knowledge and understanding. They often suggest directions for future research or adjustments to existing theories.

• Theory Development: Propose new theories or modifications to existing ones based on research findings.
• Conceptual Frameworks: Suggest new conceptual models or frameworks.
• Research Hypotheses: Recommend specific hypotheses for future testing.

3. Methodological Recommendations

Methodological recommendations focus on the research process itself. They offer suggestions for improving research design, data collection, and analysis techniques.

• Research Design: Advise on more effective or innovative research designs.
• Data Collection Methods: Recommend better or alternative methods for data collection.
• Analytical Techniques: Suggest advanced or more appropriate analytical techniques.

4. Policy Recommendations

Policy recommendations are directed towards governmental or organizational bodies. They aim to influence policy-making processes based on research evidence.

• Legislative Changes: Recommend changes to laws or regulations.
• Organizational Policies: Suggest adjustments to organizational policies and procedures.
• Public Health Initiatives: Propose new public health strategies or interventions.

5. Educational Recommendations

Educational recommendations are targeted at educational institutions, educators, and curriculum developers. They aim to improve educational practices and outcomes.

• Curriculum Development: Suggest changes or additions to curricula.
• Teaching Methods: Recommend effective teaching strategies and methods.
• Educational Programs: Propose new programs or enhancements to existing ones.

Recommendation for Future Researchers

Future researchers can benefit from insights and guidance to enhance the quality and impact of their studies. Here are some key recommendations:

1. Explore Unanswered Questions

• Identify Gaps: Focus on gaps highlighted in previous research to build on existing knowledge.
• New Areas: Investigate emerging areas or under-researched topics within your field.

2. Improve Methodological Rigor

• Innovative Methods: Incorporate innovative research methodologies and techniques.
• Replication Studies: Conduct replication studies to verify and validate findings from prior research.
• Mixed Methods: Utilize mixed methods approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem.

3. Ensure Ethical Conduct

• Ethical Guidelines: Adhere to ethical guidelines and standards throughout the research process.
• Informed Consent: Ensure that participants provide informed consent and understand their rights.
• Data Privacy: Protect the confidentiality and privacy of participants’ data.

4. Enhance Data Quality

• Robust Data Collection: Use robust data collection methods to ensure accuracy and reliability.
• Triangulation: Employ triangulation by using multiple data sources or methods to strengthen findings.
• Longitudinal Studies: Consider conducting longitudinal studies to observe changes over time.

5. Collaborate and Network

• Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Work with researchers from different disciplines to gain diverse perspectives.
• International Partnerships: Form partnerships with international researchers to broaden the scope and impact of your study.
• Professional Networks: Join professional organizations and attend conferences to stay updated and connected.

What is the Purpose of Recommendation in Research

Recommendations in research are essential for guiding future actions based on the study’s findings. Here are the main purposes of including recommendations in research:

1. Guiding Future Research

• Identify Gaps: Point out areas where more research is needed.
• Suggest Topics: Recommend specific topics or questions for future studies.
• Encourage Validation: Suggest replicating the study in different settings to confirm results.

2. Informing Policy and Practice

• Policy Changes: Provide evidence-based suggestions for improving or creating policies.
• Best Practices: Offer practical advice for professionals to improve their work.
• Implementation: Suggest ways to apply the research findings in real-world situations.

3. Enhancing Academic Knowledge

• Theoretical Contributions: Help develop or refine theories based on the research findings.
• Stimulate Discussion: Encourage further academic debate and inquiry.

4. Improving Research Methods

• Methodology: Recommend better or alternative research methods.
• Data Collection: Suggest more effective ways to gather data.
• Analysis Techniques: Propose improved methods for analyzing data.

5. Solving Practical Problems

• Actionable Solutions: Offer practical solutions to problems identified in the research.
• Resource Allocation: Guide organizations on how to use resources more effectively.
• Strategic Planning: Assist in planning future actions based on the research insights.

How to Write Research Recommendations?

Writing research recommendations involves providing actionable advice based on the findings of your study. Here are steps and tips to help you write effective research recommendations:

1. Review Your Findings

• Summarize Key Findings: Begin by summarizing the most important findings of your research.
• Highlight Significant Results: Focus on results that have significant implications for future research, policy, or practice.

2. Align Recommendations with Objectives

• Reflect on Objectives: Ensure that your recommendations align with the original objectives of your study.
• Address Research Questions: Directly address the research questions or hypotheses you set out to explore.

3. Be Specific and Actionable

• Concrete Actions: Provide specific actions that stakeholders can take.
• Clear Guidance: Offer clear and practical steps rather than vague suggestions.

4. Prioritize Recommendations

• Importance: Rank recommendations based on their importance and feasibility.
• Immediate vs. Long-Term: Distinguish between recommendations that can be implemented immediately and those that are long-term.

5. Consider Different Audiences

• Tailor Recommendations: Adapt recommendations to different audiences such as policymakers, practitioners, researchers, or the general public.
• Relevant Language: Use language and terms that are relevant and understandable to each audience.

6. Support with Evidence

• Link to Findings: Base your recommendations on the evidence from your research.
• Cite Data: Use data and examples from your study to justify each recommendation.

7. Address Limitations

• Acknowledge Constraints: Recognize any limitations in your study and how they might affect your recommendations.
• Suggest Improvements: Provide suggestions for how future research can address these limitations.

8. Highlight Benefits

• Positive Outcomes: Emphasize the potential benefits of implementing your recommendations.
• Impact: Discuss the impact your recommendations could have on the field, policy, or practice.

9. Be Realistic

• Feasibility: Ensure that your recommendations are realistic and achievable.
• Resources: Consider the resources required to implement your recommendations and whether they are available.

10. Review and Revise

• Proofread: Carefully review your recommendations for clarity, coherence, and correctness.
• Feedback: Seek feedback from peers or advisors to refine your recommendations.

FAQ’s

Why are recommendations important in research.

Recommendations provide practical applications of research findings, guiding stakeholders in implementing changes or further investigations.

How do you write a good research recommendation?

A good research recommendation is specific, actionable, and directly linked to the study’s conclusions and data.

What should be included in a research recommendation?

Include the action to be taken, the rationale behind it, and its expected impact or benefits.

Can recommendations suggest further research?

Yes, recommendations often suggest areas for further study to address limitations or explore new questions.

How should recommendations be structured in a research paper?

Recommendations should follow the conclusion section, clearly numbered or bullet-pointed for easy reading.

What is the difference between conclusions and recommendations?

Conclusions summarize the findings, while recommendations propose actions based on those findings.

Who benefits from research recommendations?

Policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders can benefit from research recommendations.

How many recommendations should a research paper have?

The number of recommendations varies but should be concise and focused, usually between three to five key suggestions.

Can recommendations be generalized to other contexts?

Recommendations should be context-specific but can sometimes be adapted for broader application.

What language should be used in writing recommendations?

Use clear, precise, and direct language to ensure recommendations are easily understood and actionable.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities (2017)

Chapter: 9 conclusions and recommendations, 9 conclusions and recommendations.

Practitioners designing or improving undergraduate research experiences (UREs) can build on the experiences of colleagues and learn from the increasingly robust literature about UREs and the considerable body of evidence about how students learn. The questions practitioners ask themselves during the design process should include questions about the goals of the campus, program, faculty, and students. Other factors to consider when designing a URE include the issues raised in the conceptual framework for learning and instruction, the available resources, how the program or experience will be evaluated or studied, and how to design the program from the outset to incorporate these considerations, as well as how to build in opportunities to improve the experience over time in light of new evidence. (Some of these topics are addressed in Chapter 8 .)

Colleges and universities that offer or wish to offer UREs to their students should undertake baseline evaluations of their current offerings and create plans to develop a culture of improvement in which faculty are supported in their efforts to continuously refine UREs based on the evidence currently available and evidence that they and others generate in the future. While much of the evidence to date is descriptive, it forms a body of knowledge that can be used to identify research questions about UREs, both those designed around the apprenticeship model and those designed using the more recent course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) model. Internships and other avenues by which undergraduates do research provide many of the same sorts of experiences but are not well studied. In any case, it is clear that students value these experiences; that many faculty do as well; and that they contribute to broadening participation in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and careers. The findings from the research literature reported in Chapter 4 provide guidance to those designing both opportunities to improve practical and academic skills and opportunities for students to “try out” a professional role of interest.

Little research has been done that provides answers to mechanistic questions about how UREs work. Additional studies are needed to know which features of UREs are most important for positive outcomes with which students and to gain information about other questions of this type. This additional research is needed to better understand and compare different strategies for UREs designed for a diversity of students, mentors, and institutions. Therefore, the committee recommends steps that could increase the quantity and quality of evidence available in the future and makes recommendations for how faculty, departments, and institutions might approach decisions about UREs using currently available information. Multiple detailed recommendations about the kinds of research that might be useful are provided in the research agenda in Chapter 7 .

In addition to the specific research recommended in Chapter 7 , in this chapter the committee provides a series of interrelated conclusions and recommendations related to UREs for the STEM disciplines and intended to highlight the issues of primary importance to administrators, URE program designers, mentors to URE students, funders of UREs, those leading the departments and institutions offering UREs, and those conducting research about UREs. These conclusions and recommendations are based on the expert views of the committee and informed by their review of the available research, the papers commissioned for this report, and input from presenters during committee meetings. Table 9-1 defines categories of these URE “actors,” gives examples of specific roles included in each category, specifies key URE actions for which that category is responsible, and lists the conclusions and recommendations the committee views as most relevant to that actor category.

RESEARCH ON URES

Conclusion 1: The current and emerging landscape of what constitutes UREs is diverse and complex. Students can engage in STEM-based undergraduate research in many different ways, across a variety of settings, and along a continuum that extends and expands upon learning opportunities in other educational settings. The following characteristics define UREs. Due to the variation in the types of UREs, not all experiences include all of the following characteristics in the same way; experiences vary in how much a particular characteristic is emphasized.

TABLE 9-1 Audiences for Committee’s Conclusions and Recommendations

• They engage students in research practices including the ability to argue from evidence.
• They aim to generate novel information with an emphasis on discovery and innovation or to determine whether recent preliminary results can be replicated.
• They focus on significant, relevant problems of interest to STEM researchers and, in some cases, a broader community (e.g., civic engagement).
• They emphasize and expect collaboration and teamwork.
• They involve iterative refinement of experimental design, experimental questions, or data obtained.
• They allow students to master specific research techniques.
• They help students engage in reflection about the problems being investigated and the work being undertaken to address those problems.
• They require communication of results, either through publication or presentations in various STEM venues.
• They are structured and guided by a mentor, with students assuming increasing ownership of some aspects of the project over time.

UREs are generally designed to add value to STEM offerings by promoting an understanding of the ways that knowledge is generated in STEM fields and to extend student learning beyond what happens in the small group work of an inquiry-based course. UREs add value by enabling students to understand and contribute to the research questions that are driving the field for one or more STEM topics or to grapple with design challenges of interest to professionals. They help students understand what it means to be a STEM researcher in a way that would be difficult to convey in a lecture course or even in an inquiry-based learning setting. As participants in a URE, students can learn by engaging in planning, experimentation, evaluation, interpretation, and communication of data and other results in light of what is already known about the question of interest. They can pose relevant questions that can be solved only through investigative or design efforts—individually or in teams—and attempt to answer these questions despite the challenges, setbacks, and ambiguity of the process and the results obtained.

The diversity of UREs reflects the reality that different STEM disciplines operate from varying traditions, expectations, and constraints (e.g., lab safety issues) in providing opportunities for undergraduates to engage in research. In addition, individual institutions and departments have cultures that promote research participation to various degrees and at different stages in students’ academic careers. Some programs emphasize design and problem solving in addition to discovery. UREs in different disciplines can

take many forms (e.g., apprentice-style, course-based, internships, project-based), but the definitional characteristics described above are similar across different STEM fields.

Furthermore, students in today’s university landscape may have opportunities to engage with many different types of UREs throughout their education, including involvement in a formal program (which could include mentoring, tutoring, research, and seminars about research), an apprentice-style URE under the guidance of an individual or team of faculty members, an internship, or enrolling in one or more CUREs or in a consortium- or project-based program.

Conclusion 2: Research on the efficacy of UREs is still in the early stages of development compared with other interventions to improve undergraduate STEM education.

• The types of UREs are diverse, and their goals are even more diverse. Questions and methodologies used to investigate the roles and effectiveness of UREs in achieving those goals are similarly diverse.
• Most of the studies of UREs to date are descriptive case studies or use correlational designs. Many of these studies report positive outcomes from engagement in a URE.
• Only a small number of studies have employed research designs that can support inferences about causation. Most of these studies find evidence for a causal relationship between URE participation and subsequent persistence in STEM. More studies are needed to provide evidence that participation in UREs is a causal factor in a range of desired student outcomes.

Taking the entire body of evidence into account, the committee concludes that the published peer-reviewed literature to date suggests that participation in a URE is beneficial for students .

As discussed in the report’s Introduction (see Chapter 1 ) and in the research agenda (see Chapter 7 ), the committee considered descriptive, causal, and mechanistic questions in our reading of the literature on UREs. Scientific approaches to answering descriptive, causal, and mechanistic questions require deciding what to look for, determining how to examine it, and knowing appropriate ways to score or quantify the effect.

Descriptive questions ask what is happening without making claims as to why it is happening—that is, without making claims as to whether the research experience caused these changes. A descriptive statement about UREs only claims that certain changes occurred during or after the time the students were engaged in undergraduate research. Descriptive studies

cannot determine whether any benefits observed were caused by participation in the URE.

Causal questions seek to discover whether a specific intervention leads to a specific outcome, other things being equal. To address such questions, causal evidence can be generated from a comparison of carefully selected groups that do and do not experience UREs. The groups can be made roughly equivalent by random assignment (ensuring that URE and non-URE groups are the same on average as the sample size increases) or by controlling for an exhaustive set of characteristics and experiences that might render the groups different prior to the URE. Other quasi-experimental strategies can also be used. Simply comparing students who enroll in a URE with students who do not is not adequate for determining causality because there may be selection bias. For example, students already interested in STEM are more likely to seek out such opportunities and more likely to be selected for such programs. Instead the investigator would have to compare future enrollment patterns (or other measures) between closely matched students, some of whom enrolled in a URE and some of whom did not. Controlling for selection bias to enable an inference about causation can pose significant challenges.

Questions of mechanism or of process also can be explored to understand why a causal intervention leads to the observed effect. Perhaps the URE enhances a student’s confidence in her ability to succeed in her chosen field or deepens her commitment to the field by exposing her to the joy of discovery. Through these pathways that act on the participant’s purposive behavior, the URE enhances the likelihood that she persists in STEM. The question for the researcher then becomes what research design would provide support for this hypothesis of mechanism over other candidate explanations for why the URE is a causal factor in STEM persistence.

The committee has examined the literature and finds a rich descriptive foundation for testable hypotheses about the effects of UREs on student outcomes. These studies are encouraging; a few of them have generated evidence that a URE can be a positive causal factor in the progression and persistence of STEM students. The weight of the evidence has been descriptive; it relies primarily on self-reports of short-term gains by students who chose to participate in UREs and does not include direct measures of changes in the students’ knowledge, skills, or other measures of success across comparable groups of students who did and did not participate in UREs.

While acknowledging the scarcity of strong causal evidence on the benefits of UREs, the committee takes seriously the weight of the descriptive evidence. Many of the published studies of UREs show that students who participate report a range of benefits, such as increased understanding of the research process, encouragement to persist in STEM, and support that helps them sustain their identity as researchers and continue with their

plans to enroll in a graduate program in STEM (see Chapter 4 ). These are effective starting points for causal studies.

Conclusion 3: Studies focused on students from historically underrepresented groups indicate that participation in UREs improves their persistence in STEM and helps to validate their disciplinary identity.

Various UREs have been specifically designed to increase the number of historically underrepresented students who go on to become STEM majors and ultimately STEM professionals. While many UREs offer one or more supplemental opportunities to support students’ academic or social success, such as mentoring, tutoring, summer bridge programs, career or graduate school workshops, and research-oriented seminars, those designed for underrepresented students appear to emphasize such features as integral and integrated components of the program. In particular, studies of undergraduate research programs targeting underrepresented minority students have begun to document positive outcomes such as degree completion and persistence in interest in STEM careers ( Byars-Winston et al., 2015 ; Chemers et al., 2011 ; Jones et al., 2010 ; Nagda et al., 1998 ; Schultz et al., 2011 ). Most of these studies collected data on apprentice-style UREs, in which the undergraduate becomes a functioning member of a research group along with the graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and mentor.

Recommendation 1: Researchers with expertise in education research should conduct well-designed studies in collaboration with URE program directors to improve the evidence base about the processes and effects of UREs. This research should address how the various components of UREs may benefit students. It should also include additional causal evidence for the individual and additive effects of outcomes from student participation in different types of UREs. Not all UREs need be designed to undertake this type of research, but it would be very useful to have some UREs that are designed to facilitate these efforts to improve the evidence base .

As the focus on UREs has grown, so have questions about their implementation. Many articles have been published describing specific UREs (see Chapter 2 ). Large amounts of research have also been undertaken to explore more generally how students learn, and the resulting body of evidence has led to the development and adoption of “active learning” strategies and experiences. If a student in a URE has an opportunity to, for example, analyze new data or to reformulate a hypothesis in light of the student’s analysis, this activity fits into the category that is described as active learning. Surveys of student participants and unpublished evaluations pro-

vide additional information about UREs but do not establish causation or determine the mechanism(s). Consequently, little is currently known about the mechanisms of precisely how UREs work and which aspects of UREs are most powerful. Important components that have been reported include student ownership of the URE project, time to tackle a question iteratively, and opportunities to report and defend one’s conclusions ( Hanauer and Dolan, 2014 ; Thiry et al., 2011 ).

There are many unanswered questions and opportunities for further research into the role and mechanism of UREs. Attention to research design as UREs are planned is important; more carefully designed studies are needed to understand the ways that UREs influence a student’s education and to evaluate the outcomes that have been reported for URE participants. Appropriate studies, which include matched samples or similar controls, would facilitate research on the ways that UREs benefit students, enabling both education researchers and implementers of UREs to determine optimal features for program design and giving the community a more robust understanding of how UREs work.

See the research agenda ( Chapter 7 ) for specific recommendations about research topics and approaches.

Recommendation 2: Funders should provide appropriate resources to support the design, implementation, and analysis of some URE programs that are specifically designed to enable detailed research establishing the effects on participant outcomes and on other variables of interest such as the consequences for mentors or institutions.

Not all UREs need to be the subject of extensive study. In many cases, a straightforward evaluation is adequate to determine whether the URE is meeting its goals. However, to achieve more widespread improvement in both the types and quality of the UREs offered in the future, additional evidence about the possible causal effects and mechanisms of action of UREs needs to be systematically collected and disseminated. This includes a better understanding of the implementation differences for a variety of institutions (e.g., community colleges, primarily undergraduate institutions, research universities) to ensure that the desired outcomes can translate across settings. Increasing the evidence about precisely how UREs work and which aspects of UREs are most powerful will require careful attention to study design during planning for the UREs.

Not all UREs need to be designed to achieve this goal; many can provide opportunities to students by relying on pre-existing knowledge and iterative improvement as that knowledge base grows. However, for the knowledge base to grow, funders must provide resources for some URE designers and social science researchers to undertake thoughtful and well-planned studies

on causal and mechanistic issues. This will maximize the chances for the creation and dissemination of information that can lead to the development of sustainable and effective UREs. These studies can result from a partnership formed as the URE is designed and funded, or evaluators and social scientists could identify promising and/or effective existing programs and then raise funds on their own to support the study of those programs to answer the questions of interest. In deciding upon the UREs that are chosen for these extensive studies, it will be important to consider whether, collectively, they are representative of UREs in general. For example, large and small UREs at large and small schools targeted at both introductory and advanced students and topics should be studied.

CONSTRUCTION OF URES

Conclusion 4: The committee was unable to find evidence that URE designers are taking full advantage of the information available in the education literature on strategies for designing, implementing, and evaluating learning experiences. STEM faculty members do not generally receive training in interpreting or conducting education research. Partnerships between those with expertise in education research and those with expertise in implementing UREs are one way to strengthen the application of evidence on what works in planning and implementing UREs.

As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 , there is an extensive body of literature on pedagogy and how people learn; helping STEM faculty to access the existing literature and incorporate those concepts as they design UREs could improve student experiences. New studies that specifically focus on UREs may provide more targeted information that could be used to design, implement, sustain, or scale up UREs and facilitate iterative improvements. Information about the features of UREs that elicit particular outcomes or best serve certain populations of students should be considered when implementing a new instantiation of an existing model of a URE or improving upon an existing URE model.

Conclusion 5: Evaluations of UREs are often conducted to inform program providers and funders; however, they may not be accessible to others. While these evaluations are not designed to be research studies and often have small sample sizes, they may contain information that could be useful to those initiating new URE programs and those refining UREs. Increasing access to these evaluations and to the accumulated experience of the program providers may enable URE designers and implementers to build upon knowledge gained from earlier UREs.

As discussed in Chapter 1 , the committee searched for evaluations of URE programs in several different ways but was not able to locate many published evaluations to study. Although some evaluations were found in the literature, the committee could not determine a way to systematically examine the program evaluations that have been prepared. The National Science Foundation and other funders generally require grant recipients to submit evaluation data, but that information is not currently aggregated and shared publicly, even for programs that are using a common evaluation tool. 1

Therefore, while program evaluation likely serves a useful role in providing descriptive data about a program for the institutions and funders supporting the program, much of the summative evaluation work that has been done to date adds relatively little to the broader knowledge base and overall conversations around undergraduate research. Some of the challenges of evaluation include budget and sample size constraints.

Similarly, it is difficult for designers of UREs to benefit systematically from the work of others who have designed and run UREs in the past because of the lack of an easy and consistent mechanism for collecting, analyzing, and sharing data. If these evaluations were more accessible they might be beneficial to others designing and evaluating UREs by helping them to gather ideas and inspiration from the experiences of others. A few such stories are provided in this report, and others can be found among the many resources offered by the Council on Undergraduate Research 2 and on other websites such as CUREnet. 3

Recommendation 3: Designers of UREs should base their design decisions on sound evidence. Consultations with education and social science researchers may be helpful as designers analyze the literature and make decisions on the creation or improvement of UREs. Professional development materials should be created and made available to faculty. Educational and disciplinary societies should consider how they can provide resources and connections to those working on UREs.

Faculty and other organizers of UREs can use the expanding body of scholarship as they design or improve the programs and experiences offered to their students. URE designers will need to make decisions about how to adapt approaches reported in the literature to make the programs they develop more suitable to their own expertise, student population(s), and available resources. Disciplinary societies and other national groups, such as those focused on improving pedagogy, can play important roles in

___________________

1 Personal knowledge of Janet Branchaw, member of the Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students.

2 See www.cur.org [November 2016].

3 See ( curenet.cns.utexas.edu ) [November 2016].

bringing these issues to the forefront through events at their national and regional meetings and through publications in their journals and newsletters. They can develop repositories for various kinds of resources appropriate for their members who are designing and implementing UREs. The ability to travel to conferences and to access and discuss resources created by other individuals and groups is a crucial aspect of support (see Recommendations 7 and 8 for further discussion).

See Chapter 8 for specific questions to consider when one is designing or implementing UREs.

CURRENT OFFERINGS

Conclusion 6: Data at the institutional, state, or national levels on the number and type of UREs offered, or who participates in UREs overall or at specific types of institutions, have not been collected systematically. Although the committee found that some individual institutions track at least some of this type of information, we were unable to determine how common it is to do so or what specific information is most often gathered.

There is no one central database or repository that catalogs UREs at institutions of higher education, the nature of the research experiences they provide, or the relevant demographics (student, departmental, and institutional). The lack of comprehensive data makes it difficult to know how many students participate in UREs; where UREs are offered; and if there are gaps in access to UREs across different institutional types, disciplines, or groups of students. One of the challenges of describing the undergraduate research landscape is that students do not have to be enrolled in a formal program to have a research experience. Informal experiences, for example a work-study job, are typically not well documented. Another challenge is that some students participate in CUREs or other research experiences (such as internships) that are not necessarily labeled as such. Institutional administrators may be unaware of CUREs that are already part of their curriculum. (For example, establishment of CUREs may be under the purview of a faculty curriculum committee and may not be recognized as a distinct program.) Student participation in UREs may occur at their home institution or elsewhere during the summer. Therefore, it is very difficult for a science department, and likely any other STEM department, to know what percentage of their graduating majors have had a research experience, let alone to gather such information on students who left the major. 4

4 This point was made by Marco Molinaro, University of California, Davis, in a presentation to the Committee on Strengthening Research Experience for Undergraduate STEM Students, September 16, 2015.

Conclusion 7: While data are lacking on the precise number of students engaged in UREs, there is some evidence of a recent growth in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), which engage a cohort of students in a research project as part of a formal academic experience.

There has been an increase in the number of grants and the dollar amount spent on CUREs over the past decade (see Chapter 3 ). CUREs can be particularly useful in scaling UREs to reach a much larger population of students ( Bangera and Brownell, 2014 ). By using a familiar mechanism—enrollment in a course—a CURE can provide a more comfortable route for students unfamiliar with research to gain their first experience. CUREs also can provide such experiences to students with diverse backgrounds, especially if an institution or department mandates participation sometime during a student’s matriculation. Establishing CUREs may be more cost-effective at schools with little on-site research activity. However, designing a CURE is a new and time-consuming challenge for many faculty members. Connecting to nationally organized research networks can provide faculty with helpful resources for the development of a CURE based around their own research or a local community need, or these networks can link interested faculty to an ongoing collaborative project. Collaborative projects can provide shared curriculum, faculty professional development and community, and other advantages when starting or expanding a URE program. See the discussion in the report from a convocation on Integrating Discovery-based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015 ).

Recommendation 4: Institutions should collect data on student participation in UREs to inform their planning and to look for opportunities to improve quality and access.

Better tracking of student participation could lead to better assessment of outcomes and improved quality of experience. Such metrics could be useful for both prospective students and campus planners. An integrated institutional system for research opportunities could facilitate the creation of tiered research experiences that allow students to progress in skills and responsibility and create support structures for students, providing, for example, seminars in communications, safety, and ethics for undergraduate researchers. Institutions could also use these data to measure the impact of UREs on student outcomes, such as student success rates in introductory courses, retention in STEM degree programs, and completion of STEM degrees.

While individual institutions may choose to collect additional information depending on their goals and resources, relevant student demographics

and the following design elements would provide baseline data. At a minimum, such data should include

• Type of URE;
• Each student’s discipline;
• Duration of the experience;
• Hours spent per week;
• When the student began the URE (e.g., first year, capstone);
• Compensation status (e.g., paid, unpaid, credit); and
• Location and format (e.g., on home campus, on another campus, internship, co-op).

National aggregation of some of the student participation variables collected by various campuses might be considered by funders. The existing Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System database, organized by the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education, may be a suitable repository for certain aspects of this information.

Recommendation 5: Administrators and faculty at all types of colleges and universities should continually and holistically evaluate the range of UREs that they offer. As part of this process, institutions should:

• Consider how best to leverage available resources (including off-campus experiences available to students and current or potential networks or partnerships that the institution may form) when offering UREs so that they align with their institution’s mission and priorities;
• Consider whether current UREs are both accessible and welcoming to students from various subpopulations across campus (e.g., historically underrepresented students, first generation college students, those with disabilities, non-STEM majors, prospective kindergarten-through-12th-grade teachers); and
• Gather and analyze data on the types of UREs offered and the students who participate, making this information widely available to the campus community and using it to make evidence-based decisions about improving opportunities for URE participation. This may entail devising or implementing systems for tracking relevant data (see Conclusion 4 ).

Resources available for starting, maintaining, and expanding UREs vary from campus to campus. At some campuses, UREs are a central focus and many resources are devoted to them. At other institutions—for example, many community colleges—UREs are seen as extra, and new resources may be required to ensure availability of courses and facilities. Resource-

constrained institutions may need to focus more on ensuring that students are aware of potential UREs that already exist on campus and elsewhere in near proximity to campus. All institutional discussions about UREs must consider both the financial resources and physical resources (e.g., laboratories, field stations, engineering design studios) required, while remembering that faculty time is a crucial resource. The incentives and disincentives for faculty to spend time on UREs are significant. Those institutions with an explicit mission to promote undergraduate research may provide more recognition and rewards to departments and faculty than those with another focus. The culture of the institution with respect to innovation in pedagogy and support for faculty development also can have a major influence on the extent to which UREs are introduced or improved.

Access to UREs may vary across campus and by department, and participation in UREs may vary across student groups. It is important for campuses to consider the factors that may facilitate or discourage students from participation in UREs. Inconsistent procedures or a faculty preference for students with high grades or previous research experience may limit options for some student populations.

UREs often grow based on the initiative of individual faculty members and other personnel, and an institution may not have complete or even rudimentary knowledge of all of the opportunities available or whether there are gaps or inconsistencies in its offerings. A uniform method for tracking the UREs available on a given campus would be useful to students and would provide a starting point for analyzing the options. Tracking might consist of notations in course listings and, where feasible, on student transcripts. Analysis might consider the types of UREs offered, the resources available to each type of URE, and variations within or between various disciplines and programs. Attention to whether all students or groups of students have appropriate access to UREs would foster consideration of how to best allocate resources and programming on individual campuses, in order to focus resources and opportunities where they are most needed.

Conclusion 8: The quality of mentoring can make a substantial difference in a student’s experiences with research. However, professional development in how to be a good mentor is not available to many faculty or other prospective mentors (e.g., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows).

Engagement in quality mentored research experiences has been linked to self-reported gains in research skills and productivity as well as retention in STEM (see Chapter 5 ). Quality mentoring in UREs has been shown

to increase persistence in STEM for historically underrepresented students ( Hernandez et al., 2016 ). In addition, poor mentoring during UREs has been shown to decrease retention of students ( Hernandez et al., 2016 ).

More general research on good mentoring in the STEM environment has been positively associated with self-reported gains in identity as a STEM researcher, a sense of belonging, and confidence to function as a STEM researcher ( Byars-Winston et al., 2015 ; Chemers et al., 2011 ; Pfund et al., 2016 ; Thiry et al., 2011 ). The frequency and quality of mentee-mentor interactions has been associated with students’ reports of persistence in STEM, with mentoring directly or indirectly improving both grades and persistence in college. For students from historically underrepresented ethnic/racial groups, quality mentoring has been associated with self-reported enhanced recruitment into graduate school and research-related career pathways ( Byars-Winston et al., 2015 ). Therefore, it is important to ensure that faculty and mentors receive the proper development of mentoring skills.

Recommendation 6: Administrators and faculty at colleges and universities should ensure that all who mentor undergraduates in research experiences (this includes faculty, instructors, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and undergraduates serving as peer mentors) have access to appropriate professional development opportunities to help them grow and succeed in this role.

Although many organizations recognize effective mentors (e.g., the National Science Foundation’s Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring), there currently are no standard criteria for selecting, evaluating, or recognizing mentors specifically for UREs. In addition, there are no requirements that mentors meet some minimum level of competency before engaging in mentoring or participate in professional development to obtain a baseline of knowledge and skills in mentoring, including cultural competence in mentoring diverse groups of students. Traditionally, the only experience required for being a mentor is having been mentored, regardless of whether the experience was negative or positive ( Handelsman et al., 2005 ; Pfund et al., 2015 ). Explicit consideration of how the relationships are formed, supported, and evaluated can improve mentor-mentee relationships. To ensure that the mentors associated with a URE are prepared appropriately, thereby increasing the chances of a positive experience for both mentors and mentees, all prospective mentors should prepare for their role. Available resources include the Entering Mentoring course (see Pfund et al., 2015 ) and the book Successful STEM Mentoring Initiative for Underrepresented Students ( Packard, 2016 ).

A person who is an ineffective mentor for one student might be inspiring for another, and the setting in which the mentoring takes place (e.g., a CURE or apprentice-style URE, a laboratory or field-research environment) may also influence mentor effectiveness. Thus, there should be some mechanism for monitoring such relationships during the URE, or there should be opportunity for a student who is unhappy with the relationship to seek other mentors. Indeed, cultivating a team of mentors with different experiences and expertise may be the best strategy for any student. A parallel volume to the Entering Mentoring curriculum mentioned above, Entering Research Facilitator’s Manual ( Branchaw et al., 2010 ), is designed to help students with their research mentor-mentee relationships and to coach them on building teams of mentors to guide them. As mentioned in Chapter 5 , the Entering Research curriculum also contains information designed to support a group of students as they go through their first apprentice-style research experience, each working in separate research groups and also meeting together as a cohort focused on learning about research.

PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE

Conclusion 9: The unique assets, resources, priorities, and constraints of the department and institution, in addition to those of individual mentors, impact the goals and structures of UREs. Schools across the country are showing considerable creativity in using unique resources, repurposing current assets, and leveraging student enthusiasm to increase research opportunities for their students.

Given current calls for UREs and the growing conversation about their benefits, an increasing number of two- and four-year colleges and universities are increasing their efforts to support undergraduate research. Departments, institutions, and individual faculty members influence the precise nature of UREs in multiple ways and at multiple levels. The physical resources available, including laboratories, field stations, and engineering design studios and testing facilities, make a difference, as does the ability to access resources in the surrounding community (including other parts of the campus). Institutions with an explicit mission to promote undergraduate research may provide more time, resources (e.g., financial, support personnel, space, equipment), and recognition and rewards to departments and faculty in support of UREs than do institutions without that mission. The culture of the institution with respect to innovation in pedagogy and support for faculty development also affects the extent to which UREs are introduced or improved.

Development of UREs requires significant time and effort. Whether or not faculty attempt to implement UREs can depend on whether departmental

or institutional reward and recognition systems compensate for or even recognize the time required to initiate and implement them. The availability of national consortia can help to alleviate many of the time and logistical problems but not those obstacles associated with recognition and resources.

It will be harder for faculty to find the time to develop UREs at institutions where they are required to teach many courses per semester, although in some circumstances faculty can teach CUREs that also advance their own research ( Shortlidge et al., 2016 ). Faculty at community colleges generally have the heaviest teaching expectations, little or no expectations or incentives to maintain a research program, limited access to lab or design space or to scientific and engineering journals, and few resources to undertake any kind of a research program. These constraints may limit the extent to which UREs can be offered to the approximately 40 percent of U.S. undergraduates who are enrolled in the nation’s community colleges (which collectively also serve the highest percentage of the nation’s underrepresented students). 5

Recommendation 7: Administrators and faculty at all types of colleges and universities should work together within and, where feasible, across institutions to create a culture that supports the development of evidence-based, iterative, and continuous refinement of UREs, in an effort to improve student learning outcomes and overall academic success. This should include the development, evaluation, and revision of policies and practices designed to create a culture supportive of the participation of faculty and other mentors in effective UREs. Policies should consider pedagogy, professional development, cross-cultural awareness, hiring practices, compensation, promotion (incentives, rewards), and the tenure process.

Colleges and universities that would like to expand or improve the UREs offered to their students should consider the campus culture and climate and the incentives that affect faculty choices. Those campuses that cultivate an environment supportive of the iterative and continuous refinement of UREs and that offer incentives for evaluation and evidence-based improvement of UREs seem more likely to sustain successful programs. Faculty and others who develop and implement UREs need support to be able to evaluate their courses or programs and to analyze evidence to make decisions about URE design. This kind of support may be fostered by expanding the mission of on-campus centers for learning and teaching to focus more on UREs or by providing incentives for URE developers from the natural sciences and engineering to collaborate with colleagues in the social sciences or colleges of education with expertise in designing studies

5 See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp [November 2016].

involving human subjects. Supporting closer communication between URE developers and the members of the campus Institutional Review Board may help projects to move forward more seamlessly. Interdepartmental and intercampus connections (especially those between two- and four-year institutions) can be valuable for linking faculty with the appropriate resources, colleagues, and diverse student populations. Faculty who have been active in professional development on how students learn in the classroom may have valuable experiences and expertise to share.

The refinement or expansion of UREs should build on evidence from data on student participation, pedagogy, and outcomes, which are integral components of the original design. As UREs are validated and refined, institutions should make efforts to facilitate connections among different departments and disciplines, including the creation of multidisciplinary UREs. Student engagement in learning in general, and with UREs more specifically, depends largely on the culture of the department and the institution and on whether students see their surroundings as inclusive and energetic places to learn and thrive. A study that examined the relationship between campus missions and the five benchmarks for effective educational practice (measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement) showed that different programs, policies, and approaches may work better, depending on the institution’s mission ( Kezar and Kinzie, 2006 ).

The Council on Undergraduate Research (2012) document Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research outlines several best practices for UREs based on the apprenticeship model (see Chapter 8 ). That document is not the result of a detailed analysis of the evidence but is based on the extensive experiences and expertise of the council’s members. It suggests that undergraduate research should be a normal part of the undergraduate experience regardless of the type of institution. It also identifies changes necessary to include UREs as part of the curriculum and culture changes necessary to support curricular reform, co-curricular activities, and modifications to the incentives and rewards for faculty to engage with undergraduate research. In addition, professional development opportunities specifically designed to help improve the pedagogical and mentoring skills of instructional staff in using evidence-based practices can be important for a supportive learning culture.

Recommendation 8: Administrators and faculty at all types of colleges and universities should work to develop strong and sustainable partnerships within and between institutions and with educational and professional societies for the purpose of sharing resources to facilitate the creation of sustainable URE programs.

Networks of faculty, institutions, regionally and nationally coordinated URE initiatives, professional societies, and funders should be strengthened

to facilitate the exchange of evidence and experience related to UREs. These networks could build on the existing work of professional societies that assist faculty with pedagogy. They can help provide a venue for considering the policy context and larger implications of increasing the number, size, and scope of UREs. Such networks also can provide a more robust infrastructure, to improve the sustainability and expansion of URE opportunities. The sharing of human, financial, scientific, and technical resources can strengthen the broad implementation of effective, high-quality, and more cost-efficient UREs. It may be especially important for community colleges and minority-serving institutions to engage in partnerships in order to expand the opportunities for undergraduates (both transfer and technical students) to participate in diverse UREs (see discussion in National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015 , and Elgin et al., 2016 ). Consortia can facilitate the sharing of resources across disciplines and departments within the same institution or at different institutions, organizations, and agencies. Consortia that employ research methodologies in common can share curriculum, research data collected, and common assessment tools, lessening the time burden for individual faculty and providing a large pool of students from which to assess the efficacy of individual programs.

Changes in the funding climate can have substantial impacts on the types of programs that exist, iterative refinement of programs, and whether and how programs might be expanded to broaden participation by more undergraduates. For those institutions that have not yet established URE programs or are at the beginning phases of establishing one, mechanisms for achieving success and sustainability may include increased institutional ownership of programs of undergraduate research, development of a broad range of programs of different types and funding structures, formation of undergraduate research offices or repurposing some of the responsibilities and activities of those which already exist, and engagement in community promotion and dissemination of student accomplishments (e.g., student symposia, support for undergraduate student travel to give presentations at professional meetings).

Over time, institutions must develop robust plans for ensuring the long-term sustained funding of high-quality UREs. Those plans should include assuming that more fiscal responsibility for sustaining such efforts will be borne by the home institution as external support for such efforts decreases and ultimately ends. Building UREs into the curriculum and structure of a department’s courses and other programs, and thus its funding model, can help with sustainability. Partnerships with nonprofit organizations and industry, as well as seeking funding from diverse agencies, can also facilitate programmatic sustainability, especially if the UREs they fund can also support the mission and programs of the funders (e.g., through research internships or through CUREs that focus on community-

based research questions and challenges). Partnerships among institutions also may have greater potential to study and evaluate student outcomes from URE participation across broader demographic groups and to reduce overall costs through the sharing of administrative or other resources (such as libraries, microscopes, etc.).

Bangera, G., and Brownell, S.E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE–Life Sciences Education , 13 (4), 602-606.

Branchaw, J.L., Pfund, C., and Rediske, R. (2010) Entering Research Facilitator’s Manual: Workshops for Students Beginning Research in Science . New York: Freeman & Company.

Byars-Winston, A.M., Branchaw, J., Pfund, C., Leverett, P., and Newton, J. (2015). Culturally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education , 37 (15), 2,533-2,554.

Chemers, M.M., Zurbriggen, E.L., Syed, M., Goza, B.K., and Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues , 67 (3), 469-491.

Council on Undergraduate Research. (2012). Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research . Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

Elgin, S.C.R., Bangera, G., Decatur, S.M., Dolan, E.L., Guertin, L., Newstetter, W.C., San Juan, E.F., Smith, M.A., Weaver, G.C., Wessler, S.R., Brenner, K.A., and Labov, J.B. 2016. Insights from a convocation: Integrating discovery-based research into the undergraduate curriculum. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 15 , 1-7.

Hanauer, D., and Dolan, E. (2014) The Project Ownership Survey: Measuring differences in scientific inquiry experiences, CBE–Life Sciences Education , 13 , 149-158.

Handelsman, J., Pfund, C., Lauffer, S.M., and Pribbenow, C.M. (2005). Entering Mentoring . Madison, WI: The Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching.

Hernandez, P.R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., and Schultz, P.W. (2016). Protégé perceptions of high mentorship quality depend on shared values more than on demographic match. Journal of Experimental Education. Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405 [November 2016].

Jones, P., Selby, D., and Sterling, S.R. (2010). Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice Across Higher Education . New York: Earthscan.

Kezar, A.J., and Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: The role of mission. Journal of College Student Development , 47 (2), 149-172.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Report of a Convocation . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S.R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., and Lerner, J.S. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Review of Higher Education, 22 , 55-72. Available: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenniferlerner/files/nagda_1998_paper.pdf [February 2017].

Packard, P. (2016). Successful STEM Mentoring Initiatives for Underrepresented Students: A Research-Based Guide for Faculty and Administrators . Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Pfund, C., Branchaw, J.L., and Handelsman, J. (2015). Entering Mentoring: A Seminar to Train a New Generation of Scientists (2nd ed). New York: Macmillan Learning.

Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J.L., Hurtado, S., and Eagan, M.K. (2016). Defining attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDS and Behavior, 20 , 238-248.

Schultz, P.W., Hernandez, P.R., Woodcock, A., Estrada, M., Chance, R.C., Aguilar, M., and Serpe, R.T. (2011). Patching the pipeline reducing educational disparities in the sciences through minority training programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 33 (1), 95-114.

Shortlidge, E.E., Bangera, G., and Brownell, S.E. (2016). Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences. BioScience, 66 (1), 54-62.

Thiry, H., Laursen, S.L., and Hunter, A.B. (2011). What experiences help students become scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 82 (4), 358-389.

This page intentionally left blank.

Undergraduate research has a rich history, and many practicing researchers point to undergraduate research experiences (UREs) as crucial to their own career success. There are many ongoing efforts to improve undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education that focus on increasing the active engagement of students and decreasing traditional lecture-based teaching, and UREs have been proposed as a solution to these efforts and may be a key strategy for broadening participation in STEM. In light of the proposals questions have been asked about what is known about student participation in UREs, best practices in UREs design, and evidence of beneficial outcomes from UREs.

Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students provides a comprehensive overview of and insights about the current and rapidly evolving types of UREs, in an effort to improve understanding of the complexity of UREs in terms of their content, their surrounding context, the diversity of the student participants, and the opportunities for learning provided by a research experience. This study analyzes UREs by considering them as part of a learning system that is shaped by forces related to national policy, institutional leadership, and departmental culture, as well as by the interactions among faculty, other mentors, and students. The report provides a set of questions to be considered by those implementing UREs as well as an agenda for future research that can help answer questions about how UREs work and which aspects of the experiences are most powerful.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips

Published on 15 September 2022 by Tegan George .

Recommendations in research are a crucial component of your discussion section and the conclusion of your thesis , dissertation , or research paper .

As you conduct your research and analyse the data you collected , perhaps there are ideas or results that don’t quite fit the scope of your research topic . Or, maybe your results suggest that there are further implications of your results or the causal relationships between previously-studied variables than covered in extant research.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

What should recommendations look like, building your research recommendation, how should your recommendations be written, recommendation in research example, frequently asked questions about recommendations.

Recommendations for future research should be:

• Concrete and specific
• Supported with a clear rationale
• Directly connected to your research

Overall, strive to highlight ways other researchers can reproduce or replicate your results to draw further conclusions, and suggest different directions that future research can take, if applicable.

Relatedly, when making these recommendations, avoid:

• Undermining your own work, but rather offer suggestions on how future studies can build upon it
• Suggesting recommendations actually needed to complete your argument, but rather ensure that your research stands alone on its own merits
• Using recommendations as a place for self-criticism, but rather as a natural extension point for your work

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

There are many different ways to frame recommendations, but the easiest is perhaps to follow the formula of research question   conclusion  recommendation. Here’s an example.

Conclusion An important condition for controlling many social skills is mastering language. If children have a better command of language, they can express themselves better and are better able to understand their peers. Opportunities to practice social skills are thus dependent on the development of language skills.

As a rule of thumb, try to limit yourself to only the most relevant future recommendations: ones that stem directly from your work. While you can have multiple recommendations for each research conclusion, it is also acceptable to have one recommendation that is connected to more than one conclusion.

These recommendations should be targeted at your audience, specifically toward peers or colleagues in your field that work on similar topics to yours. They can flow directly from any limitations you found while conducting your work, offering concrete and actionable possibilities for how future research can build on anything that your own work was unable to address at the time of your writing.

See below for a full research recommendation example that you can use as a template to write your own.

The current study can be interpreted as a first step in the research on COPD speech characteristics. However, the results of this study should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the lack of details regarding the participants’ characteristics.

Future research could further examine the differences in speech characteristics between exacerbated COPD patients, stable COPD patients, and healthy controls. It could also contribute to a deeper understanding of the acoustic measurements suitable for e-health measurements.

While it may be tempting to present new arguments or evidence in your thesis or disseration conclusion , especially if you have a particularly striking argument you’d like to finish your analysis with, you shouldn’t. Theses and dissertations follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the discussion section and results section .) The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of your thesis or dissertation should include the following:

• A restatement of your research question
• A summary of your key arguments and/or results
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

For a stronger dissertation conclusion , avoid including:

• Generic concluding phrases (e.g. “In conclusion…”)
• Weak statements that undermine your argument (e.g. “There are good points on both sides of this issue.”)

Your conclusion should leave the reader with a strong, decisive impression of your work.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2022, September 15). How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 5 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/research-recommendations/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

• +44 7897 053596
• [email protected]

Get an experienced writer start working

Review our examples before placing an order, learn how to draft academic papers, how to write recommendations: do’s and don’ts..

How to Write Citation? | A Practical Guide for Citation and References

How to Write References Quickly and Accurately? | A Practical Guide

Writing research recommendations involves suggesting future research directions or actions that can be taken based on the findings of a research study. The most crucial element of the analysis process, recommendations, is where you provide specific suggestions for interventions or solutions to the problems and limitations found throughout the assessment.

Explore New Dissertation Ideas

Find Current Dissertation Examples

The following guideline will help you explore how to write recommendations : 

What are the Recommendations?

Research recommendations are suggestions for future research based on the findings of a research study. The researcher may make these recommendations, or they may be requested by the publisher, funding agency, or other stakeholders who have an interest in the research. The purpose of research recommendations is to identify areas where further investigation is needed and to provide direction for future research in the field.

Get Help Through Our Proofreading Editing Services

The recommendation section, whether it is included in the discussion section or conclusion, should involve the following:

• The research questions that the recommendation addresses.
• A concise summary of the findings from the research.
• The implications of the findings for practice.
• The strengths and limitations of the research.
• How do the findings relate to other research in the field?
• Recommendations for further research.

3-Step  Dissertation Process!

Get 3+ Topics

Dissertation Proposal

Get Final Dissertation

What kind of recommendations are appropriate.

The appropriateness of recommendations depends on the research study and the research field. Generally, research recommendations should be based on the findings of the study and should address research gaps or limitations. Here are some types of recommendations that may be appropriate:

Finalise Your Topic After Getting Inspired by the Current Research Topics

1- Further Investigations

Suggest further investigations into specific research questions or hypotheses. This can include exploring new variables, testing different methods, or using different samples.

2- Development of New Research Methods or Techniques

Propose new research methods or techniques that can be used to address research questions or improve the quality of research.

3- Replication of the Study

Recommend replication of the study with larger or more diverse samples to increase the generalizability of the findings.

4- Extension of the Study

Suggest extending the study to different populations or contexts to explore the generalizability of the findings.

5- Collaboration with Other Researchers

Recommend collaboration with other researchers or research teams to leverage expertise and resources.

6- Integration of the Study Findings into Policy or Practice

Suggest ways in which the study findings can be used to inform policy or practice in the relevant field.

7- Addressing Limitations or Gaps in the Current Research Literature

Propose ways the study findings can address limitations or gaps in the current research literature.

Get a Dissertation Proposal

Start your dissertation writing process with experts

Safe and confidential process Free custom topics to choose from Any deadline Unlimited free amendments Free anti-plagiarism report Money-back guarantee

Structuring of Recommendations

When learning how to write recommendations, start with structuring the recommendations section.

1- Summarize your Research Findings

Before making any recommendations, briefly summarise your study's key findings. This will provide context for your recommendations and ensure that they are relevant to the research topic.

2- Identify Research Gaps

Based on your research findings, identify gaps in the literature or areas requiring further investigation. Consider the limitations of your study and the potential implications of your findings.

3- Prioritize Recommendations

Determine the most important recommendations based on their potential impact and feasibility. You may want to organize your recommendations into short-term and long-term goals.

4- Provide Clear and Specific Recommendations

Your recommendations should be concise and specific. Avoid vague or general statements and provide actionable steps that can be taken to address the research gaps you have identified.

5- Justify Your Recommendations

Provide a rationale for each of your recommendations, explaining why they are necessary and how they will contribute to the overall research field.

6- Consider Potential Challenges

Be sure to consider potential challenges or limitations that may arise in implementing your recommendations. Provide suggestions for overcoming these challenges where possible.

7- Conclude with a Summary

End your recommendations with a brief summary of your main points. This will help reinforce the importance of your recommendations and ensure they are clearly understood.

Find Interesting Research Proposal Examples Here

Remember to tailor your recommendations to your specific research study and field of study. Keep in mind that your recommendations should be based on evidence and have practical applications for researchers, practitioners, or policymakers.

Building Concrete Research Recommendations

• The research process should be systematic and logical.
• Conduct the research in an objective and unbiased manner.
• The research findings should be reproducible.
• The research recommendations should be made with a concrete plan in mind.
• The research recommendations should be based on a solid foundation of evidence.
• The research recommendations should be clear and concise.
• The research recommendations should be achievable and realistic.
• The research recommendations should be made to further the research project's goals.
• They should be made to improve the quality of the research project.
• The research recommendations should make the research project more efficient.
• The recommendations should make the research project more effective.
• The research recommendations must aid in making the research project more successful.

Testimonials

Very satisfied students

This is our reason for working. We want to make all students happy, every day. Review us on Sitejabber

What is the Smart Strategy for Writing Research Recommendations?

In academic writing, there are generally three types of Recommendations:

• Obligations

Explore Some Best Dissertation Writings Here 

Recommendations can be further characterized as "SMART" or "non-SMART." A SMART Recommendation is one that is Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time-bound. The following sections will provide more information on each of these characteristics.

• A Recommendation is " Specific " if it clearly spells out what actions need to take place, who needs to take those actions, and when they need to occur.
• A Recommendation is " Measurable " if specified indicators can be used to gauge whether it has successfully achieved its objectives.
• A Recommendation is " Actionable " if the necessary steps required to implement the recommendation are spelt out and achievable.
• A Recommendation is " Realistic " if it is achievable given the available resources (e.g., time, money, human resources).
• Finally, a Recommendation is " Time - bound " if there is a specified timeframe within which the recommendation should be achieved.

How Does It Work ?

Fill the Form

Please fill the free topic form and share your requirements

Writer Starts Working

The writer starts to find a topic for you (based on your requirements)

3+ Topics Emailed!

The writer shared custom topics with you within 24 hours

What are the Dos and Don'ts of Research Recommendations? 

1- be specific.

Provide clear and specific recommendations that are relevant to the research study and the field of study. Use precise language and avoid vague or general statements.

2- Support Your Recommendations with Evidence

Base your recommendations on the research study's findings and other relevant literature. Provide evidence to support your recommendations and explain why they are necessary.

Identify and prioritise the most important recommendations based on their potential impact and feasibility.

4- Consider Practical Applications

Ensure that your recommendations have practical applications for researchers, practitioners, or policymakers. Think about how your recommendations can be implemented in practice and how they can contribute to the field.

5- Be Concise

Keep your recommendations concise and to the point. Avoid unnecessary details or explanations.

6- Provide a Rationale

Explain the rationale for each of your recommendations and how they will contribute to the overall research field.

1- Make Unsupported Claims

Avoid making claims that are not supported by evidence. Make sure that your recommendations are based on the research study's findings and other relevant literature.

2- Overgeneralize

Avoid overgeneralizing your recommendations. Make sure that your recommendations are specific to the research study and field.

3- Ignore Potential Challenges

Consider potential challenges or limitations that may arise in implementing your recommendations. Provide suggestions for overcoming these challenges where possible.

4- Disregard Practical Considerations

Ensure that your recommendations are practical and feasible. Consider the resources and constraints of the research field and how your recommendations can be implemented in practice.

5- Be Too Prescriptive

Avoid being too prescriptive in your recommendations. Provide guidance and direction, but allow room for interpretation and adaptation.

By following these dos and don'ts, you can ensure that your research recommendations are well-supported, relevant, and practical and will make a meaningful contribution to the research field.

Learn the Best Way to Write Acknowledgements

Explore the Current Samples of Acknowledgement

It is frequently the case that further research is needed to facilitate the advancement of a study. In your research plans, you can analyze potential study methodologies and the points regarding a subject that might be covered in such research.

The recommendations you include in your paper could be crucial to your research. Make sure your essay has clear recommendations that are simple to implement, can be used effectively, and are not unduly complex or challenging in any other manner. If you need further help writing recommendations, contact us via email or web chat.

admin farhan

Related posts.

How to be a Valedictorian | Easy Steps

230 Passion Project Ideas for Students

How to Write a Reaction Paper: Format, Template, & Examples

Comments are closed.

How to write recommendations in a research paper

Many students put in a lot of effort and write a good report however they are not able to give proper recommendations. Recommendations in the research paper should be included in your research. As a researcher, you display a deep understanding of the topic of research. Therefore you should be able to give recommendations. Here are a few tips that will help you to give appropriate recommendations. 

Recommendations in the research paper should be the objective of the research. Therefore at least one of your objectives of the paper is to provide recommendations to the parties associated or the parties that will benefit from your research. For example, to encourage higher employee engagement HR department should make strategies that invest in the well-being of employees. Additionally, the HR department should also collect regular feedback through online surveys.

Recommendations in the research paper should come from your review and analysis For example It was observed that coaches interviewed were associated with the club were working with the club from the past 2-3 years only. This shows that the attrition rate of coaches is high and therefore clubs should work on reducing the turnover of coaches.

Recommendations in the research paper should also come from the data you have analysed. For example, the research found that people over 65 years of age are at greater risk of social isolation. Therefore, it is recommended that policies that are made for combating social isolation should target this specific group.

Recommendations in the research paper should also come from observation. For example, it is observed that Lenovo’s income is stable and gross revenue has displayed a negative turn. Therefore the company should analyse its marketing and branding strategy.

Recommendations in the research paper should be written in the order of priority. The most important recommendations for decision-makers should come first. However, if the recommendations are of equal importance then it should come in the sequence in which the topic is approached in the research. 

Recommendations in a research paper if associated with different categories then you should categorize them. For example, you have separate recommendations for policymakers, educators, and administrators then you can categorize the recommendations. 

Recommendations in the research paper should come purely from your research. For example, you have written research on the impact on HR strategies on motivation. However, nowhere you have discussed Reward and recognition. Then you should not give recommendations for using rewards and recognition measures to boost employee motivation.

The use of bullet points offers better clarity rather than using long paragraphs. For example this paragraph “ It is recommended  that Britannia Biscuit should launch and promote sugar-free options apart from the existing product range. Promotion efforts should be directed at creating a fresh and healthy image. A campaign that conveys a sense of health and vitality to the consumer while enjoying biscuit  is recommended” can be written as:

• The company should launch and promote sugar-free options
• The company should work towards creating s fresh and healthy image
• The company should run a campaign to convey its healthy image

The inclusion of an action plan along with recommendation adds more weightage to your recommendation. Recommendations should be clear and conscience and written using actionable words. Recommendations should display a solution-oriented approach and in some cases should highlight the scope for further research. 

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Recommendations for perioperative management of patients on existing anticoagulation therapy

Research output : Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

• Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Access to Document

• 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.N.00105

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

T1 - Recommendations for perioperative management of patients on existing anticoagulation therapy

AU - Dundon, John M.

AU - Trimba, Roman

AU - Bree, Kevin J.

AU - Woods, Charles J.

AU - Laughlin, Richard T.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2015 By The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.

PY - 2015/9

Y1 - 2015/9

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988735026&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988735026&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.N.00105

DO - 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.N.00105

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27490669

AN - SCOPUS:84988735026

SN - 2329-9185

JO - JBJS Reviews

JF - JBJS Reviews

RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here . You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/ . Click “accept” to agree.

Prevention IS care formative research

Preliminary key findings and recommendations for round 1

Margolis, M. , Kish-Doto, J. , Williams, P. , & Uhrig, J. (2012). Prevention IS care formative research: Preliminary key findings and recommendations for round 1 . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

• Share on Facebook
• Share on X.com
• Share on Linkedin

To contact an RTI author, request a report, or for additional information about publications by our experts, send us your request.

• [email protected]
• +1 919 541 8787

Meet the Experts

Jennifer Uhrig

Recent publications, variability in personal exposure to ultrafine and fine particles by microenvironment among adolescents in cincinnati, "if everyone knew about this, how many lives could we save", hospital healthcare resource utilization and associated hospital costs of patients with lupus nephritis in china, restless legs syndrome and adverse perinatal outcomes.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 83, Issue 6
• EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0920-888X Tuva Moseng 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6322-3859 Theodora P M Vliet Vlieland 2 ,
• Simone Battista 3 ,
• David Beckwée 4 ,
• Vladimira Boyadzhieva 5 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3478-5665 Philip G Conaghan 6 ,
• Daniela Costa 7 ,
• Michael Doherty 8 ,
• Andrew G Finney 9 , 10 ,
• Tsvetoslav Georgiev 11 ,
• Milena Gobbo 12 ,
• Norelee Kennedy 13 ,
• Ingvild Kjeken 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8940-0582 Féline P B Kroon 14 , 15 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5424-9448 L Stefan Lohmander 16 ,
• Hans Lund 17 ,
• Christian D Mallen 18 ,
• Karel Pavelka 19 ,
• Irene A Pitsillidou 20 ,
• Margaret P Rayman 21 ,
• Anne Therese Tveter 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4783-8663 Johanna E Vriezekolk 22 ,
• Dieter Wiek 23 ,
• Gustavo Zanoli 24 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8602-342X Nina Østerås 1
• 1 Center for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY) , Diakonhjemmet Hospital , Oslo , Norway
• 2 Department of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy , Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) , Leiden , Netherlands
• 3 University of Genoa Department of Neuroscience Ophthalmological Rehabilitation Genetics and Mother and Child Health , Genova , Italy
• 4 Rehabilitation Research Department , Vrije Universiteit Brussel , Brussel , Belgium
• 5 UMHAT “St. Iv. Rilski” Clinic of Rheumatology, Medical University Sofia , Sofia , Bulgaria
• 6 Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine , University of Leeds and NIHR Leeds Biomechanical Reserch Centre , Leeds , UK
• 7 Comprehensive Health Research Center (CHRC) , Universidade Nova de Lisboa , Lisboa , Portugal
• 8 Department of Academic Rheumatology , University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK
• 9 Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences , Keele University School of Medicine , Keele , UK
• 10 School of Nursing and Midwifery , Keele University , Keele , UK
• 11 Clinic of Rheumatology, University Hospital St. Marina, First Department of Internal Medicine , Medical University Varna , Varna , Bulgaria
• 12 Positivamente Centro de Psicología , Madrid , Spain
• 13 School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences and Health Research Institute , University of Limerick , Limerick , Ireland
• 14 Department of Rheumatology , Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) , Leiden , The Netherlands
• 15 Department of Rheumatology , Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen , Heerlen , The Netherlands
• 16 Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopaedics , Lund University , Lund , Sweden
• 17 Centre for Evidence-Based Practice , Western Norway University of Applied Sciences , Bergen , Norway
• 18 Keele University School of Medicine , Keele , UK
• 19 Institute of Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology , Charles University First Faculty of Medicine , Praha , Czech Republic
• 20 EULAR Patient Research Partner , Cyprus League Against Rheumatism , Nicosia , Cyprus
• 21 Department of Nutritional Sciences , University of Surrey Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences , Guildford , UK
• 22 Research & Innovation , Sint Maartenskliniek , Nijmegen , The Netherlands
• 23 EULAR Patient Research Partner , Deutsche Rheuma-Liga , Bonn , Germany
• 24 Orthopaedic Ward , Casa di Cura Santa Maria Maddalena , Novara , Italy
• Correspondence to Dr Tuva Moseng, Center for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway; tuva.moseng{at}diakonsyk.no

Introduction Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed.

Methods The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed.

Results The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0–10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work.

Conclusions The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.

• Osteoarthritis, Knee
• Osteoarthritis
• Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy Modalities
• Therapeutics

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/ard-2023-225041

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease worldwide, 1 with an increasing global burden of disability and healthcare utilisation. 2 The number of people with OA globally rose by 28% from 2010 to 2019, affecting over 500 million people, and about 6%, worldwide. 3 Due to an ageing population, increasing obesity and sport-related joint injuries, the disease will become even more prevalent in the forthcoming years. 2 In 2019, OA was the 15th highest-ranked cause of years lived with disability (YLDs) worldwide and was responsible for 2% of the total global YLDs. 3 OA is regarded as a severe disease, and serious condition and people with OA commonly experience pain, stiffness and associated functional loss. 4 Optimal management of hip and knee OA has important implications for the individual and society through the potential for improving individual health, work participation and utilisation of healthcare services. However, most people with OA do not receive optimal management. 5 6 In order to reduce the evidence-to-practice gap and the future burden 7 of this disease, the healthcare services’, policy-makers’ and the population awareness of the importance and benefits of evidence-based management of OA must be improved.

EULAR recommendations, including priorities for implementation and future research, can play a role in increasing awareness and uptake of best evidence care. In 2013, an EULAR Task Force (TF) developed recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA. 8 Since then there remains no cure in sight for OA, and effective disease-modifying drugs are lacking. 2 Therefore, non-pharmacological approaches are still considered a core treatment for people with hip and knee OA, aiming to alleviate symptoms and improve or maintain physical function. Since the publication of the 2013 recommendations, a large number of studies on the effectiveness of core non-pharmacological treatment modalities and new methods for delivery and follow-up of such treatments have been published. An update of these recommendations would potentially have implications for the level of evidence (LoE) categories and could lead to revisions of the recommendations and formulation of new recommendations with important implications for OA management.

The main aim of this TF process was to update the 2013 evidence-based recommendations for non-pharmacological core management, provide additional details on effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness, and formulate research and educational agendas and priorities for implementation activities. The target groups for the updated recommendations are people with hip or knee OA, all healthcare providers involved in the delivery of non-pharmacological interventions in OA care, researchers in the field of OA, officials in healthcare governance and reimbursement agencies and policy-makers.

The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR-endorsed Recommendations 9 were used as a framework for this project. The structure of the manuscript is guided by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation instrument. 10

To pursue the task of updating the 2013 recommendations, a multidisciplinary TF with in-depth knowledge of non-pharmacological OA care was established. The TF consisted of 25 members from 14 European countries and included 9 physiotherapists, 6 rheumatologists, 2 orthopaedic surgeons, 2 psychologists, 2 patient research partners, 1 occupational therapist, 1 nurse, 1 general practitioner and 1 nutrition expert. A steering group, including a convenor (NØ), a methodologist (TPMVV) and a research fellow (TM), managed the process.

During the first digital TF meeting, the rationale for the update of the recommendations was presented, and the definition of core non-pharmacological management was clarified. The TF agreed on 11 research questions based on the research propositions from the 2013 recommendation. For the subsequent systematic literature review (SLR), the research questions were organised according to the population, intervention, control and outcome (PICO) format with associated search terms ( online supplemental file 1 ). The new search terms added to the previous search strategy were related to the following topics: remote care, shared decision-making, psychological interventions/cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT)-based interventions and specific exercise modalities (eg, strength training and aerobic exercise). Due to the expected large body of published literature since the previous literature review from 2012, combined with the available resources and strict timeline for this update, it was decided that this SLR should primarily focus on evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and secondarily on evidence from single RCTs. As this SLR was an update of a previously unpublished SLR, along with its pragmatic approach, it was decided that the details were best presented as online supplemental file 1 rather than a publication of its own.

Supplemental material

The SLR was conducted by the fellow and convenor in close collaboration with an experienced librarian (HIF) and with support from the methodologist. Three main literature searches were conducted in the databases Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Cochrane TRIALS), CINAHL (Ebsco) and Epistemonikos (SR search only).

The primary literature search aimed at identifying relevant SRs of RCTs investigating the effectiveness of core non-pharmacological management strategies as specified in the PICOs. The search was conducted from 2012 (the end year of the previous search) until 17 February 2022 and later updated until 27 May 2022 ( online supplemental file 1 ). Based on the PICOs, two authors (TM and NØ) independently screened titles and abstracts. Potentially relevant studies were read and evaluated in full text. Studies were included if they were SRs, including a meta-analysis of two or more RCTs on people diagnosed with hip or knee OA or with persisting knee pain in people 45 years or older and investigating non-pharmacological core management strategies. Relevant comparisons were no intervention, usual care or any other intervention. Relevant outcomes were pain, physical function, quality of life (QoL), patient global assessment of target joint, adverse effects or cost-effectiveness. The included studies were categorised under the 11 research questions. If relevant, one study could inform multiple research questions. The quality of the included SRs was evaluated with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR II). 11 The assessments were conducted independently by three assessors (GS, EAB and IS), working in pairs independent of the TF, with experience in quality assessment of SRs and RCTs. Disagreements between the assessors were resolved through discussion.

A second literature search with a comparable search strategy was conducted to identify newer RCTs not included in the latest published SR on the same topic, or relevant RCTs not included in any SRs, or RCTs on research questions for which no relevant SRs were identified. To identify such RCTs published in the past four to 5 years, the search was conducted from 1 January 2018 to 27 May 2022.

A third literature search was conducted with a similar search strategy from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017, aiming to identify relevant RCTs specifically on the research questions for which no relevant SRs had been identified. The two last searches were screened independently by the same two authors, and relevant studies were read and evaluated in full text. Studies were included if they were RCTs relevant to the PICOs. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 (RoB2) 12 independently by two researchers (EAB and IS) independent of the TF. Disagreements between the assessors were resolved through discussion.

In the period before the second TF meeting, five digital subgroup meetings were arranged. Groups of 4–5 TF members and the steering group participated in each meeting. The purpose of the subgroup meetings was to go through the relevant results from the SLR and to discuss and prepare preliminary suggestions for revisions and updates of the recommendations to guide the discussion at the second TF meeting. The group discussed between 1 and 3 of the previous 11 recommendations in each subgroup meeting. This method was implemented to allow all TF members to express their opinions in smaller forums and potentially to reduce the workload of the second TF meeting.

During the second digital TF meeting, the results from the SLR, along with the proposed updates from the subgroups, were presented to the whole TF. The previous recommendations and the proposed updates were then discussed in light of the SLR and the expertise of the group. After the discussions and revisions, the TF members voted for consensus on each revised overarching principle and recommendation (defined as 75% or more in favour of the suggested updates). After the meeting, the updated list of recommendations was collated and emailed to the TF members in a digital survey to rate the level of agreement (LoA) on a 0–10 point scale (0=totally disagree, 10=totally agree). Further, the TF voted on the prioritised order of the recommendations for implementation activities. The TF also formulated a research agenda based on identified gaps in the evidence. The steering group defined the LoE and strength of each recommendation in accordance with the Oxford Levels of Evidence. 13 The steering group also formulated the educational agenda on behalf of the TF.

The three systematic literature searches yielded a total of 6816 references after the removal of duplicates ( figure 1 ). From these, 67 SRs and 31 RCTs were initially considered relevant for the SLR. However, we chose to extract data from 36 of the SRs due to reasons elaborated in online supplemental file 1, p.49 ,. The most frequent reason was that the interventions under study were not considered relevant for this review. The quality of the included SRs was generally poor, with 35 of 36 studies being rated with an overall low or critically low quality by the AMSTAR II tool ( online supplemental file 1 ). The critical items that most often contributed to the overall low quality of the studies were: the lack of an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review; the lack of the use of a comprehensive literature search strategy; and lack of a list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion. There was large variation in the overall quality of the included RCTs as assessed by the RoB2 tool ( online supplemental file 1 ). Most studies with a low risk of bias were on exercise interventions and delivery, whereas there were higher concerns related to the studies on, for example, lifestyle-related interventions. Most commonly, these concerns were related to the elements of measurement of the outcome (eg, the lack of a blinded outcome assessor).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

The main updates to the recommendations are summarised in box 1 . The TF agreed to rephrase and change two previous recommendations into overarching principles. These were the recommendations on: (1) the use of a biopsychosocial approach in the initial assessment and (2) the recommendation on individualisation of treatment. It was decided that these were generic statements used to inform the basis for management rather than specific treatment recommendations. Inherent to the nature of these statements, relevant studies were absent from the SLR. 14

What is new?

The updated recommendations have been reorganised into two overarching principles and eight treatment recommendations.

The wording of each recommendation is condensed.

The level of agreement is above 9 for all recommendations.

The level of evidence is 1a/1b for seven of the eight recommendations.

It was further decided to revise the nine previous recommendations into eight updated recommendations by merging the recommendations on footwear and walking aids, other assistive devices and adaptations. Moreover, to improve readability the previous recommendations were shortened, and subsections were rewritten and moved to the explanatory text. In addition, the TF also discussed the order for the presentation of the recommendations and decided to change this into a more logical sequence.

High LoAs were achieved for all eight recommendations, and seven recommendations were graded with LoE 1a/1b and strength level A. Recommendation 2—on delivery of information, patient education and self-management—was ranked by the TF as having the highest priority for implementation. Table 1 summarises the updated overarching principles, recommendations, LoA, LoE, strength of recommendation and priority for implementation.

• View inline

Overarching principles and specific recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis

Recommendation 1

People with hip or knee OA should be offered an individualised, multicomponent management plan that includes the recommended core non-pharmacological approaches.

This recommendation deals with the provision of an integrated package of care rather than single treatments alone or in succession. The majority of new, relevant SRs and RCTs informing this recommendation investigated the effectiveness of the combination of patient education and exercise or the combination of patient education, exercise and diet or the combination of behaviour change techniques/pain-coping skills training and exercise, compared with information or one of the treatments alone. 15–18 The updated evidence shows that combining treatments leads to larger effects on pain and function compared with providing the treatments separately, thereby providing a rationale for combining different treatment modalities. The combination of education, exercise and dietary weight management was also considered cost-effective compared with physician-delivered usual care investigated in five healthcare systems. 19 The TF discussed that, although not all potential combinations of treatments are investigated in meta-analyses or newer RCTs, the results of available studies are likely to be generalisable to different combinations. Thus, the TF agreed on the general consideration of multicomponent treatments from a broader spectrum of potential combinations based on an assessment of a patient’s individual needs and preferences.

Through the SLR, no specific evidence was retrieved with regard to the effects of pacing and maintenance of activity. This specific element was therefore removed from the recommendation.

Recommendation 2

People with hip or knee OA should be offered information, education and advice on self-management strategies (considering available modes of delivery) and these should be included and reinforced at subsequent clinical encounters.

Recommendation 2 concerns the delivery of information, education and advice on self-management strategies. New evidence from the SLR showed zero to small significant effects on pain and function from patient education as a single intervention in the short term, which is in line with the previous recommendation. 15 20 In 2013, this recommendation focused on how education and information should be delivered in terms of being individualised, being included in every aspect of management, and specifically addressing the nature, causes, consequences and prognosis of OA. Moreover, it was stated that this should be reinforced and developed, supported by written or other types of material, including partners or carers of the individual, if relevant. The current TF acknowledged the importance of these aspects to ensure the effective delivery of information and education for people with hip and knee OA. However, none of the studies from the SLR could provide specific evidence for any of these aspects, except with regard to delivery method. One SR reported the effects of patient education delivered through telephone when compared with usual care, but the results were not significant for pain or disability. 20 The TF further chose to add self-management to the updated recommendation. Evidence from two SRs, including seven RCTs, compared structured self-management programmes against a large range of control interventions. Zero to small favourable effects were found for self-management, delivered face to face or digitally, compared with routine/usual care. 21 22 Despite the limited effects reported in the literature, the TF agreed that self-management is a concept closely related both to the delivery of information and education in a clinical setting and to the uptake of other relevant treatment modalities.

Recommendation 3

All people with hip or knee OA should be offered an exercise programme (eg, strength, aerobic, flexibility or neuromotor) of adequate dosage with progression tailored to their physical function, preferences and available services.

The body of literature investigating the effects of different types of exercise regimes was already large when the 2013 recommendations were published. Aiming to progress the knowledge on the effects of exercise for hip and knee OA, the current SLR did not focus on studies investigating the effects of general exercise on hip and knee OA as these effects were well established previously. 23 24 The aim was rather to identify studies investigating the effects of well-defined exercise modalities, as well as studies looking more specifically into exercise dosage.

For hip OA, one SR summarised the effects of supervised, progressive resistance training, which reported beneficial effects on pain, function and QoL. The effect sizes, however, were small with large CIs. 25

For knee OA, four SRs and five additional RCTs were identified on the exercise 26–28 modalities Tai Chi, yoga, stationary cycling, proprioceptive training, weight-bearing and non-weight bearing exercise, and neuromuscular exercise combined with strength training. 29–33 Overall, the results showed small to moderate positive effects on pain and function for all these exercise modalities compared with no-exercise control (no intervention, waiting list or non-exercise interventions). Still, the results were less clear in head-to-head comparisons of different exercise types, modalities or doses.

In summary, results showed that a variety of exercise modalities might lead to improved pain and function for people with hip or knee OA, making it difficult to recommend one type of exercise over another. The optimal exercise dosage is also difficult to establish, with evidence from 1 SR on hip OA (including 12 RCTs) and 1 SR on knee OA (including 45 RCTs) providing some evidence that exercise in line with dose recommendations from the American College of Sports Medicine provided larger improvements in pain compared with non-compliant exercise programmes. 34–36 The differences, however, were small, and the clinical relevance is debatable. Two newer RCTs on knee OA, comparing high-intensity to low-intensity resistance training or no-exercise control, found no or only small between-group differences with regard to pain and function, 37 38 thus making it difficult to make explicit recommendations on exercise dosage.

With respect to safety, adverse events in exercise studies for hip and knee OA were investigated in two SRs. 39 40 The two studies concluded that, although the report of adverse events in exercise studies was inconsistent and some patient drop-outs were potentially misclassified, adverse events were generally uncommon and non-serious, and that exercise seemed to be associated with minimal risk of harm. Concerning the economic aspects of exercise, one SR on cost-effectiveness found that in the majority of the 12 included studies, exercise for hip and knee OA showed cost-effectiveness at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. 19

The TF chose to update this recommendation, highlighting that the choice of exercise should be based on individual function, patient preferences and available services. 41 Overall, exercise is by far the most studied and strongly recognised non-pharmacological core management treatment option and this recommendation has the strongest evidence base. The TF also expressed the importance of maintaining exercise over time for the positive effects to persist.

Recommendation 4

The mode of delivery of exercises (eg, individual or group sessions, supervised or unsupervised, face to face or by using digital technology, land-based or aquatic exercise) should be selected according to local availability and patient preferences. The exercises preferably should be embedded in an individual plan for physical activity.

As established in the description of recommendation 3, there is convincing evidence for the effectiveness of various exercise modalities on pain and function in hip and knee OA. However, the delivery method of exercise programmes varies largely across studies and may influence study outcomes.

One SR found superior effects from technology-supported exercise compared with control with non-technological or no care services on pain, function and QoL, 42 whereas another SR found superior effects from telehealth-based exercise compared with no-telehealth exercise control for pain but not for function or QoL. 43 The reported effect sizes were small. One additional RCT found a small, significant effect on function at 6 months follow-up for an education combined with strengthening exercise follow-up through telephone calls compared with education alone, but no other between-group differences in pain and function were detected after 6 and 12 months. 44 Another RCT comparing access to an educational website combined with exercise supported by automated behaviour change text messages to access to the educational website alone found significant superior effects of the combined first intervention on pain and function after 24 weeks. 45 For aquatic exercise, one SR reported small short-term beneficial effects for pain and function compared with no intervention or usual care. However, another SR comparing aquatic exercise to land-based exercise did not find any of these modes superior to the other. 46 47 One RCT of a three-stage stepped care exercise programme compared with educational materials found beneficial, although not clinically relevant, effects of the stepped care programme on pain and function at 3 and 9 months, but not at 6 months. 48 Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of the same stepped-care intervention concluded that there is a high probability of short-term cost-effectiveness. 49

The new evidence adds information on technology-supported delivery of exercise, aquatic exercise and a stepped care strategy for exercise delivery. The results from these studies show a wide variety of potentially effective delivery methods for exercise, which in clinical practice should be aligned with patient preferences and the availability of local services. The TF also underlined the importance of the exercise programme being embedded in an individual plan for physical activity. Such plans should be set up in accordance with well-recognised recommendations for physical activity, such as from the WHO or EULAR. 41 50 General physical activity has multiple health benefits and is also important for the management of common comorbidities associated with OA, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. 51 52

Recommendation 5

People with hip or knee OA should be offered education on the importance of maintaining a healthy weight. Those overweight or obese should be offered support to achieve and maintain weight loss.

In the updated SLR, three SRs were identified, including one network meta-analysis investigating the effects of weight loss interventions. Two were on studies of knee OA, 19 53 whereas the third included studies of both hip and knee OA, although only 2 of the 19 trials included in that study were conducted on a mixed hip and knee OA population. 54 The results from this SR showed beneficial effects, compared with minimal care, of both diet and multifocused weight-loss interventions (combining diets, telephone coaching, psychological pain-coping interventions/CBT, specialist referral education and exercise) on pain and disability, with the largest effect size on pain for multifocused interventions. Further, it was reported that when comparing weight-loss-focused interventions (diets) to exercise, no between-group differences were detected for pain or disability. When comparing combined interventions of dietary weight loss and exercise to dietary weight loss or exercise alone, small effects were found in favour of the combined intervention.

In the network meta-analysis, bariatric surgery was the most effective pain-reducing intervention, followed by a low-calorie diet combined with exercise intervention. 53 The last SR on knee OA used cost-effectiveness as an outcome and reported that an intensive 18-month diet and exercise intervention with the goal of 5% weigth loss was likely to be an efficient use of healthcare resources compared with a healthy lifestyle control. 19

The above-mentioned studies made it clear that there is increasing evidence supporting multifocused weight loss interventions as beneficial for OA pain and disability. Therefore, the TF recommended that people with overweight or obesity and OA should be offered support to achieve and maintain weight loss. The TF notes that the amount of evidence mainly stems from studies on knee OA. As overweight and obesity are strong risk factors for the development and progression of OA, and in particular knee OA, 2 the TF also wanted to add to the recommendation the importance of education on the benefits of maintaining a healthy weight.

Recommendation 6

For people with hip or knee OA, consider walking aids, appropriate footwear, assistive devices and adaptations at home and at work to reduce pain and increase participation.

Through the SLR, four SRs investigating the effects on knee OA of lateral wedge insoles compared with other types of insoles, including flat/neutral insoles or knee braces, were retrieved. These studies did not report any between-group differences for any comparisons on pain or function. 55–58 On the other hand, one RCT reported a small between-group difference in favour of lateral wedge insoles compared with neutral insoles on a single pain scale in people prescreened to knee adduction moment improvements (but not on other pain scales, function or QoL). 59 For footwear, one RCT found positive effects of biomechanical footwear with individually adjustable external convex pods attached to the outsole compared with control footwear. 60 Another RCT found small effects after 6 months on pain, but not on function, from wearing stable, supportive shoes over flat flexible shoes for at least 6 hours per day. 61

Summarised, most evidence did not support the use of any lateral wedged or other insoles to affect pain or function in knee OA. The results from one RCT provided some support for the use of stable, supportive shoes. The TF wanted to add that from a clinical perspective, the use of comfortable shoes, big enough to give ample space for the toes when weight-bearing, is still a general recommendation for people with hip and knee OA.

For other types of assistive aids and devices, two RCTs comparing the use of canes to the non-use of auxiliary gait devices were identified. The results were contradictory, and conclusions on the effect of cane were difficult to draw from the available evidence. 62 63 No studies were retrieved for other types of assistive devices or home adaptations. Based on the expert knowledge of the group, it was argued that such devices could still be useful to some people with hip or knee OA in terms of reducing pain, undertaking daily activities and improving participation. The TF wanted to emphasise that improving participation is an important aspect underpinning this specific recommendation. Assistive devices may serve as means to reduce pain and improve participation both at home and at work and should, therefore, be considered in that context. Examples of such devices might be devices to aid dressing, height-adjustable chairs, raised toilet seats, handrails in staircases or the use of appropriate walking aids.

Recommendation 7

People with hip or knee OA with or at risk of work disability should be offered timely advice on modifiable work-related factors and, where appropriate, referral for expert advice.

OA is one of the leading causes of reduced work participation, and the disease may critically affect the number of sick days and, ultimately, the extension of a person’s work career. 64 Although there are well-known occupational risk factors, such as heavy lifting and knee straining activities associated with the development of knee OA, 65 it was noted that there is a lack of studies on vocational rehabilitation for people with hip or knee OA. In the current update, only one relevant RCT was retrieved. This study used workability as an outcome, whereas the study intervention in both groups focused on self-management with the addition of an activity tracker in the intervention group. In this study, no between-group differences were reported for workability. 66

Although little research has been conducted, the TF considered that appropriate interventions to increase work participation for people with hip and knee OA are highly relevant. A proper assessment of the individual work situation may have a large impact and should receive attention during consultations. 67 Health professionals, in cooperation with the employer, should be able to offer timely advice on modifiable work-related factors such as working from home, the use of height-adjustable desks and office chairs, the possibility of changing work tasks, commuting to/from work, use of assistive technology, and receiving support from management, colleagues and family towards employment. The TF also noted that adaptations to improve workability might be considered and applied not only at the workplace but also in the home.

Recommendation 8

Consider employing elements of behaviour change techniques when lifestyle modifications are needed (eg, physical activity, weight loss) for people with hip or knee OA.

This recommendation concerns the potential need for lifestyle change in people with hip and knee OA. It focuses specifically on physical activity and weight loss as part of a healthy lifestyle since these aspects are specifically relevant for people with hip or knee OA. One SR and eight additional RCTs were identified on various interventions to enhance a healthy lifestyle, mainly through maintaining physical activity over time. The SR reported small to moderate effects of adding booster sessions to exercise programmes to improve mid-term to long-term adherence to exercise. 68 Furthermore, one RCT reported statistically significant improvements in pain and function from a combined programme of pain coping skills training and lifestyle behavioural weight management lasting 24 weeks compared with these interventions alone or standard care. 69 Interventions from the other RCTs aiming to support people with OA to improve their lifestyle and sustain such changes over time, included interventions of behaviour-graded activity, improving exercise adherence with telephone counselling, an app to enhance a healthy lifestyle, physical activity with telephone follow-up and a self-management lifestyle intervention. 70–72 However, when the effects on pain and function of these interventions were compared with standard care or other minimal interventions, none to very small between-group differences were observed for the comparisons. The TF wanted to enhance the importance of long-term follow-up on health behaviour change and not just recommend lifestyle change as a single intervention. The TF also discussed that the EULAR recommendation on core competencies for health professionals in rheumatology underlines that health professionals should be able to provide the principles of behaviour change techniques in the management of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders. 73

Research and educational agendas

The proposed research agenda ( table 2 ) was based on gaps identified in the literature and on topics which emerged during discussions among the TF members.

Research agenda for the non-pharmacological core management of people with hip and knee osteoarthritis

The education agenda ( table 3 ) highlights activities relevant to promote appropriate management of people with hip and knee OA.

Educational agenda for the non-pharmacological core management of people with hip and knee OA

Through this update, the recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA have been revised into two overarching principles and eight treatment recommendations. The revisions are based on research evidence, expert discussions and consensus. Since the publication of the 2013 recommendations, a number of new studies have been published on non-pharmacological treatment modalities and their methods of delivery. The updates to the recommendations are thus well anchored in evidence from research and the perspectives of the TF members, representing different professional, cultural and personal backgrounds, including the perspective of people with OA. The process led to a broad consensus within the TF on the updated principles and recommendations, reflected by the high LoA for all the revised recommendations. Such strong consensus gives reason to believe that the recommendations are suitable for use and implementation across European healthcare systems. These recommendations are also in line with recently published treatment recommendations for hip and knee OA by other societies. 74–76

The number of relevant SRs and RCTs retrieved through the SLR was high, especially for the research questions concerning exercise and delivery of exercise, with data drawn from a total of 15 SRs and 11 additional RCTs. The number of new studies led to an upgrade of the LoE for most of the recommendations, and seven of eight recommendations are now supported by level 1a or 1b evidence. However, it should be noted that the stated LoE does not necessarily involve all aspects of every recommendation and does not distinguish between hip and knee OA. The number of studies on hip OA was markedly lower than those on knee OA for all the treatment modalities. Therefore, the recommendations are generally weaker for hip OA than knee OA. There is an increasing recognition of differences between hip and knee OA, which heightens the need for more hip OA-specific studies to improve outcomes for this group specifically. 77 This is also highlighted in the proposed research agenda ( table 2 ). Further, as the aim was to address relevant non-pharmacological core management strategies, the recommendations do not specifically advise the management of subgroups of the OA population, for instance, younger adults or adults with a high burden of comorbidities. The authors are also aware of a number of ongoing studies addressing a range of innovative digital programmes in OA care. Such approaches will likely receive further attention in future updates of these recommendations. 78–81

With regard to outcomes, most of the included studies reported effects primarily on pain and physical function. To follow the recommendations on prioritised outcomes in OA research, 82 more studies investigating the effects of interventions on QoL and patients’ global assessment of the target joint may have provided additional relevant information. Workability and cost-effectiveness are two other outcomes of increasing interest when investigating the effect of interventions from a broader perspective. This SLR identified some studies including these outcomes, thus adding new and important knowledge to the recommendations. Nevertheless, additional studies with a focus on interventions to prevent the decline in workability and studies examining cost-effectiveness are still needed as such knowledge is important for healthcare governance and policy-makers when planning and prioritising effective OA care. Another relevant aspect of this update is the inclusion of studies investigating potential harm or adverse events from the interventions under study. Only two SRs specifically looking into this subject were identified. Still, the results add new knowledge to this important, although understudied, aspect of non-pharmacological interventions. 83

The challenges of implementing recommended care for people with hip and knee OA are well documented. 84 It is also apparent that developing recommendations is not sufficient on its own to influence practice. 85 Therefore, efforts have been made to address the impact and to develop strategies for the implementation of treatment recommendations. For future implementation, collaboration with other organisations focusing on OA care, such as The Osteoarthritis Research Society International, must be considered. EULAR highlights that implementing all recommendations at once is probably not feasible in practice. 86 The TF voted that the recommendation on information, education and self-management was ranked as the recommendation with the highest priority for implementation. This recommendation may play an important role as a basis for all other management and may improve people’s ability to live a good life with OA, as well as being an enabler of, aspects such as physical activity. 87 The prioritisation of the recommendations for implementation activities is also important with respect to the effective utilisation of healthcare services. As the OA population is growing, the need for effective healthcare utilisation and sustainable management strategies to improve outcomes will be vital to minimising the burden of OA at an individual and a societal level. 88

To conclude, the TF reached a broad consensus on the updated recommendation for non-pharmacological core OA management as well as on a research agenda highlighting the current evidence gaps, on an educational agenda and on the priority of the recommendations to support implementation activities.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank the librarian Hilde Iren Flaatten, University of Oslo, Norway, for supporting the literature searches and Emilie Andrea Bakke, Ingrid Skaalvik and Geir Smedslund, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Center for treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Oslo, Norway, for their thorough work in the AMSTAR II and Cochrane risk of bias assessments of the included studies.

PGC is funded in part by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) through the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre.

• EULAR RheumaMap
• Hunter DJ ,
• Bierma-Zeinstra S
• Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network
• Basedow M ,
• Smedslund G ,
• Østerås N , et al
• Kolahi A-A ,
• Smith E , et al
• Fernandes L ,
• Bijlsma JW , et al
• van der Heijde D ,
• Aletaha D ,
• Carmona L , et al
• Brouwers MC ,
• Browman GP , et al
• Reeves BC ,
• Wells G , et al
• Higgins JPT SJ ,
• Elbers RG , et al
• OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*
• de Rooij M ,
• van der Leeden M ,
• Cheung J , et al
• De Oliveira Silva D ,
• Merolli M , et al
• Alrushud AS ,
• Rushton AB ,
• Kanavaki AM , et al
• Castelein B ,
• Wittoek R , et al
• Pitsillides A ,
• Stasinopoulos D ,
• Giannakou K
• Mazzei DR ,
• Ademola A ,
• Abbott JH , et al
• O’Brien KM ,
• Hodder RK ,
• Wiggers J , et al
• Zhu Y , et al
• Jackson J ,
• Sheffield D
• Uthman OA ,
• van der Windt DA ,
• Jordan JL , et al
• Verhagen AP ,
• Ferreira M ,
• Reijneveld-van de Vendel EAE , et al
• Mikkelsen LR ,
• Overgaard S , et al
• Bennell KL ,
• Nelligan RK ,
• Kimp AJ , et al
• Yen H-Y , et al
• Schrøder HM ,
• Wernbom M , et al
• Liu X , et al
• Pranata A , et al
• El-Ansary D ,
• Adams R , et al
• Chen Z , et al
• Garber CE ,
• Blissmer B ,
• Deschenes MR , et al
• Dagfinrud H ,
• Smedslund G , et al
• Bartholdy C ,
• Christensen R , et al
• de Zwart AH ,
• Roorda LD , et al
• Messier SP ,
• Mihalko SL ,
• Beavers DP , et al
• von Heideken J ,
• Chowdhry S ,
• Borg J , et al
• Rausch Osthoff A-K ,
• Niedermann K ,
• Braun J , et al
• Cai Y , et al
• Hinman RS ,
• Campbell PK ,
• Lawford BJ , et al
• Kasza J , et al
• Xu S , et al
• Zhou P , et al
• Woolson S ,
• Hoenig HM , et al
• Kaufman BG ,
• Coffman CJ , et al
• World Health Organization
• Williams MF ,
• London DA ,
• Husni EM , et al
• Mamas MA , et al
• Panunzi S ,
• Maltese S ,
• De Gaetano A , et al
• Robson EK ,
• Kamper SJ , et al
• Khosravi M ,
• Daryabor A , et al
• Yang J , et al
• Liang L , et al
• Felson DT ,
• Carter S , et al
• Reichenbach S ,
• Hincapié CA , et al
• Paterson KL ,
• Campbell PK , et al
• Silva AC , et al
• Van Ginckel A ,
• Wrigley TV , et al
• Viikari-Juntura E ,
• Solovieva S
• McWilliams DF ,
• Muthuri SG , et al
• Östlind E ,
• Stigmar K , et al
• Gwinnutt JM ,
• Wieczorek M ,
• Balanescu A , et al
• Nicolson PJA ,
• Dobson FL , et al
• Somers TJ ,
• Blumenthal JA ,
• Guilak F , et al
• Bendrik R ,
• Kallings LV ,
• Bröms K , et al
• LaValley MP ,
• Brown C , et al
• Lombard C ,
• Hussain SM , et al
• Edelaar L ,
• Nikiphorou E ,
• Fragoulis GE , et al
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guidelines
• Kolasinski SL ,
• Hochberg MC , et al
• Bannuru RR ,
• Vaysbrot EE , et al
• van der Esch M ,
• Hinman RS , et al
• Knox G , et al
• de Almeida AC ,
• de Noronha M , et al
• Groves-Williams D ,
• McHugh GA ,
• Bennell KL , et al
• Hawker GA ,
• Hunter DJ , et al
• Boutron I ,
• Baron G , et al
• Golightly YM ,
• Dziedzic KS ,
• EULAR European alliance of Associatons for rheumatology
• Kanavaki AM ,
• Rushton A ,
• Efstathiou N , et al
• Turkiewicz A ,
• Petersson IF ,
• Björk J , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1

Handling editor Josef S Smolen

X @DrS_Battista

Contributors TM was the research fellow for the project, undertaking the SLR in cooperation with NØ. The fellow was supervised by the steering group consisting of NØ (convenor) and TPMVV (methodologist). NØ and TPMVV supervised the process of the SLR. NØ organised and chaired the TF meetings. TM drafted the manuscript with advice from NØ and TPMVV. All authors have contributed to the recommendations by participating in the TF meetings; during discussion and agreement on the recommendations; revising and approving the manuscript for publication.

Funding This study was funded by European League Against Rheumatism (HPR055).

Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Competing interests TPMVV was the Vice president EULAR health professionals 2020–2022 and is part of the EULAR Advocacy Committee 2020–present. MG holds a leadership position in OpenReuma/Spanish Association of Health Professionals in Rheumatology (unpaid). CDM received Grants from Versus Arthritis, MRC, NIHR (paid to Keele University) and is the director of the NIHR School for Primary Care Research. SL received payment as scientific consultant from Arthro Therapeutics AB and received payment from AstraZeneca as a member of DSMB. DC received grants from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia SFRH/BD/148420/2019 and Pfizer (ID 64165707). GZ received payment for expert testimony from Casa di Cura San Francesco, Verona and Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Orthotech and Jtech, payment for participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from VIVENKO for Gruenenthal and Ethos for Angelini and holds other financial interests related to clinical practice as an orthopedic surgeon (performing total joint replacement, arthroscopies and other types of surgeries), either directly from private patients or indirectly from the health system or insurances acting as a private consultant. JEV has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Lilly Netherlands BV. TG has received paid honoraria for lectures by Abbvie, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, UCB, Berlin-Chemie/A. Menarini Bulgaria, Sandoz and received support for attending meetings by Abbvie, Pfizer and UCB. DW is an International Advisory Board Member of DRFZ (Germany) 2019–current and was the EULAR PARE Chair 2015–2017and an EULAR Vice President representing PARE 2017–2021.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Feedback collection and nearest-neighbor profiling for recommendation systems in healthcare scenarios.

1. Introduction

2. related work, 3.1. data characterization, 3.1.1. patient data, 3.1.2. activity data, 3.2. hybrid knn sampling, 3.2.1. determining k, 3.2.2. scalability, 3.3. generating recommendations, 3.3.1. nearest-neighbor-based recommendations, 3.3.2. weighed feedback-based recommendations.

• The game, either to avoid patient burn-out or to correspond to their preferences;
• The session duration, depending on whether the user found it to be excessive or insufficient. This makes the system responsive to the patient’s energy levels and disposition to partake in longer activities;
• The session’s grip targets, namely the recommended average grip force, the correct grip cadence (the interval at which grips are meant to be pressed), and the total number of times the patient needs to perform a grip. All of these parameters are initially bound by a predetermined difficulty level ranging from 0 to 10; however, to favor a personalized experience, individual targets are gradually optimized to the patient’s specific needs. For example, a patient whose initial activity corresponds to a difficulty of 6 might possess a much steeper level of lethargy, requiring far fewer grips to account for their reduced energy, hence gradually having only that target adjusted accordingly.

3.3.3. Feedback Quality Assurance

• A “cool down” period is employed between activities, allowing patients to properly rest and not make decisions based on their state of tiredness;
• Activities with outlier scores for a given patient (abnormally high or low) are not considered for the questionnaire, as they do not accurately represent the patient in a “normal” state;
• The questions and the order in which they are presented are constant throughout every feedback collection process.
• An option to listen to the questions is provided to users with interpretation or reading difficulties.

4.1. Model Assessment

4.2. behavioral evaluation, 4.3. statistical analysis, 5. conclusions and future work, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Galloway, M.T.; Jokl, P. Aging Successfully: The Importance of Physical Activity in Maintaining Health and Function. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2000 , 8 , 37–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Burton, L.J.; VanHeest, J.L. The Importance of Physical Activity in Closing the Achievement Gap. Quest 2007 , 59 , 212–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steinbeck, K.S. The importance of physical activity in the prevention of overweight and obesity in childhood: A review and an opinion. Obes. Rev. 2008 , 2 , 117–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Youngand, D.R.; Steinhardt, M.A. The Importance of Physical Fitness versus Physical Activity for Coronary Artery Disease Risk Factors: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2013 , 64 , 377–384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Tuijn, R.; Lu, T.; Driesse, E.; Franken, K.; Gajane, P.; Barakova, E. WeHeart: A Personalized Recommendation Device for Physical Activity Encouragement and Preventing “Cold Start” in Cardiac Rehabilitation. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2023 , 14144 , 191–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laaksonen, D.E.; Lindström, J.; Lakka, T.A.; Eriksson, J.G.; Niskanen, L.; Wikström, K.; Aunola, S.; Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi, S.; Laakso, M.; Valle, T.T.; et al. Physical Activity in the Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes: The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. Diabetes 2005 , 54 , 158–165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shi, B.Y. The importance and strategy of diabetes prevention. Chronic Dis. Transl. Med. 2016 , 2 , 204–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Park, S.; Han, K.; Lee, S.; Kim, Y.; Lee, Y.; Kang, M.W.; Park, S.; Kim, Y.C.; Han, S.S.; Lee, H.; et al. Cardiovascular or mortality risk of controlled hypertension and importance of physical activity. Heart 2021 , 17 , 1472–1479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Langhammer, B.; Bergland, A.; Rydwik, E. The Importance of Physical Activity Exercise among Older People. BioMed Res. Int. 2018 , 2018 , 7856823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mann, S.; Beedie, C.; Jimenez, A. Differential Effects of Aerobic Exercise, Resistance Training and Combined Exercise Modalities on Cholesterol and the Lipid Profile: Review, Synthesis and Recommendations. Sports Med. 2014 , 44 , 211–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Janssen, I.; Clarke, A.E.; Carson, V.; Chaput, J.P.; Giangregorio, L.M.; Kho, M.E.; Poitras, V.J.; Ross, R.; Saunders, T.J.; Ross-White, A.; et al. A systematic review of compositional data analysis studies examining associations between sleep, sedentary behaviour, and physical activity with health outcomes in adults. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2020 , 45 , S248–S257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Croon, R.D.; Houdt, L.V.; Htun, N.N.; Štiglic, G.; Abeele, V.V.; Verbert, K. Health Recommender Systems: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021 , 23 , e18035. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Etemadi, M.; Abkenar, S.B.; Ahmadzadeh, A.; Kashani, M.H.; Asghari, P.; Akbari, M.; Mahdipour, E. A systematic review of healthcare recommender systems: Open issues, challenges, and techniques. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023 , 213 , 118823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Wang, Z.; Liu, W.; Liu, X.; Zheng, Q. A unified approach to designing sequence-based personalized food recommendation systems: Tackling dynamic user behaviors. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2023 , 14 , 2903–2912. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rostami, M.; Aliannejadi, M.; Oussalah, M. Towards Health-Aware Fairness in Food Recipe Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Singapore, 18–22 September 2023; pp. 1184–1189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kobayashi, A.; Mori, S.; Hashimoto, A.; Katsuragi, T.; Kawamura, T. Functional Food Knowledge Graph-based Recipe Recommendation System Focused on Lifestyle-Related Diseases. In Proceedings of the IEEE 18th International Conference on Semantic Computing, Laguna Hills, CA, USA, 5–7 February 2024; pp. 261–268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brintha, N.C.; Nagaraj, P.; Tejasri, A.; Durga, B.V.; Teja, M.T.; Pavan, M.N.V. A Food Recommendation System for Predictive Diabetic Patients using ANN and CNN. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems, Coimbatore, India, 22–24 June 2022; pp. 1364–1371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thongsri, N.; Warintarawej, P.; Chotkaew, S.; Saetang, W. Implementation of a personalized food recommendation system based on collaborative filtering and knapsack method. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2022 , 12 , 630–638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suryadevara, C.K. Towards Personalized Healthcare—An Intelligent Medication Recommendation System. Int. Eng. J. Res. Dev. 2020 , 5 , 16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhoi, S.; Lee, M.L.; Hsu, W.; Tan, N.C. REFINE: A Fine-Grained Medication Recommendation System Using Deep Learning and Personalized Drug Interaction Modeling. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2024 , 36 , 24013–24024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, W.Y.; Gao, Q.; Oei, R.W.; Hsu, W.; Lee, M.L.; Tan, N.C. Diabetes medication recommendation system using patient similarity analytics. Sci. Rep. 2022 , 12 , 20910. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yue, W.; Wang, M.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, L.; Huang, J.; Wan, J.; Xiong, N.; Vasilakos, A.V. A-GSTCN: An Augmented Graph Structural–Temporal Convolution Network for Medication Recommendation Based on Electronic Health Records. Bioengineering 2022 , 10 , 1241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sateesh Kumar, R.; Sameen Fatima, S. Heart Disease Prediction Using Extended KNN (E-KNN). In Smart Computing Techniques and Applications. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ; Springer: Singapore, 2021; Volume 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shahade, M.; Awate, A.; Nandwalkar, B.; Kulkarni, M. Diabetes Disease Prediction Using KNN. In Innovations in Data Analytics ; Springer: Singapore, 2023; Volume 1442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borzooei, S.; Briganti, G.; Golparian, M.; Lechien, J.R.; Tarokhian, A. Machine learning for risk stratification of thyroid cancer patients: A 15-year cohort study. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2024 , 281 , 2095–2104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tripathi, R.; Khatri, S.; Van Greunen, D.; Ather, D. Risk Stratification of Breast Cancer Patients: Integrating Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prognostic Markers for Sustainable Development. In Communications in Computer and Information Science ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 1939. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Bhatti, U.; Huang, M. Interpretable Machine Learning for Personalized Medical Recommendations: A LIME-Based Approach. Diagnostics 2023 , 13 , 2681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hu, Y.; Huerta, J.; Cordella, N.; Mishuris, R.G.; Paschalidis, I.C. Personalized hypertension treatment recommendations by a data-driven model. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2023 , 23 , 44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, F.; Jiang, Y.; Zhi, H.; Dong, Y.; Li, H.; Ma, S.; Wang, Y.; Dong, Q.; Shen, H.; Wang, Y. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Past, present and future. Stroke Vasc. Neurol. 2020 , 5 , 227–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pazzani, M.J.; Billsus, D. Content-based recommendation systems. In The Adaptive Web: Methods and Strategies of Web Personalization ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 325–341. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu, Y.; Koren, Y.; Volinsky, C. Collaborative filtering for implicit feedback datasets. In Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Pisa, Italy, 15–19 December 2008; pp. 263–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aberg, J. Dealing with Malnutrition: A Meal Planning System for Elderly. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare, Stanford, CA, USA, 27–29 March 2006; pp. 1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkovsky, S.; Freyne, J. Group-based recipe recommendations: Analysis of data aggregation strategies. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Barcelona, Spain, 26–30 September 2010; pp. 111–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narducci, F.; Musto, C.; Polignano, M.; de Gemmis, M.; Lops, P.; Semeraro, G. A recommender system for connecting patients to the right doctors in the healthnet social network. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, Florence, Italy, 18–22 May 2015; pp. 81–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo, L.; Jin, B.; Yao, C.; Yang, H.; Huang, D.; Wang, F. Which doctor to trust: A recommender system for identifying the right doctors. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016 , 18 , e6015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, Q.; Ji, M.; De Troya, I.M.D.R.; Gaur, M.; Zejnilovic, L. A hybrid recommender system for patient-doctor matchmaking in primary care. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), Turin, Italy, 1–3 October 2018; pp. 481–490. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gräßer, F.; Beckert, S.; Küster, D.; Abraham, S.; Malberg, H.; Schmitt, J.; Zaunseder, S. Neighborhood-based Collaborative Filtering for Therapy Decision Support. In Proceedings of the HealthRecSys@ RecSys, Como, Italy, 27–31 August 2017; pp. 22–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gmez-Portes, C.; Castro-Schez, J.J.; Albusac, J.; Monekosso, D.N.; Vallejo, D. A fuzzy recommendation system for the automatic personalization of physical rehabilitation exercises in stroke patients. Mathematics 2021 , 9 , 1427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ishraque, M.T.; Zjalic, N.; Zadeh, P.M.; Kobti, Z.; Olla, P. Artificial intelligence-based cardiac rehabilitation therapy exercise recommendation system. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE MIT Undergraduate Research Technology Conference (URTC), Cambridge, MA, USA, 5–7 October 2018; pp. 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferretto, L.R.; Bellei, E.A.; Biduski, D.; Bin, L.C.P.; Moro, M.M.; Cervi, C.R.; De Marchi, A.C.B. A physical activity recommender system for patients with arterial hypertension. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 61656–61664. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zaboleeva-Zotova, A.; Orlova, J.A.; Zubkov, A.V.; Donsckaia, A.R. Intelligent recommendation system for patient rehabilitation. Artif. Intell. Decis. Mak. 2024 , 1 , 26–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, J.; Kwong, P.W.; Lua, E.; Chan, M.Y.; Choo, A.; Donnelly, C. Development of a convolutional neural network (CNN) based assessment exercise recommendation system for individuals with chronic stroke: A feasibility study. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2023 , 30 , 786–795. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

António, J.; Malheiro, R.; Jardim, S. Feedback Collection and Nearest-Neighbor Profiling for Recommendation Systems in Healthcare Scenarios. Technologies 2024 , 12 , 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12080127

António J, Malheiro R, Jardim S. Feedback Collection and Nearest-Neighbor Profiling for Recommendation Systems in Healthcare Scenarios. Technologies . 2024; 12(8):127. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12080127

António, João, Ricardo Malheiro, and Sandra Jardim. 2024. "Feedback Collection and Nearest-Neighbor Profiling for Recommendation Systems in Healthcare Scenarios" Technologies 12, no. 8: 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12080127

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

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
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Writing an Effective & Supportive Recommendation Letter

Sarvenaz sarabipour.

1 Institute for Computational Medicine and Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

Sarah J. Hainer

2 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Emily Furlong

3 Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Nafisa M. Jadavji

4 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Midwestern University, Glendale, United States

5 Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Charlotte M. de Winde

6 MRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom

7 Department of Molecular Cell Biology & Immunology, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Natalia Bielczyk

8 Welcome Solutions, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

9 Stichting Solaris Onderzoek en Ontwikkeling, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Aparna P. Shah

10 The Solomon H. Snyder Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

Author Contributions

Writing recommendation letters on behalf of students and other early-career researchers is an important mentoring task within academia. An effective recommendation letter describes key candidate qualities such as academic achievements, extracurricular activities, outstanding personality traits, participation in and dedication to a particular discipline, and the mentor’s confidence in the candidate’s abilities. In this Words of Advice, we provide guidance to researchers on composing constructive and supportive recommendation letters, including tips for structuring and providing specific and effective examples, while maintaining a balance in language and avoiding potential biases.

Introduction

A letter of recommendation or a reference letter is a statement of support for a student or an early-career researcher (ECR; a non-tenured scientist who may be a research trainee, postdoctoral fellow, laboratory technician, or junior faculty colleague) who is a candidate for future employment, promotion, education, or funding opportunities. Letters of recommendation are commonly requested at different stages of an academic research career and sometimes for transitioning to a non-academic career. Candidates need to request letters early on and prepare relevant information for the individual who is approached for recommendation [ 1 , 2 ]. Writing recommendation letters in support of ECRs for career development opportunities is an important task undertaken frequently by academics. ECRs can also serve as mentors during their training period and may be asked to write letters for their mentees. This offers the ECRs an excellent opportunity to gain experience in drafting these important documents, but may present a particular challenge for individuals with little experience. In general, a letter of recommendation should present a well-documented evaluation and provide sufficient evidence and information about an individual to assist a person or a selection committee in making their decision on an application [ 1 ]. Specifically, the letter should address the purpose for which it is written (which is generally to provide support of the candidate’s application and recommendation for the opportunity) and describe key candidate qualities, the significance of the work performed, the candidate’s other accomplishments and the mentor’s confidence in the candidate’s abilities. It should be written in clear and unbiased language. While a poorly written letter may not result in loss of the opportunity for the candidate, a well-written one can help an application stand out from the others, thus well-enhancing the candidate’s chances for the opportunity.

Letter readers at review, funding, admissions, hiring and promotion committees need to examine the letter objectively with a keenness for information on the quality of the candidate’s work and perspective on their scientific character [ 6 ]. However well-intentioned, letters can fall short of providing a positive, effective, and supportive document [ 1 , 3 – 5 ]. To prevent this, it is important to make every letter personal; thus, writing letters requires time and careful consideration. This article draws from our collective experiences as ECRs and the literature to highlight best practices and key elements for those asked to provide recommendation letters for their colleagues, students, or researchers who have studied or trained in their classroom or research laboratory. We hope that these guidelines will be helpful for letter writers to provide an overall picture of the candidate’s capabilities, potential and professional promise.

Decide on whether to write the letter

Before you start, it is important to evaluate your relationship with the candidate and ability to assess their skills and abilities honestly. Consider how well and in what context you know the person, as well as whether you can be supportive of their application [ 7 ]. Examine the description of the opportunity for which the letter is being requested ( Figure 1 ). Often you will receive a request by a student or a researcher whom you know very well and have interacted with in different settings – in and out of the classroom, your laboratory or that of a colleague, or within your department – and whose performance you find to be consistently satisfactory or excellent. Sometimes a mentee may request a recommendation letter when still employed or working with you, their research advisor. This can come as an unpleasant surprise if you are unaware that the trainee was seeking other opportunities (for instance, if they haven’t been employed with you for long, or have just embarked on a new project). While the mentee should be transparent about their goals and searching for opportunities, you should as a mentor offer to provide the letter for your mentee (see Table 1 ).

First, it is important to establish whether you are equipped to write a strong letter of support. If not, it is best to have a candid conversation with the applicant and discuss alternative options or opportunities. If you are in a position to write a strong letter of support, first acquire information regarding the application and the candidate, draft a letter in advance (see Box 1 ) and submit the letter on time. When drafting the letter, incorporate specific examples, avoid biases, and discuss the letter with the candidate (see Tables 1 – 2 for specific examples). After submission, store a digital copy for potential future use for the same candidate.

Key do’s and don’ts when being asked to write a letter of recommendation

Other requests may be made by a candidate who has made no impression on you, or only a negative one. In this case, consider the candidate’s potential and future goals, and be fair in your evaluation. Sending a negative letter or a generic positive letter for individuals you barely know is not helpful to the selection committee and can backfire for the candidate. It can also, in some instances, backfire for you if a colleague accepts a candidate based on your generic positive letter when you did not necessarily fully support that individual. For instance, letter writers sometimes stretch the truth to make a candidate sound better than they really are, thinking it is helpful. If you do not know the applicant well enough or feel that you cannot be supportive, you are not in a strong position to write the recommendation letter and should decline the request, being open about why you are declining to write the letter. Also, be selective about writing on behalf of colleagues who may be in one’s field but whose work is not well known to you. If you have to read the candidate’s curriculum vitae to find out who they are and what they have done, then you may not be qualified to write the letter [ 8 ].

When declining a request to provide a letter of support, it is important to explain your reasoning to the candidate and suggest how they might improve their prospects for the future [ 8 ]. If the candidate is having a similar problem with other mentors, try to help them identify a more appropriate referee or to explore whether they are making an appropriate application in the first place. Suggest constructive steps to improve relationships with mentors to identify individuals to provide letters in the future. Most importantly, do not let the candidate assume that all opportunities for obtaining supportive letters of recommendation have been permanently lost. Emphasize the candidate’s strengths by asking them to share a favourite paper, assignment, project, or other positive experience that may have taken place outside of your class or lab, to help you identify their strengths. Finally, discuss with the candidate their career goals to help them realize what they need to focus on to become more competitive or steer them in a different career direction. This conversation can mark an important step and become a great interaction and mentoring opportunity for ECRs.

Examine the application requirements

Once you decide to write a recommendation letter, it is important to know what type and level of opportunity the candidate is applying for, as this will determine what should be discussed in the letter ( Figure 1 ). You should carefully read the opportunity posting description and/or ask the candidate to summarize the main requirements and let you know the specific points that they find important to highlight. Pay close attention to the language of the position announcement to fully address the requested information and tailor the letter to the specific needs of the institution, employer, or funding organisation. In some instances, a waiver form or an option indicating whether or not the candidate waives their right to see the recommendation document is provided. If the candidate queries a waiver decision, note that often referees are not allowed to send a letter that is not confidential and that there may be important benefits to maintaining the confidentiality of letters (see Table 1 ). Specifically, selection committees may view confidential letters as having greater credibility and, value and some letter writers may feel less reserved in their praise of candidates in confidential letters.

Acquire candidate information and discuss letter content

To acquire appropriate information about the candidate, one or more of the following documents may be valuable: a resume or curriculum vitae (CV), a publication or a manuscript, an assignment or exam written for your course, a copy of the application essay or personal statement, a transcript of academic records, a summary of current work, and specific recommendation forms or questionnaires (if provided) [ 9 ]. Alternatively, you may ask the candidate to complete a questionnaire asking for necessary information and supporting documents [ 10 ]. Examine the candidate’s CV and provide important context to the achievements listed therein. Tailor the letter for the opportunity using these documents as a guide, but do not repeat their contents as the candidate likely submits them separately. Even the most articulate of candidates may find it difficult to describe their qualities in writing [ 11 ]. Furthermore, a request may be made by a person who has made a good impression, but for whom you lack significant information to be able to write a strong letter. Thus, even if you know a candidate well, schedule a brief in-person, phone, or virtual meeting with them to 1) fill in gaps in your knowledge about them, 2) understand why they are applying for this particular opportunity, 3) help bring their past accomplishments into sharper focus, and 4) discuss their short- and long-term goals and how their current studies or research activities relate to the opportunity they are applying for and to these goals. Other key information to gather from the applicant includes the date on which the recommendation letter is due, as well as details on how to submit it.

For most applications (for both academic and non-academic opportunities), a letter of recommendation will need to cover both scholarly capabilities and achievements as well as a broader range of personal qualities and experiences beyond the classroom or the laboratory. This includes extracurricular experiences and traits such as creativity, tenacity, and collegiality. If necessary, discuss with the candidate what they would like to see additionally highlighted. As another example of matching a letter with its purpose, a letter for a fellowship application for a specific project should discuss the validity and feasibility of the project, as well as the candidate’s qualifications for fulfilling the project.

Draft the letter early and maintain a copy

Another factor that greatly facilitates letter writing is drafting one as soon as possible after you have taught or trained the candidate, while your impressions are still clear. You might consider encouraging the candidate to make their requests early [ 11 ]. These letters can be placed in the candidate’s portfolio and maintained in your own files for future reference. If you are writing a letter in response to a request, start drafting it well in advance and anticipate multiple rounds of revision before submission. Once you have been asked by a candidate to write a letter, that candidate may return frequently, over a number of years, for additional letters. Therefore, maintain a digital copy of the letter for your records and for potential future applications for the same candidate.

Structure your letter

In the opening, you should introduce yourself and the candidate, state your qualifications and explain how you became acquainted with the candidate, as well as the purpose of the letter, and a summary of your recommendation ( Table 2 ). To explain your relationship with the candidate you should fully describe the capacity in which you know them: the type of experience, the period during which you worked with the candidate, and any special assignments or responsibilities that the candidate performed under your guidance. For instance, the letter may start with: “This candidate completed their postdoctoral training under my supervision. I am pleased to be able to provide my strongest support in recommending them for this opportunity.” You may also consider ranking the candidate among similar level candidates within the opening section to give an immediate impression of your thoughts. Depending on the position, ranking the candidate may also be desired by selection committees, and may be requested within the letter. For instance, the recommendation form or instructions may ask you to rank the candidate in the top 1%, 5%, 10%, etc., of applicants. You could write "the student is in the top 5% of undergraduate students I have trained" Or “There are currently x graduate students in our department and I rank this candidate at the top 1%. Their experimental/computational skills are the best I have ever had in my own laboratory.”. Do not forget to include with whom or what group you are comparing the individual. If you have not yet trained many individuals in your own laboratory, include those that you trained previously as a researcher as reference. Having concentrated on the candidate’s individual or unique strengths, you might find it difficult to provide a ranking. This is less of an issue if a candidate is unambiguously among the top 10% that you have mentored but not all who come to you for a letter will fall within that small group. If you wish to offer a comparative perspective, you might more readily be able to do so in more specific areas such as whether the candidate is one of the most articulate, original, clear-thinking, motivated, or intellectually curious.

Key do’s and don’ts when writing a letter of recommendation

The body of the recommendation letter should provide specific information about the candidate and address any questions or requirements posed in the selection criteria (see sections above). Some applications may ask for comments on a candidate’s scholarly performance. Refer the reader to the candidate’s CV and/or transcript if necessary but don’t report grades, unless to make an exceptional point (such as they were the only student to earn a top grade in your class). The body of the recommendation letter will contain the majority of the information including specific examples, relevant candidate qualities, and your experiences with the candidate, and therefore the majority of this manuscript focuses on what to include in this section.

The closing paragraph of the letter should briefly 1) summarize your opinions about the candidate, 2) clearly state your recommendation and strong support of the candidate for the opportunity that they are seeking, and 3) offer the recipient of the letter the option to contact you if they need any further information. Make sure to provide your email address and phone number in case the recipient has additional questions. The overall tone of the letter can represent your confidence in the applicant. If opportunity criteria are detailed and the candidate meets these criteria completely, include this information. Do not focus on what you may perceive as a candidate’s negative qualities as such tone may do more harm than intended ( Table 2 ). Finally, be aware of the Forer’s effect, a cognitive error, in which a very general description, that fits almost everyone, is used to describe a person [ 20 ]. Such generalizations can be harmful, as they provide the candidate the impression that they received a valuable, positive letter, but for the committee, who receive hundreds of similar letters, this is non-informative and unhelpful to the application.

Describe relevant candidate qualities with specific examples and without overhyping

In discussing a candidate’s qualities and character, proceed in ways similar to those used for intellectual evaluation ( Box 1 ). Information to specifically highlight may include personal characteristics, such as integrity, resilience, poise, confidence, dependability, patience, creativity, enthusiasm, teaching capabilities, problem-solving abilities, ability to manage trainees and to work with colleagues, curriculum development skills, collaboration skills, experience in grant writing, ability to organize events and demonstrate abilities in project management, and ability to troubleshoot (see section “ Use ethical principles, positive and inclusive language within the letter ” below for tips on using inclusive terminology). The candidate may also have a specific area of knowledge, strengths and experiences worth highlighting such as strong communication skills, expertise in a particular scientific subfield, an undergraduate degree with a double major, relevant work or research experience, coaching, and/or other extracurricular activities. Consider whether the candidate has taught others in the lab, or shown particular motivation and commitment in their work. When writing letters for mentees who are applying for (non-)academic jobs or admission to academic institutions, do not merely emphasize their strengths, achievements and potential, but also try to 1) convey a sense of what makes them a potential fit for that position or funding opportunity, and 2) fill in the gaps. Gaps may include an insufficient description of the candidate’s strengths or research given restrictions on document length. Importantly, to identify these gaps, one must have carefully reviewed both the opportunity posting as well as the application materials (see Box 1 , Table 2 ).

Recommendations for Letter Writers

• Consider characteristics that excite & motivate this candidate.
• Include qualities that you remember most about the candidate.
• Detail their unusual competence, talent, mentorship, teaching or leadership abilities.
• Explain the candidate’s disappointments or failures & the way they reacted & overcame.
• Discuss if they demonstrated a willingness to take intellectual risks beyond the normal research & classroom experience.
• Ensure that you have knowledge of the institution that the candidate is applying for.
• Consider what makes you believe this particular opportunity is a good match for this candidate.
• Consider how they might fit into the institution’s community & grow from their experience.
• Describe their personality & social skills.
• Discuss how the candidate interacts with teachers & peers.
• Use ethical principles, positive & inclusive language within the letter.
• Do not list facts & details, every paper, or discovery of the candidate’s career.
• Only mention unusual family or community circumstances after consulting the candidate.
• A thoughtful letter from a respective colleague with a sense of perspective can be quite valuable.
• Each letter takes time & effort, take it seriously.

When writing letters to nominate colleagues for promotion or awards, place stronger emphasis on their achievements and contributions to a field, or on their track record of teaching, mentorship and service, to aid the judging panel. In addition to describing the candidate as they are right now, you can discuss the development the person has undergone (for specific examples see Table 2 ).

A letter of recommendation can also explain weaknesses or ambiguities in the candidate’s record. If appropriate – and only after consulting the candidate - you may wish to mention a family illness, financial hardship, or other factors that may have resulted in a setback or specific portion of the candidate’s application perceived weakness (such as in the candidate’s transcript). For example, sometimes there are acceptable circumstances for a gap in a candidate’s publication record—perhaps a medical condition or a family situation kept them out of the lab for a period of time. Importantly, being upfront about why there is a perceived gap or blemish in the application package can strengthen the application. Put a positive spin on the perceived negatives using terms such as “has taken steps to address gaps in knowledge”, “has worked hard to,” and “made great progress in” (see Table 2 ).

Describe a candidate’s intellectual capabilities in terms that reflect their distinctive or individual strengths and be prepared to support your judgment with field-specific content [ 12 ] and concrete examples. These can significantly strengthen a letter and will demonstrate a strong relationship between you and the candidate. Describe what the candidate’s strengths are, moments they have overcome adversity, what is important to them. For example: “candidate x is exceptionally intelligent. They proved to be a very quick study, learning the elements of research design and technique y in record time. Furthermore, their questions are always thoughtful and penetrating.”. Mention the candidate’s diligence, work ethic, and curiosity and do not merely state that “the applicant is strong” without specific examples. Describing improvements to candidate skills over time can help highlight their work ethic, resolve, and achievements over time. However, do not belabor a potential lower starting point.

Provide specific examples for when leadership was demonstrated, but do not include leadership qualities if they have not been demonstrated. For example, describe the candidate’s qualities such as independence, critical thinking, creativity, resilience, ability to design and interpret experiments; ability to identify the next steps and generate interesting questions or ideas, and what you were especially impressed by. Do not generically list the applicant as independent with no support or if this statement would be untrue.

Do not qualify candidate qualities based on a stereotype for specific identities. Quantify the candidate’s abilities, especially with respect to other scientists who have achieved success in the field and who the letter reader might know. Many letter writers rank applicants according to their own measure of what makes a good researcher, graduate trainee, or technician according to a combination of research strengths, leadership skills, writing ability, oral communication, teaching ability, and collegiality. Describe what the role of the candidate was in their project and eventual publication and do not assume letter readers will identify this information on their own (see Table 2 ). Including a description about roles and responsibilities can help to quantify a candidate’s contribution to the listed work. For example, “The candidate is the first author of the paper, designed, and led the project.”. Even the best mentor can overlook important points, especially since mentors typically have multiple mentees under their supervision. Thus, it can help to ask the candidate what they consider their strengths or traits, and accomplishments of which they are proud.

If you lack sufficient information to answer certain questions about the candidate, it is best to maintain the integrity and credibility of your letter - as the recommending person, you are potentially writing to a colleague and/or someone who will be impacted by your letter; therefore, honesty is key above all. Avoid the misconception that the more superlatives you use, the stronger the letter. Heavy use of generic phrases or clichés is unhelpful. Your letter can only be effective if it contains substantive information about the specific candidate and their qualifications for the opportunity. A recommendation that paints an unrealistic picture of a candidate may be discounted. All information in a letter of recommendation should be, to the best of your knowledge, accurate. Therefore, present the person truthfully but positively. Write strongly and specifically about someone who is truly excellent (explicitly describe how and why they are special). Write a balanced letter without overhyping the candidate as it will not help them.

Be careful about what you leave out of the letter

Beware of what you leave out of the recommendation letter. For most opportunities, there are expectations of what should be included in a letter, and therefore what is not said can be just as important as what is said. Importantly, do not assume all the same information is necessary for every opportunity. In general, you should include the information stated above, covering how you know the candidate, their strengths, specific examples to support your statements, and how the candidate fits well for the opportunity. For example, if you don’t mention a candidate’s leadership skills or their ability to work well with others, the letter reader may wonder why, if the opportunity requires these skills. Always remember that opportunities are sought by many individuals, so evaluators may look for any reason to disregard an application, such as a letter not following instructions or discussing the appropriate material. Also promote the candidate by discussing all of their scholarly and non-scholarly efforts, including non-peer reviewed research outputs such as preprints, academic and non-academic service, and advocacy work which are among their broader impact and all indicative of valuable leadership qualities for both academic and non-academic environments ( Table 2 ).

Provide an even-handed judgment of scholarly impact, be fair and describe accomplishments fairly by writing a balanced letter about the candidate’s attributes that is thoughtful and personal (see Table 2 ). Submitting a generic, hastily written recommendation letter is not helpful and can backfire for both the candidate and the letter writer as you will often leave out important information for the specific opportunity; thus, allow for sufficient time and effort on each candidate/application.

Making the letter memorable by adding content that the reader will remember, such as an unusual anecdote, or use of a unique term to describe the candidate. This will help the application stand out from all the others. Tailor the letter to the candidate, including as much unique, relevant information as possible and avoid including personal information unless the candidate gives consent. Provide meaningful examples of achievements and provide stories or anecdotes that illustrate the candidate’s strengths. Say what the candidate specifically did to give you that impression ( Box 1 ). Don’t merely praise the candidate using generalities such as “candidate x is a quick learner”.

Use ethical principles, positive and inclusive language within the letter

Gender affects scientific careers. Avoid providing information that is irrelevant to the opportunity, such as ethnicity, age, hobbies, or marital status. Write about professional attributes that pertain to the application. However, there are qualities that might be important to the job or funding opportunity. For instance, personal information may illustrate the ability to persevere and overcome adversity - qualities that are helpful in academia and other career paths. It is critical to pay attention to biases and choices of words while writing the letter [ 13 , 14 ]. Advocacy bias (a letter writer is more likely to write a strong letter for someone similar to themselves) has been identified as an issue in academic environments [ 3 ]. Studies have also shown that there are often differences in the choice of words used in letters for male and female scientists [ 3 , 5 ]. For instance, letters for women have been found not to contain much specific and descriptive language. Descriptions often pay greater attention to the personal lives or personal characteristics of women than men, focusing on items that have little relevance in a letter of recommendation. When writing recommendation letters, employers have a tendency to focus on scholarly capabilities in male candidates and personality features in female candidates; for instance, female candidates tend to be depicted in letters as teachers and trainees, whereas male candidates are described as researchers and professionals [ 15 ]. Also, letters towards males often contain more standout words such as “superb”, “outstanding”, and “excellent”. Furthermore, letters for women had been found to contain more doubt-raising statements, including negative or unexplained comments [ 3 , 15 , 16 ]. This is discriminative towards women and gives a less clear picture of women as professionals. Keep the letter gender neutral. Do not write statements such as “candidate x is a kind woman” or “candidate y is a fantastic female scientist” as these have no bearing on whether someone will do well in graduate school or in a job. One way to reduce gender bias is by checking your reference letter with a gender bias calculator [ 17 , 18 ]. Test for gender biases by writing a letter of recommendation for any candidate, male or female, and then switch all the pronouns to the opposite gender. Read the letter over and ask yourself if it sounds odd. If it does, you should probably change the terms used [ 17 ]. Other biases also exist, and so while gender bias has been the most heavily investigated, bias based on other identities (race, nationality, ethnicity, among others) should also be examined and assessed in advance and during letter writing to ensure accurate and appropriate recommendations for all.

Revise and submit on time

The recommendation letter should be written using language that is straightforward and concise [ 19 ]. Avoid using jargon or language that is too general or effusive ( Table 1 ). Formats and styles of single and co-signed letters are also important considerations. In some applications, the format is determined by the application portal itself in which the recommender is asked to answer a series of questions. If these questions do not cover everything you would like to address you could inquire if there is the option to provide a letter as well. Conversely, if the recommendation questionnaire asks for information that you cannot provide, it is best to explicitly mention this in writing. The care with which you write the letter will also influence the effectiveness of the letter - writing eloquently is another way of registering your support for the candidate. Letters longer than two pages can be counterproductive, and off-putting as reviewers normally have a large quantity of letters to read. In special cases, longer letters may be more favourable depending on the opportunity. On the other hand, anything shorter than a page may imply a lack of interest or knowledge, or a negative impression on the candidate. In letter format, write at least 3-4 paragraphs. It is important to note that letters from different sectors, such as academia versus industry tend to be of different lengths. Ensure that your letter is received by the requested method (mail or e-mail) and deadline, as a late submission could be detrimental for the candidate. Write and sign the letter on your department letterhead which is a further form of identification.

Conclusions

Recommendation letters can serve as important tools for assessing ECRs as potential candidates for a job, course, or funding opportunity. Candidates need to request letters in advance and provide relevant information for the recommender. Readers at selection committees need to examine the letter objectively with an eye for information on the quality of the candidate’s scholarly and non-scholarly endeavours and scientific traits. As a referee, it is important that you are positive, candid, yet helpful, as you work with the candidate in drafting a letter in their support. In writing a recommendation letter, summarize your thoughts on the candidate and emphasize your strong support for their candidacy. A successful letter communicates the writer’s enthusiasm for an individual, but does so realistically, sympathetically, and with concrete examples to support the writer’s associations. Writing recommendation letters can help mentors examine their interactions with their mentee and know them in different light. Express your willingness to help further by concluding the letter with an offer to be contacted should the reader need more information. Remember that a letter writer’s judgment and credibility are at stake thus do spend the time and effort to present yourself as a recommender in the best light and help ECRs in their career path.

Acknowledgements

S.J.H. was supported by the National Institutes of Health grant R35GM133732. A.P.S. was partially supported by the NARSAD Young Investigator Grant 27705.

Abbreviations:

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

USPSTF Recommends Interventions for Youth With High BMI

Task forces calls for behavioral weight management strategies.

Aug. 9, 2024, Cindy Borgmeyer — According to recent CDC figures , nearly one in five U.S. children and teens ages 2−19 years has obesity, defined as a body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for their age and sex. The prevalence of high BMI increases with age and is higher among Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, and non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents. Children from lower-income families also are at increased risk.

It is against this backdrop that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has finalized a recommendation calling for physicians to “provide or refer children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high body mass index (≥95th percentile for age and sex) to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions.” This replaces the task force’s 2017 recommendation on screening for obesity in children and adolescents and is a grade “B” recommendation .

Review of Evidence

As AAFP News reported in January , to update its previous recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic evidence review on interventions (behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy) for weight loss or weight management that can be provided in or referred from a primary care setting. Fifty-eight randomized clinical trials were included in the review.

Of the 50 RCTs that examined solely behavioral interventions, most did not report on race or ethnicity or included predominantly white study participants. RCTs conducted in the United States (n=28) demonstrated comparatively greater study population diversity, but even those trials still mostly involved only white (52.4%), Black (20.5%), and Hispanic/Latino (25%) study participants, with few Asian American or Native American/Alaska Native participants. In total, the RCTs included nearly 8,800 children and adolescents ages 2−19 years, with a mean BMI percentile of 93.

Eight RCTs involving 1,345 participants assessed pharmacotherapy interventions (i.e., liraglutide, semaglutide, orlistat, and phentermine/topiramate). Five of them also included behavioral counseling components. Most study participants were age 12 or older or 14 or older; one study included children ages 7−11 years. Only a single trial per medication had a treatment duration of 12 months or longer.

Story Highlights

Findings and Research Gaps

Overall, structured behavioral weight management interventions were associated with small reductions in BMI and modest reductions in weight after six to 12 months, with interventions that included ≥26 contact hours and offered physical activity sessions showing the greatest effects. Although few studies found significant improvements in quality of life, pooled analyses found small increases in total and physical quality of life after six to 12 months. No effect on other psychosocial outcomes was seen. Pooled effects of behavioral weight management interventions showed no impact on measures of cholesterol, but slight improvements in blood pressure and fasting plasma glucose were seen in trials offering ≥26 hours of contact, most of which also offered physical activity sessions. Trials that assessed potential harms of behavioral interventions found no increased risk of any adverse event or serious adverse events, including disordered eating, or decreases in self-esteem or body satisfaction.

“We know that there are proven strategies to help kids who have a high BMI achieve a healthy weight,” said USPSTF Chair Wanda Nicholson, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., in an ACIP news bulletin . “These interventions work best when both kids and parents are engaged, so it is important that health care professionals provide support in identifying which counseling interventions are available, accessible and a good fit for the family.”

Of medications evaluated, only semaglutide showed improvement in weight-related quality of life. Pharmacotherapy overall was associated with larger mean BMI reductions compared to placebo in most trials, with semaglutide and phentermine/topiramate demonstrating the largest effects. Still, the task force found the totality of the evidence to be inadequate. Furthermore, the limited evidence on weight maintenance after stopping pharmacotherapy suggests that weight rebound starts soon after discontinuation, implying that weight loss can only be maintained with long-term use. However, evidence regarding the harms of long-term medication use is absent. Finally, pharmacotherapy was associated with moderate gastrointestinal harms. Based on these factors, the USPSTF encourages clinicians to promote behavioral interventions as the primary effective intervention for weight loss in children and adolescents.

Further research is needed in several areas, said the task force, including long-term (≥two years) health outcomes and benefits of behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions, long-term psychosocial harms of pharmacotherapy, weight loss maintenance after behavioral interventions and assessment of long-term (>five years) benefits and harms, and best practices for discussing weight with children and families.

Family Physician Perspective

AAFP News asked obesity medicine expert Catherine Varney, D.O., FAAFP, FOMA, DABOM, for her thoughts on the USPSTF recommendation and its implementation. Varney is an assistant professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and obesity medicine director at UVA Health. She serves as the AAFP liaison to the STOP (Strategies to Overcome and Prevent) Obesity Alliance and is a co-author of the Academy’s recently released practice manual, Addressing Health Disparities for Patients With Obesity .

Varney largely agreed with the task force’s recommended behavioral approach to caring for these patients, but she cautioned against dismissing pharmacotherapy out of hand.

“Behavioral therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and structured lifestyle interventions, have demonstrated substantial benefits in promoting sustained weight loss and improving overall health outcomes,” she said. “However, it is important to recognize that implementing behavioral therapy can be labor- and resource-intensive. These programs often require trained professionals, time-intensive sessions, and continuous follow-up, which can pose logistical and financial challenges.”

Many physicians who care for pediatric patients are ill prepared to provide this counseling because they lack the education and training to do so, Varney explained, adding that a majority of physicians receive 10 hours or less of training on this topic during medical school and residency.

It’s also important not to minimize what evidence exists for this population showing that weight regain is common after weight loss with behavioral interventions, she added. That, combined with clear evidence of the negative impact of untreated obesity, with its attendant increased risks for diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers, should drive home the need for long-term studies to evaluate these issues.

Recommendations for Practice

According to the USPSTF, no evidence demonstrated the relative benefits of specific intervention components. Rather, the task force noted that “effective interventions commonly included supervised physical activity sessions; provided information about healthy eating, safe exercising, and reading food labels; and incorporated behavior change techniques such as problem solving, monitoring diet and physical activity behaviors, and goal setting.” Interventions may include activities targeting both the parent and child (separately, together or both) and can be offered in group settings as well as in individual or single-family sessions. To be effective, they must involve at least 26 contact hours with a health care professional — or team of professionals — over the course of up to one year. In addition to physicians, disciplines involved may include exercise physiologists or physical therapists, dietitians or diet assistants, psychologists or social workers, or other behavioral specialists.

The Community Preventive Services Task Force has evaluated multiple evidence-based interventions aimed at curbing obesity in both youth and adults in community, school and other settings and recommends a range of options. Examples include behavioral interventions aimed at cutting recreational screen time , digital health interventions for teens and multicomponent interventions to increase availability of healthier foods and beverages in schools .

Other helpful resources include HHS’ Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans , which provides recommendations for physical activities to help promote health and reduce chronic disease risk for Americans ages 3 years and older, and obesity-related guidance and tools from the CDC.

The AAFP offers extensive clinical guidance and practice resources on obesity and healthy lifestyle, as well as CME activities such as Obesity CME for the Family Physician and Practical Approaches to Improving Obesity Care . American Family Physician also has compiled a collection of its best content on the topic. Finally, familydoctor.org offers information on topics such as dealing with weight issues in children , developing healthy eating habits , how to avoid overeating in children and teens , and helping children achieve a healthy weight .

Final Thoughts

Another problematic issue with this recommendation, according to Varney: There simply are not enough physicians and other health care professionals to refer to.

“As of April 2024,” she explained, “the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that there were 73,860 dietitians and nutritionists in the United States. That means that there is one registered dietitian for every 200 children with elevated BMI. This doesn’t factor in a couple of things; it doesn’t account for the nearly 100 million adults with obesity in the U.S. who may need these services as well — that would change the ratio to one RD for every 1,553 adults and children.” It also doesn’t address the challenges of providing access to vulnerable populations, such as rural patients, Varney added. 

Still, some options to tackle these shortfalls do exist, she contended. “Family medicine physicians can get more training and education on this topic through the AAFP, the Obesity Medicine Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics . They can advocate for their clinic or health system to add this service for their patients.”

If funding is lacking, Varney suggested applying for grants or starting slow by bringing in nutritional education one time per week or month. Even gathering and distributing evidence-based handouts in the office can help provide brief interventions. 

Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Family Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Health Services Plan

Find out more about the recommendations from the Expert Advisory Committee for a more connected system.

In July 2023, the Victorian Department of Health commissioned an Expert Advisory Committee (the Committee) to examine the design and governance of Victoria's health services system. Over 10 months they explored many of the challenges experienced by patients, communities and our health workforce within the system.

The Committee have now developed the Health Services Plan, which provides a number of recommendations for a more connected system that delivers the right care, at the right time, in the right place, for all Victorians. The Plan is outlined through 3 key pillars of reform:

• Establishing Local Health Service Networks (Networks) – geographic groupings responsible for planning and managing care so that it meets the population health needs of their communities.
• Formalised relationships between each Network and a women's, a children's and a major tertiary hospital, ensuring every Victorian has seamless access to specialist care and expertise when they need it.
• A Victorian Role Delineation Framework, which will support collaboration across the system through setting out the roles and responsibilities of every health service site, aligned to their size and capability.

The Government will accept 21 recommendations in full, and accept in principle 5 recommendations:

• Recommendation 4.6 - Likely amendments to groupings and boundaries based on further consultation with the sector. The Government will provide guidance to health service boards on principles to underpin Local Health Service Network groupings. Health services will then be able to propose groupings for their region for approval by Government.
• Recommendation 6.1 - The department will undertake further work to consider this while ensuring no reduction in service provision.
• Recommendation 7.2 - Hospitals will not be forced to consolidate to form LHSNs.
• Recommendation 8.1 - The department will continue to support those health services that wish to consolidate. The Government does not accept the recommendation on forced consolidation of health services.
• Recommendation 9.2 - Further work is needed to understand the impact of these reforms across healthcare the Commonwealth is responsible for.

The Government does not accept recommendation 7.1 relating to directed consolidations of health services outlined in the report.

Further work will now be undertaken on the accepted recommendations.

Reviewed 08 August 2024

Share this page

• Facebook , opens a new window
• X (formerly Twitter) , opens a new window
• LinkedIn , opens a new window

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

UConn Today

August 9, 2024 | Katherine C. Rohn, Adam M. McCready, Kelly Farrell, and Ayaa Elgoharry

Addressing Student Technology and Social Media Use in Schools: Recommendations for School District Leaders

Researchers with the Neag School’s Center for Education Policy Analysis, Research, and Evaluation (CEPARE) prepared the following research brief during Phase 1 of their Social Media and Digital Literacy Study

"It is vital then that schools — where children spend most of their time outside of the home — consider their role in addressing healthy social media and technology usage," say researchers from the UConn Neag School of Education's Center for Education Policy Analysis, Research, and Evaluation. (iStock)

Editor’s Note: Katherine C. Rohn, Adam M. McCready, Kelly Farrell, and Ayaa Elgoharry prepared the following rapid research brief (unabridged version) with the Center for Education Policy Analysis, Research, and Evaluation (CEPARE). The full brief summarizes key findings from an analysis of 45 social media and technology policies from 32 Connecticut school districts that operate middle and high schools. It concludes with recommendations aimed at helping constituents develop social media and technology policies that reflect the current state of digital media in adolescent lives and center student mental health. Below is an executive summary.

Adolescent digital technology usage has become nearly ubiquitous; students rely on technology for learning and social connection. Simultaneously, reports of mental health issues (e.g. anxiety) among adolescents have increased worldwide (U.S. Center for Disease Control, 2023; World Health Organization, 2021). There is a growing public narrative that digital technology use is associated with problematic mental health outcomes for adolescents (Odgers & Jensen, 2020; Twenge et al., 2018). However, the relationship between technology use and mental health is complex and research on this topic is in fact mixed (Odgers & Jensen, 2020). The effects of social media usage can vary based on youths’ individual developmental capacities, risk factors, and existing mental illness diagnoses (APA, 2023).

It is vital then that schools — where children spend most of their time outside of the home — consider their role in addressing healthy social media and technology usage. School district social media and technology use policies can shape school-level decision-making, curriculum implementation, and teaching practices, which directly influence students’ well-being (Lenhoff et al., 2022). Unfortunately, technology and social networking platforms are evolving faster than schools develop their policies. The original draft of Senate Bill 14, Section 4, proposed by Gov. Ned Lamont earlier this year, included language to address student cellphone use in Connecticut public schools (Connecticut Education Association [CEA], 2024). While this section was not included in the final bill, it reflects increasing interest in investing in technology and social media policy reforms and effective interventions within schools.

Digital technology and social media are essential to students’ lives and learning. While concerns about adolescent social media use and mental health persist, and school district policies likely influence student well-being, many current policies fail to adequately address social media, its associations with mental health, and potential educational interventions that can help mitigate negative effects and promote positive ones. Advances in technology have outpaced both research and school policy. Recommendations included in this brief provide guidance to school district leaders and others attempting to navigate this rapidly changing landscape that may affect student mental health well-being.

While concerns about adolescent social media use and mental health persist,  many current policies fail to adequately address social media, its associations with mental health, and potential educational interventions that can help mitigate negative effects and promote positive ones. — Katherine C. Rohn, Adam M. McCready, Kelly Farrell, and Ayaa Elgoharry

Key Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1: Policies made limited, vague, outdated, or no references to social media, indicating that they have not kept up with the rapid changes of adolescent digital media use.

Finding 2: Policies typically framed technology use as being essential for education while conversely conveying that students’ use of technology was a privilege that students could lose altogether.

Recommendation 1: Revise and update school district policies to explicitly address evolving social media and technology platforms and the current role that digital media plays in students’ lives.

• Remove language that frames technology access as a “privilege” as digital media is an essential part of student learning
• Adopt standalone social media policies that define social media, operationalize its use, and describe the jurisdiction of the school board and school administration to address student social media use.

Finding 3: Policies pledged to educate students about safe and healthy digital technology use, but specific commitments and recommendations to execute this objective were limited.

Recommendation 2: Include proactive guidance on how school boards and schools will educate students and adults on safe and healthy technology and social media use.

• Include commitments to resources so that schools can provide proactive, ongoing, differentiated, developmentally appropriate educational initiatives focused on digital agency, digital citizenship, and digital literacy
• Articulate commitments and guidance for the distribution of resources to educate adults on understanding and teaching healthy digital behaviors as they serve as important role models for adolescents

Finding 4: Policies rarely addressed student mental health, instead using terms like “safe environments” or including references to protecting students from harmful content and behaviors (e.g. cyberbullying, pornography, or obscenities) as proxies for mental health.

Recommendation 3: Reframe school district technology and social media policies to focus on adolescent mental health.

• Provide a clear definition of mental health—inclusive of mental illness and positive well-being—in framing social media and technology policies.
• Include clear examples for what constitutes “acceptable use” of social media for mental well-being purposes.

Note: This CEPARE brief was produced during Phase 1 of the Social Media and Digital Literacy Study with funding supplied by the University of Connecticut. Part 2 of the Social Media and Digital Literacy Study is funded by the Center for Connecticut Education Research Collaboration (CCERC).

Recent Articles

August 9, 2024

CAHNR Alum Tyler Gavitt Uses Science to Design Vaccines and Foster Open Public Health Discussion

Read the article

10 Questions With Alumna Kelli Bates, Former Student-Athlete Working at Paris Olympics

August 8, 2024

New Grant Focuses on Improving Meat Quality